Socializing the newcomer: The mediating role of leader–member exchange

Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 119 (2012) 114–125

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/obhdp

Socializing the newcomer: The mediating role of leader–member exchange David M. Sluss a,⇑, Bryant S. Thompson b a b

College of Management, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA, United States Department of Behavioral Sciences & Leadership, United States Military Academy, West Point, NY, United States

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history: Received 8 February 2011 Accepted 25 May 2012 Available online 23 June 2012 Accepted by Douglas Brown Keywords: Newcomer adjustment Socialization Social exchange theory Leader–member exchange Identification Person-organization fit

a b s t r a c t We expand organizational socialization research by integrating social exchange theory, specifically leader–member exchange (LMX), as an important mediator in explaining newcomer attachment to the job, occupation, and organization. Using temporally-lagged data from 213 newcomers across 12 telemarketing organizations, we found that newcomer perceptions of LMX mediate the association between supervisory socialization tactics (i.e. supervisory job-focused advice, guidance, and role modeling) and occupational identification as well as between supervisory socialization tactics and perceived personorganization fit – but not between supervisory socialization tactics and job satisfaction. Our study specifies (1) LMX as a compelling mediating mechanism within the new employee ‘on-boarding’ process and (2) the immediate supervisor as an important relational source for newcomer attitudes. Ó 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Introduction For 30 years, organizational socialization theory has focused on newcomer learning as the major mechanism by which newcomers adjust to and integrate within the organization (Ashforth, Sluss, & Harrison, 2007). We broaden socialization research by investigating how social exchange within the newcomer-supervisor relationship provides a powerful and complementary conduit (to that of newcomer learning) through which newcomers adjust. To be sure, the bulk of socialization research traditionally focuses on how the organizational context shapes the newcomer’s learning experience and, therefore, adjustment (for a review see; Ashforth, Sluss, Harrison, 2007; for meta-analyses see Bauer, Bodner, Erdogan, Truxillo, & Tucker, 2007; Saks, Uggerslev, & Fassina, 2007). However, recent work proposes that much of socialization is ‘‘not so much organizational as tribal’’ (i.e., relational; Ashforth, Sluss, Harrison, 2007, p. 35). Relational others – especially supervisors – play an impactful and integrally important role in the newcomer ‘on-boarding’ process (Ashforth, Sluss, Harrison, 2007; Black, 1992; Cable & Parsons, 2001; cf. Major, Kozlowski, Chao, & Gardner, 1995; cf. Masterson, Lewis, Goldman, & Taylor, 2000). Organizations invest heavily in orientation programs yet, at times, ignore the impact of the newcomer’s supervisor who is ‘on the ground’ advising the newcomer. In fact, newcomers seem not to fully experience their job, ⇑ Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (D.M. Sluss), bryant.thompson@ usma.edu (B.S. Thompson). 0749-5978/$ - see front matter Ó 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2012.05.005

organization, and occupation until they implement their core tasks under the auspices of their assigned supervisor in real time. Bauer and Green concluded, ‘‘socialization research can ill afford to ignore the role of the supervising manager during the adjustment process’’ (1998, p. 82). The immediate supervisor becomes an interpreter of knowledge important for learning about the new environment. In addition, the supervisor also serves as a purveyor of resources important for the newcomer to experience generalized reciprocity with and, thus, attachment to the new context (cf. Shore, CoyleShapiro, Chen, & Tetrick, 2009). Surprisingly, research to date has only scratched the surface in specifying how the supervisor influences the newcomer’s sense of generalized reciprocity (i.e., social exchange) within the socialization process (Ashforth, Sluss, Harrison, 2007). As such, we see it as vital to investigate (1) how supervisory behaviors provide tangible and intangible resources to promote generalized reciprocity (i.e. leader–member exchange [LMX]) within the newcomer experience and (2) how newcomer LMX, therefore, influences integral attitudes at work. Thus, we place social exchange as a key mediating mechanism within the newcomer process. In our study, we focus on three newcomer attitudes: job satisfaction, perceived person-organization fit (i.e. PO fit), and occupational identification. Newcomer attitudes form quickly and have far-reaching effects for the newcomer (Saks & Ashforth, 1997; cf. Boswell, Shipp, Payne, & Culbertson, 2009; Jokisaari & Nurmi, 2009). Indeed, the very definition of socialization encompasses the newcomer’s attachment with his/her new environs (Ashforth, Sluss, Harrison, 2007; Saks & Ashforth, 1997). Thus, we purposively selected attitudes that span the environment (i.e., job, organization,

D.M. Sluss, B.S. Thompson / Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 119 (2012) 114–125

occupation) as well as attitudes that represent different forms of attachment (i.e. satisfaction, fit, identification). While different forms of attachment to the job and organization are prevalent (e.g., job satisfaction, PO fit; Bauer et al., 2007; Saks & Ashforth, 1997), socialization scholars have largely overlooked the occupation (Ashforth, Sluss, Harrison, 2007). This is surprising given that ‘‘occupations serve as major identity badges for situating individuals in the organization’’ (Ashforth, Harrison, & Corley, 2008, p. 350). In sum, occupational identification, job satisfaction, and perceived PO fit all serve as representative indicators of newcomer attitudes. Our study contributes to a better understanding of newcomer adjustment and LMX in three major ways. First, we propose social exchange (via newcomer LMX) as an important mediator for predicting newcomer attitudes. Scholars have long theorized that socialization sources (e.g., organizational practices, relational others) provide newcomer learning (e.g., information acquisition, role clarity; Bauer et al., 2007) which, in turn, leads to enhanced adjustment to the job, organization, and occupation (Bauer, Morrison, & Callister, 1998; cf. Louis, 1980; Saks & Ashforth, 1997). As a result, newcomer learning (via uncertainty reduction theory) has become the ‘‘heart’’ of most socialization models (Cooper-Thomas & Anderson, 2005; cf. Berger, 1988). While sufficient evidence exists for learning’s mediating role in reducing uncertainty, studies have found that socialization sources still maintain consistent direct effects on adjustment outcomes – begging the existence of additional mediating mechanisms (e.g., Ashforth, Sluss, & Saks, 2007; CooperThomas & Anderson, 2002). To fill this gap, we argue that newcomer LMX may be a particularly important mediating mechanism. Social exchange, indeed, is a major explanatory framework for how individuals interact within and transition across work role-relationships and organizations (Shore et al., 2009). As such, we suggest that social exchange theory provides significant insight for newcomer ‘onboarding’ (cf. Kramer, 1993). In short, the newcomer’s perceptions of LMX create a sense of reciprocity and mutuality to the newcomer’s work context (separate from any learning that may or may not take place; Blau, 1964; Dienesch & Liden, 1986; for review see Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005). However, scholars, while cogently introducing LMX into the socialization literature, have not explored LMX’s potential as a mediating mechanism and LMX’s place within the broader process of organizational socialization tactics and newcomer learning (Bauer et al. 2007; Saks & Ashforth, 1997). For example, Major et al. (1995) treated LMX as a moderator in how met expectations influence job satisfaction and turnover intentions – showing how LMX might ‘‘ameliorate the negative effects of unmet expectations after organizational entry’’ (p. 419; see also Bauer, Erdogan, Liden, & Wayne, 2006). In related fashion, Thomas and Lankau (2009) focus on LMX and supervisory mentoring (i.e., mentoring practices focusing on promotion and career advancement) as antecedents to socialization with newcomer learning as the sole mediating mechanism. While introducing LMX into the newcomer context, studies (to date) do not fully take advantage of LMX’s potential mediating role as well as do not take into account the established influence of organizational socialization tactics. As such, our study contributes to socialization research in that we place social exchange (via LMX) as a key mediator alongside newcomer learning – while controlling for organizational influences. Second, we also specify more clearly how the immediate supervisor becomes an active relational source of socialization. Indeed, scholars have provided preliminary evidence for the ‘‘salience of leaders as key socializing agents’’ (Bauer et al., 2006, p. 300; cf. Bauer & Green, 1998; Kammeyer-Mueller & Wanberg, 2003; Morrison, 2002). These studies only focus on how important the supervisory relationship is without specifying the supervisory behaviors or practices that lead to adjustment. The dearth of studies specifying how the supervisor influences newcomer adjustment is therefore

115

quite curious given that the wider leadership literature places great importance on specific leader behaviors in predicting subordinate attitudes and behaviors (Avolio, Walumbwa, & Weber, 2009; Gerstner & Day, 1997; Judge & Piccolo, 2004). Our study, on the other hand, delineates particular behaviors that supervisors actively implement to promote both social exchange and adjustment. Additionally, socialization scholars have relied quite heavily on the organization as the major source for socialization (i.e. ‘institutionalized’ organizational socialization tactics; cf. Ashforth, Sluss, Harrison, 2007). As such, we control for the organization as a contextual source of socialization (i.e. formal and collective institutionalized socialization tactics; Ashforth, Saks, & Lee, 1997; cf. Jones, 1986). Third, our study may also provide insight into the development of LMX relationships – at least from the ‘‘member’s’’ perspective. The bulk of LMX research has focused on the linkage between LMX and outcomes (such as performance, satisfaction, prosocial behaviors, commitment, and the like; see meta analyses, Dulebohn, Bommer, Liden, Brouer, & Ferris, in press; Gerstner & Day, 1997; Ilies, Nahrgang, & Morgeson, 2007). With less frequency, scholars have focused on the antecedents of LMX with most of the attention centered on personality traits, personality similarity, and prior performance (Dulebohn et al., in press). Even less attention has been devoted to how leader behaviors influence LMX. Interestingly, Dulebohn and colleagues found meta-analytically that leader behavior is the strongest predictor of LMX and ‘‘is an important area in need of research’’ – given the lack of breadth in leader variables studied thus far. As such, our study provides additional insight for how specific leader behavior that provides advice, support, and guidance to the newcomer may contribute to the development of LMX. As noted, we center our research efforts on the newcomer’s supervisory exchange relationship during its nascent stages – that is, while the newcomer is implementing their core tasks with their assigned supervisor but before a record of performance and delegation is fully established (Bauer & Green, 1996; cf. Nahrgang, Morgeson, & Ilies, 2009). Capturing the newcomer’s perceptions of the supervisory relationship at the beginning of socialization is also important in that newcomers tend to develop durable attitudes relatively quickly about their new job, organization, and occupation (Morrison, 2002; Saks & Ashforth, 1997). We, therefore, investigate how the newcomer’s perceptions of leader–member exchange (i.e. LMX) during this nascent stage become an important conduit between supervisory socialization tactics (i.e. advice, guidance, and role modeling) and newcomer attitudes. Our study puts a more ‘‘localized’’ face on newcomer onboarding – first, introducing social exchange (via LMX) as an important mediating mechanism and, second, therefore specifying how the supervisor becomes a key source for newcomer attitudes. Theory and hypotheses Given the novel context, newcomers generally seek to reduce uncertainty (Louis, 1980). This uncertainty is reduced and replaced with job- and role-related information (i.e., newcomer learning) when the newcomer experiences a structured socialization context (formal orientation programs and the like, referred to as institutionalized socialization tactics; Bauer et al., 2007; Jones, 1986; Van Maanen & Schein, 1979). However, newcomers are also entering into a social exchange relationship with both the organizational agent (i.e., the immediate supervisor; Bauer & Green, 1996; see leader–member exchange literature; Gerstner & Day, 1997; Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995; Schriesheim, Castro, & Cogliser, 1999) and, thereby, the organization (see psychological contract literature, Rousseau, 1995; Zhao, Wayne, Glibkowski, & Bravo, 2007). As such, we argue the quality of these exchanges – especially those embodied in the supervisory relationship (Eisenberger et al., 2010) – tends to have a significant impact on the newcomer’s

116

D.M. Sluss, B.S. Thompson / Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 119 (2012) 114–125

attitudes toward the job, the organization, and the occupation (cf. Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005). Leader–member exchange and supervisory socialization tactics Leader–member exchange theory, built upon social exchange theory (Blau, 1964; Gouldner, 1960), proposes that leaders develop differentiated and, therefore, idiosyncratic ‘exchange-based’ relationships with their subordinates (i.e., lower to higher; Dienesch & Liden, 1986; Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995). These differentiated relationships traditionally develop according to the ‘‘effort, resources, and support exchanged between the two parties’’ (Nahrgang et al., 2009, p. 257). Key, therefore, to a high quality exchange relationship is the sense of mutuality or reciprocity wherein LMX involves ‘‘sharing mutual outcome instrumentalities’’ (Scandura, Graen, & Novak, 1986, p. 580). To reach this sense of mutuality, social exchange relationships generally pass through three stages: (1) role taking (or role sending); (2) role making; and (3) role routinization (Bauer & Green, 1996; Graen & Scandura, 1987; Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995). We focus on how the initial role taking stage influences newcomer attitudes. The leader tends to differentially ‘send the role’ to the newcomer given a variety of idiosyncratic reasons such as perceived similarity, liking, and/or other subordinate characteristics (i.e. role taking; Bauer & Green, 1996; Katz & Kahn, 1978; Liden, Wayne, & Stilwell, 1993). The newcomer will then more than likely respond in kind and intensity to the level of resources provided during the initial role taking stage, which, in turn, influences newcomer attitudes in later stages (i.e. role making, role routinization; Nahrgang et al., 2009; Wilson, Sin, & Conlon, 2010; cf. Liden et al., 1993). We argue that the newcomer experiences the initial role taking stage in quite an acute and intense fashion given the novelty of not only the supervisory relationship but the organizational and occupational context as well (cf. Ballinger & Rockmann, 2010). Newcomers’ work-related attitudes, therefore, form relatively quickly (Morrison, 2002; Saks & Ashforth, 1997) and the supervisor’s behavior during the role taking stage has the potential to determine (1) the newcomer’s perceptions of social exchange with the supervisor (i.e. LMX) as well as (2) newcomer attitudes. As a result, we focus on the supervisory socialization behaviors that play an important role in creating newcomer LMX – which, in turn, creates high-quality exchange with the newcomer’s occupation, organization, and job. A predictor from socialization research that holds particular promise is the extent to which the newcomer’s supervisor enacts what Van Maanen and Schein (1979) coined as ‘‘serial socialization tactics’’ – wherein newcomers receive guidance, advice, and role modeling for the job and organizational role. Indeed, ‘‘serial socialization’’ is one of the strongest predictors of newcomer adjustment – demonstrating both its’ discriminant and incremental validity (see meta-analyses, Bauer et al., 2007; Saks et al., 2007). In fact, Jones (1986) demonstrated that serial socialization has ‘‘more effect on newcomers’ transitions into organizations’’ (p. 273) than contextual socialization (wherein organizations group newcomers together to provide training). However, past studies have only investigated how the generic ‘‘experienced organizational member’’ rather than the specific immediate supervisor provides job- and role-focused guidance. As such, these studies ignore and possibly confound how immediate supervisors may or may not socialize the newcomer to the organization, job, and role (e.g., Black, 1992; Cable & Parsons, 2001; Cooper-Thomas, van Vianen, & Anderson, 2004). Scholar’s under-specification is intriguing given the immediate supervisor is quite an important piece in the newcomer’s puzzle. To presage our argument, we define supervisory socialization tactics as the extent to which supervisors provide guidance, advice, and role modeling focused on the newcomer’s job and organizational role. We conjecture that supervisory socialization tactics provide

key tangible and intangible resources to the newcomer creating a generalized sense of mutuality and attachment for the newcomer. We employ the term ‘‘supervisory socialization tactics’’ due to our focus on the immediate supervisor as well as to distinguish the construct from ‘‘serial socialization tactics’’ that focus on generic ‘‘experienced organizational members’’ (Jones, 1986, p. 278). We also argue that supervisory socialization tactics, although sharing some conceptual space, are distinct from supervisory mentoring behaviors in when these behaviors are implemented (e.g., Green & Bauer, 1995; Noe, 1988). Supervisory mentoring focuses on organizational advancement opportunities, visibility within the organization, career aspirations and challenges, and networking in and out of the organization – generally occurring later in one’s organizational tenure rather than during socialization (Noe, 1988; cf. Thomas & Lankau, 2009). The immediate supervisor controls many of the tangible and intangible resources that the newcomer needs for adjustment. The supervisor participates in socializing the newcomer when the supervisor: (1) explains the ‘‘how’’ and ‘‘why’’ of a task; (2) provides guidance on the newcomer’s role; and/or (3) is socially accessible (i.e., simply ‘‘being there’’) for the newcomer (Jones, 1986; Major et al., 1995; Van Maanen & Schein, 1979; cf. Chen, Tsui, & Farh, 2002). While these examples are not exhaustive, one can see that supervisory socialization tactics will serve to provide both tangible (e.g., task instruction) and intangible (e.g., social access) resources to the newcomer in performing their new job and role as an organizational member. However, newcomers also tend to expect the immediate supervisor to provide, in great part, these newcomer-specific resources as indicators of support – fulfilling an acute relational need during newcomer adjustment (Ashforth, 2001; Stryker & Burke, 2000; cf. Biddle, 1986; Chen, Chen, & Portnoy, 2009). Following social exchange theory, meeting these expectations, through supervisory socialization tactics, will create perceptions of higher quality social exchange with the supervisor (Chen et al., 2009; i.e., newcomer LMX; cf. Major et al., 1995). As such, we argue that supervisory socialization tactics fulfill the newcomer’s needs by providing task instruction, social accessibility, and the like. For example, the newcomer that receives supervisory ‘‘guidance as to how [he/she] should perform [his/her] job’’ (Jones, 1986, p. 278) should lead the newcomer to perceive a mutually beneficial relationship in which the supervisor ‘‘provides help on hard problems’’ – one of the key exchange elements of LMX (Schriesheim, Neider, Scandura, & Tepper, 1992, p. 138). In short, access and guidance (via supervisory socialization tactics) go a long way for the newcomer in creating perceptions of mutuality (cf. Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995). In sum, we argue that supervisory socialization tactics provide tangible and intangible resources thus providing the beginning of a high quality and mutually beneficial relationship. Thus: Hypothesis 1. Supervisory socialization tactics will be positively associated with the newcomer’s perceptions of LMX.

Leader–member Exchange as a mediator in Newcomer ‘On-boarding’ Newcomers, via the socialization process, integrate with the new organizational milieu. Thus, scholars define organizational socialization as ‘‘the process by which individuals become part of the organization’s pattern of activities’’ (Ashforth, Sluss, Harrison, 2007, p. 1). Thus far, newcomer adjustment research has largely explained integration or becoming ‘‘part of the organization’s pattern of activities’’ through the mechanism of learning. That is, learning enhances one’s ability to integrate. We argue that exchange also enhances integration. Specifically, we argue that receiving tangible and intangible resources via newcomer LMX

D.M. Sluss, B.S. Thompson / Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 119 (2012) 114–125

117

Fig. 1. Socializing the newcomer: Leader–member exchange as mediator.

builds a sense of generalized reciprocity and mutuality within the new context – separate from any learning that may or may not take place (Blau, 1964; Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005). Thus, we argue that newcomer LMX is an important mediating mechanism in predicting newcomer attitudes – namely (1) occupational identification, (2) perceived PO fit, and (3) job satisfaction (see Fig. 1).

guidance, and role modeling) from an occupational agent – triggering newcomer LMX. In turn, newcomer LMX increases not only one’s sense of generalized reciprocity and mutuality but also provides the newcomer with signals of being a valued member of the occupation thus increasing self-enhancement – an important identification mechanism (cf. Sluss, Klimchak, & Holmes, 2008).

Occupational identification Occupational identification has garnered much less attention in the newcomer adjustment literature. Yet, occupational identification is, nonetheless, an important outcome for consideration (Ashforth et al., 2008). Borrowing from organizational identification, occupational identification is defined as the perception of oneness with one’s occupation wherein the occupation becomes (at least, in part) self-defining (Ashforth & Mael, 1989; Ashforth et al., 2008; Pratt, 1998). Occupations are salient identity markers wherein what we do (for an occupation) tends to become a part of who we are (as a person) (Ibarra, 1999). As such, a part of newcomer adjustment includes becoming attached – at least in part – to ‘‘what one does’’ and viewing that occupational identity in a positive fashion. How does the supervisor (via newcomer LMX) influence the newcomer’s occupational identification? As mentioned, LMX scholars posit ‘‘there is a perceived obligation on the part of subordinates to reciprocate high-quality relationships’’ via attitudes and behaviors that benefit the supervisor and the entities that the supervisor represents (Ilies et al., 2007, p. 269; cf. Eisenberger, Huntington, Hutchison, & Sowa, 1986). As such, LMX is positively related to satisfaction, commitment, citizenship behaviors, and the like (Gerstner & Day, 1997; Ilies et al., 2007). Due to the pervasiveness in which supervisors represent multiple entities (e.g. job, organization, and occupation), Gerstner and Day (1997, p. 840) concluded that the supervisor becomes a ‘‘lens through which the entire work experience is viewed.’’ Indeed, one’s occupation (whether it is a janitor, telemarketer, lawyer, or doctor) can be an integral part of one’s work experience (e.g. Van Maanen & Barley, 1984). For example, Pratt, Rockmann, and Kaufmann (2006) found that medical residents received validation for their occupational identities through labeling and observing their supervising physicians or surgeons as role models. As Pratt et al. show, the newcomer will perceive the immediate supervisor (even after initial training) as important in providing perspective on the occupation – whether the immediate supervisor is responsible for initial occupational training or not (cf. Kaufmann & Pratt, 2005). To be sure, there are times when the newcomer and the supervisor do not share common occupational ancestry (e.g., a financial analyst on a pharmaceutical development team with a scientist as supervisor) and, thus, the newcomer may not perceive the supervisor to provide a completely credible view into the occupation. Nevertheless, a great majority of supervisors have traditionally occupied the same jobs as the newcomers, and, in some cases, in a very accomplished manner. In these situations, the supervisor is not only a valid representative of the organization but the occupation as well (cf. van Knippenberg & Hogg, 2003). In sum, supervisory socialization tactics provide expected resources (via advice,

Hypothesis 2. Newcomer perceptions of LMX will mediate the association between supervisory socialization tactics and occupational identification. Perceived PO fit Following Saks and Ashforth (2002), we employ the molar (or affectively perceived) approach to PO fit (see also Edwards, Cable, Williamson, Lambert, & Shipp, 2006). That is, we focus on the newcomer’s perceptions of fit between his/her personal values/goals and the organization’s values/goals (Cable & Parsons, 2001; Edwards & Cable, 2009; cf. Kristof, 1996). Edwards et al. (2006) suggest that the molar approach allows for assessing fit based, in part, on affective and subjective responses to the environment (in our case, the organization). The molar approach is helpful here due to our interest in perceived PO fit that emerges due to the supervisor’s influence. We therefore assess the newcomer’s affective response to how well the organization (via the supervisor) supplies inducements that satisfy newcomer needs, builds ability to meet organizational demands, and, thus, communicates perceived value congruence (Edwards, 1991; Kristof, 1996; Muchinsky & Monahan, 1987). Newcomer LMX, therefore, is a means by which the newcomer’s perceived PO fit develops. As supervisors provide resources (i.e. feedback, training, attention) that engender newcomer perceptions of mutuality (Blau, 1964), we suggest that the newcomer will also tend to perceive mutuality and feel positive affect towards the organization – given supervisors are agents of the organization (Bauer et al., 2006; Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995; cf. Eisenberger et al., 1986). Indeed, newcomers tend to shape a significant portion of their perceptions of the organization based on the supervisory relationship (Ashforth et al., 2008; Pratt, 2000). In short, the increased sense of mutuality and positive affect inherent in LMX should translate to the increased sense of mutuality and positive affect inherent in perceived PO fit – thereby strengthening perceptions of congruity (Edwards et al., 2006; Saks & Ashforth, 2002) between the newcomer’s values and the organization’s values. Thus: Hypothesis 3. Newcomer perceptions of LMX will mediate the association between supervisory socialization tactics and perceived PO fit. Job satisfaction Job satisfaction is the newcomer’s cognitive and affective appraisal of his/her job experience (Brief & Weiss, 2002; Folger, 1986; Locke, 1976; Michalos, 1983). Scholars have found a positive association between LMX and job satisfaction (Graen, Novak, & Sommerkamp, 1982; Podsakoff & MacKenzie, 1993; Schriesheim, Neider, & Scandura, 1998; Schriesheim, Neider et al., 1992; Stepina,

118

D.M. Sluss, B.S. Thompson / Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 119 (2012) 114–125

Perrewe, Hassell, Harris, & Mayfield, 1991). Newcomers, as mentioned, perceive increased LMX when their supervisors provide needed feedback, training, access, support, and the like that facilitate the newcomer’s job. The support provided, via newcomer LMX, also may increase the perceived meaningfulness of the tasks involved in the job (Schriesheim et al., 1998). High quality exchange tends to provide newcomers with increased responsibilities, discretion, and autonomy – often resulting in the newcomer’s progression to more advanced, challenging, and satisfying tasks (Graen, 2003; Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995; Lapierre, Hackett, & Taggar, 2006). Thus, newcomer perceptions of LMX quality tend to perpetuate a positive appraisal of the job – especially at a time when newcomers desperately need resources to expand their new task repertoire. Hence: Hypothesis 4. Newcomer perceptions of LMX will mediate the association between supervisory socialization tactics and job satisfaction.

donation). Supervisors measured the newcomer’s performance frequently – thereby increasing the salience of the supervisor. Note that a newcomer had only one assigned supervisor. The span of control for supervisors ranged from 5 to 15 newcomers. All the supervisors within these organizations had performed ‘front-line’ telemarketing tasks. Thus, the supervisors were credible agents of both the organization and the occupation. That said one might still question whether telemarketing newcomers can identify with their occupation given its marginalized status and the newcomer’s short tenure. We note research has found that individuals in marginalized occupations indeed identify with their occupation (see review of social identity theory in Ashforth and Kreiner (1999)). We also control for part-time (versus full-time) status when predicting occupational identification. Nevertheless, telemarketers may still not experience occupational identification at the same intensity as other occupational incumbents. Thus, the telemarketing sample may serve as a conservative test.

In sum, we argue that newcomer LMX mediates the relationship between supervisory socialization tactics and newcomer attitudes. The social exchange process, by no means, invalidates the direct associations between tactics and newcomer attitudes (cf. Bauer et al., 2007) or the mediating role of newcomer learning. Supervisory socialization tactics also provide the critical uncertainty reduction needed, via newcomer learning, to facilitate adjustment. Nevertheless, we argue that newcomer LMX provides a significant mediating channel (in addition to newcomer learning) wherein the newcomer’s sense of supervisor mutuality (cf. Wilson et al., 2010) will influence newcomer attachment.

Attrition analyses Attrition analyses revealed slight differences between those who stayed and those who dropped out of the study. Specifically, those who ‘‘stayed’’ had more work experience and were more likely to be full-time, in-bound call center employees. However, these variables did not change the interrelationships between supervisory socialization tactics and newcomer LMX. Since the ‘‘pattern of relationships are similar’’ across stayers and leavers, we argue that attrition bias is less of a concern (Goodman & Blum, 1996, p. 636).

Method

The first survey, two (2) weeks after formal training, consisted of measures that assessed supervisory socialization tactics, newcomer LMX, and contextual socialization tactics. The second survey, eight (8) weeks after formal training, assessed occupational identification, perceived PO fit, job satisfaction, and newcomer learning. Surveys were administered via online-encrypted surveys or via mail surveys. For mail surveys, the organization’s human resources department distributed the surveys. The participants returned their surveys directly to the research team. No mean differences were found among collection methods. We offered prizes and sent reminder surveys to increase participation. Per our procedure, nine T1 respondents were late (i.e. returned the survey after more than one week) and were not included in the sample. Following Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, and Podsakoff (2003), we employed several design features in order to reduce the sources of common method bias. First, we separated our predictors and criterion variables via a temporal lag of six weeks. Second, we grouped items within the surveys and separated the variables within the survey to increase psychological distance and reduce implicit theories concerning the interrelationships between the variables. Third, we reduced social desirability bias by promoting participant anonymity.

Sample Our sample consisted of 213 newcomer employees within 12 telemarketing organizations from the US. We administered two surveys separated by a temporal lag to the newcomers as part of a larger, more expansive data collection effort. Note that none of the substantive variables overlapped between studies. Of 819 surveys sent, 481 (59%) participants returned a completed first survey. Of these, 213 (44%) participants returned a completed second survey. As such, we obtained a final sample of 213 respondents (26%) – with the following sample description: female = 54%; Caucasian = 59%; mean age = 29 years; full-time employees = 57%; probationary employees = 62%; and outbound call centers = 52%. The sample resembles average demographics of call center employees within the US telemarketing sector (Morrell, 2008). Sample selection Telemarketing newcomers (within our sample) worked exclusively in sales and/or customer service within both outbound and inbound call centers. Of the twelve (12) organizations, seven (7) were ‘‘third party’’ telemarketing firms and five (5) were ‘‘in-house’’ call centers. The call centers ranged from purely out-bound calls (4); to both out-bound and in-bound calls (5); and to purely inbound calls (3). All twelve (12) organizations implemented similar ‘on-boarding’ practices. First, all newcomers received extensive formal training, ranging from three (3) to ten (10) days (with the average being five [5] days). Second, the organizations (via training) sequestered the newcomers together and away from other organizational members. Third, the newcomers did not perform hands-on tasks until after training. After training and only after training, the newcomers began work under their immediate supervisor. The telemarketer’s core task was to ‘‘be productive’’ (i.e., register someone for a sales appointment, offer technical support, or obtain a

Procedure

Timing We based the timing of the surveys upon theory regarding newcomer adjustment. Specifically, scholars argue that timing should align with the newcomer’s major task and performance-feedback cycles (Morrison, 2002; Saks & Ashforth, 1997; cf. Mitchell & James, 2001). In our case, the supervisors provided performance feedback on a weekly-basis. As such, we first measured supervisory socialization tactics and newcomer perceptions of LMX after completing two performance cycles thus providing the newcomer experience to respond appropriately to the T1 measures (i.e. supervisory socialization tactics, newcomer LMX). Second, we measured newcomer attitudes after multiple task cycles and a stabilization in

D.M. Sluss, B.S. Thompson / Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 119 (2012) 114–125

their attitudes toward the occupation, organization, and job (Saks & Ashforth, 1997). Measures Supervisory socialization tactics We adapted the 5-item serial socialization tactics scale from Jones (1986) to specify the immediate supervisor. The five items include: ‘‘Immediate supervisors see advising or training newcomers as one of their main job responsibilities in this organization’’; ‘‘I am gaining a clear understanding of my role in this organization from observing my immediate supervisor’’; ‘‘I have received little guidance from my immediate supervisor as to how I should perform my job’’ (reverse coded); ‘‘I have little or no access to my immediate supervisor’’ (reverse coded); and ‘‘I have been generally left alone to discover what my role should be in this organization’’ (reverse coded). The response scale ranged from 1 (‘‘disagree strongly’’) to 7 (‘‘agree strongly’’). The alpha reliability was .80. Leader–member exchange We used five items from the six-item leader–member exchange scale (LMX-6) from Schriesheim, Scandura, Eisenbach, and Neider (1992) which focuses on the perceptions of a mutually beneficial and, thus, high-quality exchange relationship (cf. Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005). The five items were (1) ‘‘The way my immediate supervisor sees it, the importance of my job to his/her performance is. . .’’ (1 = ‘‘slight to none’’ to 5 = ‘‘very great’’); (2) ‘‘My immediate supervisor would probably say that my work goals and his/hers are. . .’’ (1 = ‘‘opposite’’ to 5 = ‘‘the same’’); (3) ‘‘On my present job, this is how I feel about the way my immediate supervisor and I understand each other. . .’’ (1 = ‘‘very dissatisfied’’ to 5 = ‘‘very satisfied’’); (4) ‘‘I feel that my work goals and those of my immediate supervisor are. . .’’ (1 = ‘‘opposite’’ to 5 = ‘‘the same’’); and (5) ‘‘On my present job, this is how I feel about the way my immediate supervisor provides help on hard problems. . .’’ (1 = ‘‘very dissatisfied’’ to 5 = ‘‘very satisfied’’). We obtained an alpha reliability of .72. We did not include one item (i.e., ‘‘The way my supervisor sees me, he/she would probably say that my ability to do my job well is. . .’’) due to its reliance on an established record of performance. Newcomer attitudes For occupational identification, we adapted the 6-item organizational identification scale from Mael and Ashforth (1992), replacing organization with occupation (as is common practice; e.g., Hekman, Steensma, Bigley, & Hereford, 2009). An illustrative item includes ‘‘When I talk about my occupation, I usually say ‘we’ rather than ‘they.’’’ The response scale ranged from 1 (‘‘disagree strongly’’) to 7 (‘‘agree strongly’’) with an alpha reliability of .89. For perceived PO fit, we used Saks and Ashforth’s (2002) 4-item scale for PO fit. An illustrative item includes ‘‘To what extent are the values of the organization similar to your own values?’’ The response scale ranged from 1 (‘‘to a very little extent’’) to 5 (‘‘to a very large extent’’) with an alpha reliability of .86. For job satisfaction, we used the 3-item global job satisfaction scale from Cammann, Fichman, Jenkins, and Klesh (1983). An illustrative item includes ‘‘All in all, I am satisfied with my job.’’ The response scale ranged from 1 (‘‘disagree strongly’’) to 7 (‘‘agree strongly’’) with an alpha reliability of .90. Demographic control variables Our potential control variables included gender, age, racioethnicity (Caucasian versus minority), previous job experience (fulltime and part-time), full-time (versus part-time) employment status, permanent (versus probationary) employment status, and

119

inbound (versus outbound) employment status. While gender, age, and racioethnicity are common control variables, work experience and employment status also may influence adjustment. More work experience may negate the influence of socialization sources (e.g., organization, supervisory; Saks et al., 2007) whereas employment status may precondition organizational and occupational attitudes. Nevertheless, Becker (2005, p. 285) warns of the use of ‘‘impotent control variables’’ that may unnecessarily reduce power. Thus, we only include those variables that predict significant variance in the relevant endogenous variable (see Kline, 2005). As a result, we use (1) full-time employment status for the prediction of leader–member exchange; (2) age for the prediction of leader– member exchange; and (3) inbound call-center status for the prediction of PO fit and job satisfaction. Contextual socialization tactics (as control) We adapted the institutionalized socialization tactics scale from Jones (1986), using four items that focus on socialization context (Ashforth et al., 1997). Items include: ‘‘I have been very aware that I am seen as ‘learning the ropes’ in this organization’’; ‘‘The organization makes a clear and formal distinction between newcomers and others’’; ‘‘Other newcomers have been instrumental in helping me to understand my job requirements’’; and ‘‘There is sense of ‘being in the same boat’ amongst newcomers in this organization.’’ Contextual socialization increases newcomer learning and attachment (e.g. ‘‘seen as learning the ropes’’; ‘‘other newcomers . . . helping me’’). The response scale ranged from 1 (‘‘disagree strongly’’) to 7 (‘‘agree strongly’’) with an alpha reliability of .68. Although slightly low, the reliability aligns with extant research (Ashforth & Saks, 1996; Jones, 1986). Newcomer learning (as control) Given telemarketing organizations focus intensely on learning the task repertoire, we used three items from Morrison’s (1995) newcomer learning scale for technical job-related information. The three items shared the following stem: ‘‘Please indicate the extent to which you have learned. . .’’ The three items were ‘‘How to perform specific aspects of your job;’’ ‘‘How to perform your job efficiently and effectively;’’ and ‘‘Definitions and technical terms related to your job.’’ The response scale ranged from 1 (‘‘To a very little extent’’) to 5 (‘‘To a very large extent’’). We obtained an alpha reliability of .76. Discriminant validity We tested for discriminant validity among our hypothesized variables. We hypothesized a 5-factor model (i.e., supervisory socialization tactics, newcomer LMX, occupational identification, perceived PO fit, and job satisfaction). We then compared the 5factor model to four alternative models. They were: (1) a four-factor model (i.e., two supervisor variables together and the three dependent variables separately); (2) a three-factor model (i.e. two supervisor variables separate and the three dependent variables together); (3) a 2-factor model (i.e., the ‘‘supervisor’’ factor and the ‘‘dependent variables’’ factor); and (4) a 1-factor omnibus model. Model fit is considered acceptable if comparative fit index (CFI) is greater than .90 (.95 is excellent), root-mean-square error of approximation (RMSEA) is less than .08 (.05 is excellent), and standardized mean square residual (SRMR) is less than .08 (.06 is excellent) (Hu & Bentler, 1999; Jackson, Gillaspy, & Purc-Stephenson, 2009). The 5-factor model demonstrated the best comparative fit as well as good to excellent overall fit (v2 = 343.10 [df = 194; v2/ df = 1.77]; CFI = .94; RMSEA = .06, [Ho: RMSEA < .05, p = .08]; SRMR = .06) with all items loading significantly on their respective factors (Hu & Bentler, 1999; see Table 1).

120

D.M. Sluss, B.S. Thompson / Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 119 (2012) 114–125

Table 1 Discriminant analysis. Factor Structure Model 5-Factor Model: Hypothesized Model 4-Factor Model: ‘‘Supervisor’’ with separate outcomes 3-Factor Model: Supervisory socialization, LMX, and ‘‘Dependent variables’’ 2-Factor Model: ‘‘Supervisor’’ and ‘‘Dependent variables’’ 1-Factor Model: Omnibus Model *

v2 (df)

v2/df

CFI

RMSEA

p-Value for test of close fit (RMSEA < .05)*

SRMR

Dv2 (Ddf)

343.10 (194) 401.60 (198) 698.46 (201)

1.77 2.02 3.47

.94 .92 .80

.06 .07 .12

p = .08 p = .00 p = .00

.06 .07 .08

58.5 (4) 355.36 (7)

754.04 (203) 1094.55 (204)

3.71 5.37

.78 .65

.13 .17

p = .00 p = .00

.09 .13

410.94 (9) 751.45 (10)

A nonsignificant p-value indicates good fit – that is, failure to reject the null hypothesis that the lower bound of the model’s RMSEA confidence internal is below .05.

Analytical method Using LISREL 8.51 (Jorsekog & Sorbom, 2001), we used observed variable path analysis to test our hypotheses. Our analysis allows us to test hypotheses simultaneously, include control variables, and estimate error. Given parameters to sample size ratio, we determined observed variable path analysis to be most appropriate (MacCallum, Browne, & Sugawara, 1996). We then employed a bootstrapping analyses to estimate the indirect or mediating effects (MacKinnon, Lockwood, Hoffman, West, & Sheets, 2002; Preacher & Hayes, 2008). Finally, we used hierarchal linear modeling to confirm the variables are at the individual-level.1 Results We present descriptive statistics, reliabilities, and correlations in Table 2. As mentioned, we conducted an observed variable path analysis. Note that we specified (1) the significant demographic control variables (i.e., age, full-time status, and inbound call center status), (2) the indirect effects of newcomer learning, and (3) the direct effects of socialization context. Our hypothesized model resulted in an excellent fit to the data (v2 = 15.72 [df = 11]; CFI = .99; RMSEA = .04 [Ho: RMSEA < .05, p = .54]; SRMR = .06; Hu & Bentler, 1999). Hypothesis 1 contended that supervisory socialization tactics were positively associated with newcomer LMX. As hypothesized, the path coefficient was significant (.47, p < .01; see Fig. 2). Hypotheses 2–4 asserted that newcomer LMX would mediate the relationship between supervisory socialization tactics and the three newcomer attitudes (note that we control for the mediating role of newcomer learning as well as the direct effect of contextual socialization tactics). The observed variable path analysis results support Hypotheses 2 and 3 yet do not support Hypothesis 4. For Hypothesis 2, the paths between supervisory socialization tactics and newcomer LMX (.47, p < .01) as well as between newcomer LMX and occupational identification (.19, p < .01) were significant. The path coefficient between supervisory socialization tactics and occupational identification was not significant (.10, ns). For Hypothesis 3, the paths between supervisory socialization tactics and newcomer LMX (.47, p < .01); between newcomer LMX and perceived PO fit (.18, p < .01); as well as between supervisory socialization tactics and perceived PO fit (.15, p < .05) were significant. For Hypothesis 4, our results indicated that newcomer LMX did not mediate the relationship for job satisfaction given that the path coefficient between newcomer LMX and job satisfaction was not significant (.10, ns). Note that supervisory socialization’s direct effect on job satisfaction was significant (.23, p < .01). Although the path analysis provided initial support, we tested the significance of the indirect effects using bootstrapping analysis

technique. Bootstrapping is a resampling technique, makes no normality assumptions, and is an appropriate for assessing indirect effects (for review see, Preacher & Hayes, 2008). For occupational identification and perceived PO fit, the 95% confidence intervals were .02–.26 and .01–.13, respectively – indicating statistical significance because the confidence intervals exclude zero and providing strong support for our Hypotheses 2 and 3 (see Table 3). Note that newcomer learning also had significant indirect effects for perceived PO fit and job satisfaction (but not occupational identification). Using the squared multiple correlations via LISREL, the model with LMX accounted for significantly more variance in occupational identification (.07 versus .04) and in perceived PO fit (.17 versus .08) than the model without LMX. In sum, newcomer perceptions of LMX mediated the association between supervisory socialization tactics and occupational identification as well as perceived PO fit (again, after controlling for newcomer learning and contextual socialization tactics). Given concerns for monomethod bias between supervisory socialization tactics and newcomer LMX, we conducted a supplemental analysis to provide evidence in supporting the hypothesized structural relationship (cf. Mathieu & Taylor, 2006). To test if our hypothesized structural relationship fits, we reversed the variable ordering of supervisory socialization tactics and newcomer perceptions of LMX within a model that specified our significant mediating relationships (i.e., organizational identification; perceived PO fit). To make a fair comparison across models (given the models are not nested), we did not include the control variables nor the direct effects from the exogenous variable to outcome – thereby focusing on the structural relationship between supervisory socialization tactics and newcomer LMX. The final model (i.e., supervisory socialization tactics ? newcomer LMX ? organizational identification/perceived PO fit) obtained good to excellent fit on all four indices – including a non-significant Chi-square (v2 = 5.24 [df = 2; p = .07]; RMSEA = .08 [Ho: RMSEA < .05, p = .18]; CFI = .98; SRMR = .05). On the other hand, the alternative model (i.e., newcomer LMX ? supervisory socialization tactics ? organizational identification/perceived PO fit) obtained less than satisfactory fit (v2 = 12.00 [df = 2; p < .01]; RMSEA = .15 [Ho: RMSEA < .05, p = .01]; CFI = .94; SRMR = .08). As such, the results reduce, although do not eliminate, our concern for monomethod bias between supervisory socialization tactics and newcomer LMX. Finally, we conducted hierarchical linear modeling to control for both supervisor-level and organizational-level effects (cf. Hofmann, Lei, & Grant, 2009). We obtained similar results to that reported above and non-significant supervisor- and organizational-level effects – further substantiating the individual-level unit of analysis and indicative of a newcomer-specific process. Discussion

1

We examined the intraclass correlations (ICC) for both supervisory socialization and LMX. The ICC(1) values were relatively small in size (supervisor-level ICC(1), supervisory socialization = .13, LMX = .08; organizational-level ICC(1), supervisory socialization = .06, LMX = .12). The ICC(2) values were below .70 (supervisor-level ICC(2), supervisory socialization = .36, LMX = .23; organizational-level ICC(2), supervisory socialization = .42, LMX = .63.).

We provide evidence that the supervisor, via supervisory socialization tactics and LMX, is an integral relational source for newcomer attitudes such as identification, fit, and satisfaction. Research has traditionally relegated the supervisor’s importance

121

D.M. Sluss, B.S. Thompson / Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 119 (2012) 114–125 Table 2 Descriptive statistics, reliability coefficients, and correlations. Variable 1.

2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11.

12.

13. 14. 15.

Supervisory Socialization Tactics Newcomer LMX Occupational Identification Perceived PO Fit Job Satisfaction Gendera Ageb Racioethnicityc Full-timed Inbounde Full-time Work Experiencef Part-time Work Experienceg Permanenth Newcomer Learning Contextual Socialization Tactics

Mean

SD

1

2

3

4

5.60

1.14

4.23

0.53

.49**

4.83

1.37

.20**

.25**

3.46

0.85

.29**

.33**

.57**

1.31

**

**

**

5.55

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

15

.33

(.72)

.29

(.89)

.48

*

(.86) .67** *

(.90)

0.50 11.05 0.49 0.50 0.50 111.10

.02 .07 .10 .03 .06 .05

.13 .22** .00 .22** .17* .16*

.15 .10 .13 .23** .20** .04

.15 .10 .10 .26** .28** .06

.09 .11 .15* .20** .23** .10

27.60

37.95

.06

.07

.13

.03

.05

.11

.23**

.04

.02

.09

.21**

.38 4.10

.49 .61

.13 .22**

.01 .25**

.08 .13

.03 .32**

.10 .31**

.25** .02

.08 .03

.01 .02

.24** .09

.07 .04

.12 .02

.09 .14

.07

.01

1.10

14

(.80)

0.54 28.80 0.41 0.57 0.48 86.98

4.79

13

.00

.04

.13

.07

.03

– .02 .02 .26** .20** .03

–

.13

.11 .06 .14* .70**

.02

– .08 .04 .16*

.18

**

– .36** .08

.20

**

– .01

**

.20

–

–

– .05

(.76)

.10

.02

(.68)

Notes: N = 213. Reliability coefficients (alpha) are on the diagonal. LMX = leader–member exchange. Significant at p < .05. ** Significant at p < .01. a Gender was coded as 0 = male, 1 = female. b Age is stated in years. c Racioethnicity was coded as 0 = Caucasian, 1 = non-Caucasian. d Full-time was coded as 0 = part-time, 1 = full-time. e Inbound was coded as 0 = outbound call center, 1 = inbound call center. f Full-time work experience is stated in months. g Part-time work experience is stated in months. h Permanent was coded as 0 = probationary, 1 = permanent. *

Fig. 2. Observed Variable Path Model. Note: N = 213. ⁄ Significant at p < .05. ⁄⁄ Significant at p < .01. Solid line = hypothesized paths; Dotted line = control variable paths. We show completely standardized path coefficients. Bootstrapping analyses demonstrated that indirect effects via LMX were significant for occupational identification and perceived PO fit. To simplify the graphical presentation, we report the path coefficients between the demographic control variables (age, full-time, and inbound) and outcomes here: age ? LMX (.18, p < .01); full-time status ? LMX (.18, p < .01); inbound status ? perceived PO fit (.16, p < .01); inbound status ? job satisfaction (.13, p < .05).

to processes and outcomes involving more tenured employees. We found that newcomer LMX is a conduit or mediator between supervisory socialization tactics and both occupational identification and perceived PO fit – but not job satisfaction. We obtained these results while accounting for the mediating role of newcomer

learning and accounting for the direct effects of the contextual organizational socialization tactics (i.e., collective and formal socialization tactics). Our findings add to the evidence that newcomer adjustment may be more ‘‘tribal’’ than extant research would suppose.

122

D.M. Sluss, B.S. Thompson / Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 119 (2012) 114–125

Table 3 Standardized direct and indirect effects and the associated 95% confidence intervals. Predictor

Independent variable Contextual Socialization Tactics* Supervisory Socialization Tactics

Mediator

Dependent Variable

Newcomer Learning

Newcomer LMX

Occupational Identification

Perceived PO Fit

Job Satisfaction

Direct

Direct

Direct

Direct

Direct

.02 .22⁄⁄

.09 .47⁄⁄

Indirect

.12 .10

Mediator Newcomer Learning*

.06

Newcomer LMX

.19⁄⁄

Indirect

.04 .15⁄⁄ .02 ( .02, 07) .12* (.01, .25)

.24⁄⁄ .18⁄⁄

Indirect

.01 .23⁄⁄ .04* (.01, .08) .06* (.00, .13)

.23⁄⁄ .10

.06* (.02, .13) .05 ( .07, .15)

*

Included as control variables. Note: We report all direct effects from the observed variable path analysis (Jorsekog & Sorbom, 2001). We report all indirect effects and 95% confidence intervals (using the bias corrected method) from the bootstrapping analyses (Hayes, 2012; Preacher and Hayes, 2008).

Theoretical implications

Future research

Our study contributes to research on new employee ‘on-boarding’ in several ways. First, we provide evidence that the newcomer process may be much more complex, both symbolically and substantively, than merely a learning process. That is, social exchange matters within the newcomer process. Indeed, our findings (for occupational identification and perceived PO fit) demonstrate that LMX is a quite powerful mediator even in the presence of the previously assumed ‘‘heart of socialization’’ – newcomer learning. Our findings, thus, open the way to study newcomer social exchange more cogently. Newcomer LMX serves as one of several exchange conduits between socialization processes and attitudinal outcomes. To date, exchange-based conduits have gone unnoticed in the newcomer adjustment literature, which is surprising given the important place social exchange theory has in organizational behavior research (Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005). Our study provides the first glimpse of how social exchange theory, via LMX, serves as a powerful mediating mechanism within the newcomer adjustment literature. Second, we have provided evidence that the immediate supervisor is not only a pivotal relational source for newcomer adjustment but we have specified how the supervisor influences the newcomer adjustment process over and above that of newcomer learning and contextual socialization tactics. Indeed, contextual socialization tactics surprisingly did not relate to our outcomes (cf. Ashforth et al., 1997). We found that as the supervisor provides advice, task instruction, and accessibility to resources, the newcomer experiences increased sense of mutuality within the supervisory relationship (i.e. LMX). The increased sense of mutuality facilitates both the newcomer’s occupational identification and perceived PO fit. Third, and not aligned with our hypotheses, we found that supervisory socialization tactics have a direct relationship to job satisfaction, independent of newcomer LMX. This is surprising in that scholars have consistently found LMX to be strongly associated with job satisfaction with more tenured employees. We speculate that the nascent nature of the supervisory relationship may have something to do with this finding. Supervisory socialization tactics allow the newcomer to obtain direct advice, guidance, and accessibility on task- and job-related concerns – thereby possibly bypassing the importance of exchange quality in the newcomer’s job satisfaction. As such, supervisory socialization provides a positive entrée to the job independent from exchange (at least initially). Indeed, confidence intervals (via bootstrapping) revealed that newcomer learning mediated the relationship between supervisory socialization tactics and job satisfaction. As such, our findings point to a more nuanced socialization theory wherein newcomer learning and social exchange may differentially mediate the association between particular socialization sources and newcomer adjustment.

We recommend various avenues for future research. First, scholars may find it helpful, going forward, to recognize that social exchange occurs between the newcomer and the organization as well – albeit more indirectly (e.g. Shore, Tetrick, Lynch, & Barksdale, 2006). Thus, other types of social exchange may also be important mechanisms for adjustment. Indeed, Takeuchi, Wang, Marinova, and Yao (2009) found that perceived organizational support (building upon social exchange theory) were important predictors of expatriate adjustment during international assignments. We suggest that future research explore how social exchange processes with multiple ‘entities’ (e.g., relationships, organizations, occupational groups, clients) facilitate and/or inhibit socialization. Indeed, it also seems fruitful to look not only at how exchange influences adjustment outcomes but also at how the rate of change in these processes influences outcomes as well (Boswell et al., 2009; Jokisaari & Nurmi, 2009). Second, the findings elucidate the importance of relationships in shaping newcomer perceptions. We recommend exploration of how other salient relationships ‘play out’ within newcomer adjustment – not just that of the supervisor. It may be fruitful to see how the newcomer’s network of relationships affects the newcomer’s integration and adjustment (e.g., Venkataramani & Dalal, 2007; cf. Morrison, 2002). Additionally, we speculate that broadening our purview of adjustment outcomes may further elaborate how extra-work relationships contribute to adjustment. The newcomer process entails not only a change within the work-domain but also change within the life domain as well (Ashforth, 2001; Ibarra, 2003). However, most socialization research focuses on performance, attachment, and satisfaction as major outcomes – at the expense of extra-work adjustment (Bauer et al., 2007). Nevertheless, a newcomer may not completely adjust until other job and life areas are stable (e.g., perceptions of compensation equity, spouse/partner adjustment). It may be fruitful to explore familial or extra-work relationships and their influence on these broader newcomer adjustment outcomes. Last, as one reviewer noted, our model seems to ignore the ‘‘newcomer side of the equation.’’ That is, we did not explore how newcomer proactivity influences the social exchange process within newcomer adjustment. While our focus was on the supervisor’s role in building social exchange within the newcomer adjustment process, we suggest that newcomer proactivity may have both direct and interactive effects for newcomer social exchange and should be subjects of future research. For example, newcomer proactivity may provide the supervisor with tangible and intangible resources and therefore result in higher quality leader-perceived LMX (cf. Ashford & Black, 1996). In addition, newcomer proactivity may facilitate (or moderate) the newcomer ‘taking advantage’ of

D.M. Sluss, B.S. Thompson / Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 119 (2012) 114–125

supervisor-provided resources and thus better enacting the newcomer’s role and job resulting in higher performance – whether it be in-role or extra-role.

Limitations Although our study contributes to research on newcomer adjustment, we advise several caveats. First, we collected all our study variables directly from the newcomer, increasing the risk of common method bias. That said, we implemented various design features (i.e., temporally and psychologically separating the variables; promoting anonymity) which reduces our a priori concern for common method bias (Podsakoff et al., 2003). Second, we did not temporally separate the measurement of supervisory socialization tactics and the newcomer’s perception of LMX that (1) makes it more difficult to substantiate the structural relationship and (2) creates increased potential for an inflated uncorrected bivariate correlation. That said we did perform alternative model comparisons that provided evidence of the hypothesized structural relationship between supervisory socialization tactics and newcomer LMX. In a related fashion, we measured newcomer attitudes only nine weeks after organizational entry. We assumed newcomer attitudes stabilized by this time point given the multiple task cycles completed (cf. Morrison, 2002) and the relative tenure of employees within telemarketing organizations (Morrell, 2008). That said we recognize the possibility that newcomer attitudes may be still be in flux – even after eight major task cycles. Third, we focused exclusively on the immediate supervisor at the expense of other relational incumbents (e.g., senior co-workers, mentors, clients). As such, we suggest that future research examine workgroup socialization tactics and team-member exchange as co-contributors to the newcomer adjustment process. In addition to exchange, the workgroup may be an integral source of acceptance – an important proximal mediator in the adjustment process.

Practical implications Our study underlines the importance of the immediate supervisor during the ‘on-boarding’ process. Traditionally, organizations invest heavily in structured and formalized orientation programs – placing the ownership of such programs with human resource departments. Our findings suggest that organizations should also provide training and incentives to immediate supervisors to foment better newcomer socialization. Organizations should also collaborate with supervisors so that the assigned supervisor is a constant and active presence throughout the process. Many organizations implement a ‘training’ supervisor model in which the newcomers go through a classroom and, then, on-the-job training period with a training supervisor. It seems that this model does not take full advantage of a key socialization agent - the ‘real-time’ assigned supervisor. Enhancing this model should include collaboration between the ‘assigned’ supervisor and the ‘trainer’ so that the supervisor becomes integral in the process.

Conclusion The socialization literature, perhaps somewhat myopically, has focused on newcomer learning at the expense of other important mediating processes. To correct this, we introduced social exchange theory, via LMX, as a potent conduit between supervisory socialization tactics and newcomer attitudes. In sum, the supervisor provides a bridge over which newcomers cross to become fully integrated and transitioned into their jobs, organizations, and occupations.

123

Acknowledgments We would like to thank Gary Ballinger and Rob Ployhart for helpful comments on an earlier draft. We also appreciate David Hofmann’s advice and assistance with data analysis issues. We presented a version of this paper at the 2009 Academy of Management meetings in Chicago, Illinois.

References Ashford, S. J., & Black, J. S. (1996). Proactivity during organizational entry: The role of desire for control. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 199–214. Ashforth, B. E. (2001). Role transitions in organizational life: An identity-based perspective. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Ashforth, B. E., Harrison, S. H., & Corley, K. G. (2008). Identification in organizations: An examination of four fundamental questions. Journal of Management, 34, 325–374. Ashforth, B. E., & Kreiner, G. E. (1999). ‘‘How can you do it?’’ Dirty work and the challenge of constructing a positive identity. Academy of Management Review, 24, 413–434. Ashforth, B. E., & Mael, F. (1989). Social identity theory and the organization. Academy of Management Review, 14, 20–39. Ashforth, B. E., & Saks, A. M. (1996). Socialization tactics: Longitudinal effects on newcomer adjustment. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 149–178. Ashforth, B. E., Saks, A. M., & Lee, R. T. (1997). On the dimensionality of Jone’s (1986) measures of organizational socialization tactics. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 5, 200–214. Ashforth, B. E., Sluss, D. M., & Harrison, S. H. (2007). Socialization in organizational contexts. In G. P. Hodgkinson & J. K. Ford (Eds.), International review of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 1–70). New York: John 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. Avolio, B. J., Walumbwa, F. O., & Weber, T. J. (2009). Leadership: Current theories, research, and future directions. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 421–449. Ballinger, G. A., & Rockmann, K. W. (2010). Chutes versus ladders: Anchoring events and a punctuated-equilibrium perspective on social exchange relationships. Academy of Management Review, 35, 373–391. 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. Bauer, T. N., Erdogan, B., Liden, R. C., & Wayne, S. J. (2006). A longitudinal study of the moderating role of extraversion: Leader–member exchange, performance, and turnover during new executive development. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 298–310. Bauer, T. N., & Green, S. G. (1996). Development of leader–member exchange: A longitudinal test. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 1538–1567. Bauer, T. N., & Green, S. G. (1998). Testing the combined effects of newcomer information seeking and manager behavior on socialization. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 72–83. Bauer, T. N., Morrison, E. W., & Callister, R. R. (1998). Organizational socialization: A review and directions for future research. In G. R. Ferris (Ed.). Research in personnel and human resources management (Vol. 16, pp. 149–214). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Becker, T. E. (2005). Potential problems in the statistical control of variables in organizational research: A qualitative analysis with recommendations. Organizational Research Methods, 8, 274–289. Berger, C. R. (1988). Uncertainty and information exchange in developing relationships. In S. Duck, D. F. Hay, S. E. Hobfoll, W. Ickes, & B. M. Montgomery (Eds.), Handbook of personal relationships: Theory, research and interventions (pp. 239–255). Oxford, England: John Wiley & Sons. Biddle, B. J. (1986). Recent developments in role theory. Annual Review of Sociology, 12, 67–92. Black, J. S. (1992). Socializing American expatriate managers overseas: Tactics, tenure, and role innovation. Group & Organization Management, 17, 171–192. Blau, P. N. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York: Wiley. Boswell, W. R., Shipp, A. J., Payne, S. C., & Culbertson, S. S. (2009). Changes in newcomer job satisfaction over time: Examining the pattern of honeymoons and hangovers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 844–858. Brief, A. P., & Weiss, H. M. (2002). Organizational behavior: Affect in the workplace. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 279–307. Cable, D. M., & Parsons, C. K. (2001). Socialization tactics and person-organization fit. Personnel Psychology, 54, 1–23. Cammann, C., Fichman, M., Jenkins, G. D., Jr., & Klesh, J. R. (1983). Assessing the attitudes and perceptions of organizational members. In S. E. Seashore, E. E. Lawler, P. H. Mirvis, & C. Cammann (Eds.), Assessing organizational change (pp. 71–138). New York: John Wiley & Sons. Chen, Y. R., Chen, X. P., & Portnoy, R. (2009). To whom do positive norm and negative norm of reciprocity apply? Effects of inequitable offer, relationship, and relational-self orientation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 24–34. Chen, Z. X., Tsui, A. S., & Farh, J. L. (2002). Loyalty to supervisor versus organizational commitment: Relationships to employee performance in China. Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology, 75, 339–356.

124

D.M. Sluss, B.S. Thompson / Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 119 (2012) 114–125

Cooper-Thomas, H. D., & Anderson, N. (2002). Newcomer adjustment: The relationship between organizational socialization tactics, information acquisition and attitudes. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 75, 423–437. Cooper-Thomas, H. D., & Anderson, N. (2005). Organizational socialization: A field study into socialization success and rate. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 13, 116–128. Cooper-Thomas, H. D., van Vianen, A., & Anderson, N. (2004). Changes in personorganization fit: The impact of socialization tactics on perceived and actual P-O fit. European Journal of Work & Organizational Psychology, 13, 52–78. Cropanzano, R., & Mitchell, M. S. (2005). Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary review. Journal of Management, 31, 874–900. Dienesch, R. M., & Liden, R. C. (1986). Leader–member exchange model of leadership: A critique and further development. Academy of Management Review, 11, 618–634. Dulebohn, J. H., Bommer, W. H., Liden, R. C., Brouer, R., & Ferris, G. R. (in press). A meta-analysis of the antecedents and consequences of leader–member exchange: Integrating the past with an eye toward the future. Journal of Management. Edwards, J. R. (1991). Person-job fit: A conceptual integration, literature review, and methodological critique. In C. L. Cooper & I. T. Robertson (Eds.). International review of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 6, pp. 283–357). New York: Wiley. Edwards, J., & Cable, D. (2009). The value of value congruence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 654–677. Edwards, J. R., Cable, D. M., Williamson, I. O., Lambert, L. S., & Shipp, A. J. (2006). The phenomenology of fit: Linking the person and environment to the subjective experience of person-environment fit. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 802–827. Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchison, S., & Sowa, D. (1986). Perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 500–507. Eisenberger, R., Karagonlar, G., Stinglhamber, F., Neves, P., Becker, T. E., GonzalezMorales, M., et al. (2010). Leader–member exchange and affective organizational commitment: The contribution of supervisor’s organizational embodiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 1085–1103. Folger, R. (1986). Rethinking equity theory. In H. W. Bierhof, R. L. Cohen, & J. Greenberg (Eds.), Justice in social relations (pp. 145–162). New York: Plenum Publishing Corporation. Gerstner, C. R., & Day, D. V. (1997). Meta-analytic review of leader–member exchange theory: Correlates and construct issues. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 827–844. Goodman, J., & Blum, T. (1996). Assessing the non-random sampling effects of subject attrition in longitudinal research. Journal of Management, 22, 627–652. Gouldner, A. W. (1960). The norm of reciprocity. American Sociological Review, 25, 165–167. Graen, G. B. (2003). Role making onto the starting work team using LMX leadership: Diversity as an asset. In G. B. Graen (Ed.). LMX leadership: The series (Vol. 1, pp. 1–28). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing. Graen, G., Novak, M. A., & Sommerkamp, P. (1982). The effects of leader–member exchange and job design on productivity and job satisfaction: Testing a dual attachment model. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 30, 109–131. Graen, G. B., & Scandura, T. A. (1987). Toward a psychology of dyadic organizing. Research in Organizational Behavior, 9, 175–209. Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Development of leader–member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-level multi-domain perspective. Leadership Quarterly, 6, 219–247. Green, S. G., & Bauer, T. N. (1995). Supervisory mentoring by advisers: Relationships with doctoral student potential, productivity, and commitment. Personnel Psychology, 48, 537–561. Hayes, A. F. (2012). SPSS, SAS, and Mplus Macros and Code. . Hekman, D. R., Steensma, H. K., Bigley, G. A., & Hereford, J. F. (2009). Effects of organizational and professional identification on the relationship between administrators’ social influence and professional employees’ adoption of new work behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 1325–1335. Hofmann, D. A., Lei, Z., & Grant, A. M. (2009). Seeking help in the shadow of doubt: The sense making processes underlying how nurses decide whom to ask for advice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 1261–1274. Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55. Ibarra, H. (1999). Provisional selves: Experimenting with image and identity in professional adaptation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, 764–791. Ibarra, H. (2003). Working identity: Unconventional strategies for reinventing your career. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Ilies, R., Nahrgang, J., & Morgeson, F. (2007). Leader–member exchange and citizenship behaviors: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 269–277. Jackson, D. L., Gillaspy, J. A., & Purc-Stephenson, R. (2009). Reporting practices in confirmatory factor analysis: An overview and some recommendations. Psychological Methods, 14, 6–23. Jokisaari, M., & Nurmi, J. (2009). Change in newcomers’ supervisor support and socialization outcomes after organizational entry. Academy of Management Journal, 52, 527–544.

Jones, G. R. (1986). Socialization tactics, self-efficacy, and newcomers’ adjustments to organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 29, 262–279. Jorsekog, K. G., & Sorbom, D. (2001). LISREL 8.51. Chicago, IL: Scientific Software International, Inc. Judge, T. A., & Piccolo, R. F. (2004). Transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic test of their relative validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 755–768. 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, 779–795. Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1978). The social psychology of organizations. New York: Wiley. Kaufmann, J. B., & Pratt, M. G. (2005). Re-examining the link between organizational image and member attraction: On the positive uses of negative organizational stories in recruiting medical residents. In K. Elsbach (Ed.), Qualitative organizational research (pp. 75–112). Greenwich, CT: Information Age. Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford Press. Kramer, M. W. (1993). Communication after job transfers: Social exchange processes in learning new roles. Human Communication Research, 20, 147–174. Kristof, A. (1996). Person-organization fit: An integrative review of its conceptualizations, measurement, and implications. Personnel Psychology, 49, 1–49. Lapierre, L. M., Hackett, R. D., & Taggar, S. (2006). A test of the links between family interference with work, job enrichment and leader–member exchange. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 55, 489–511. Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., & Stilwell, D. (1993). A longitudinal study on the early development of leader–member exchanges. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 662–674. Locke, E. A. (1976). The nature and causes of job satisfaction. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 1297–1343). Chicago, IL: Rand McNally. Louis, M. R. (1980). Surprise and sense making: What newcomers experience in entering unfamiliar organizational settings. Administrative Science Quarterly, 25, 226–251. MacCallum, R. C., Browne, M. W., & Sugawara, H. M. (1996). Power analysis and determination of sample size for covariance structure modeling. Psychological Methods, 1, 130–149. MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., Hoffman, J. M., West, S. G., & Sheets, V. (2002). A comparison of methods to test mediation and other intervening variable effects. Psychological Methods, 7, 83–104. Mael, F., & Ashforth, B. E. (1992). Alumni and their alma mater: A partial test of the reformulated model of organizational identification. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13, 103–123. Major, D. A., Kozlowski, S. W. J., Chao, G. T., & Gardner, P. D. (1995). A longitudinal investigation of newcomer expectations, early socialization outcomes, and the moderating effects of role development factors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 418–431. Masterson, S. S., Lewis, K., Goldman, B. M., & Taylor, M. S. (2000). Integrating justice and social exchange: The differing effects of fair procedures and treatment on work relationships. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 738–748. Mathieu, J. E., & Taylor, S. R. (2006). Clarifying conditions and decision points for mediational type inferences in organizational behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27, 1031–1056. Michalos, A. C. (1983). Satisfaction and happiness in a rural northern resource community. Social Indicators Research, 13, 225–252. Mitchell, T. R., & James, L. R. (2001). Building better theory: Time and the specification of when things happen. Academy of Management Review, 26, 530–547. Morrell, S. (2008). The US contact center operational review report. Indianapolis, IN: American Teleservices Association. Morrison, E. W. (1995). Information usefulness and acquisition during organizational encounter. Management Communication Quarterly, 9, 131–155. Morrison, E. W. (2002). Newcomer’s relationships: The role of social network ties during socialization. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 1149–1160. Muchinsky, P. M., & Monahan, C. J. (1987). What is person-environment congruence? Supplementary versus complementary models of fit. Journal of Vocational Behaviour, 31, 268–277. Nahrgang, J. D., Morgeson, F. P., & Ilies, R. (2009). The development of leader– member exchanges: Exploring how personality and performance influence leader and member relationships over time. Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, 108, 256–266. Noe, R. A. (1988). An investigation of the determinants of successful assigned mentoring relationships. Personnel Psychology, 41, 457–479. Podsakoff, P. M., & MacKenzie, S. B. (1993). Citizenship behaviors and managerial evaluations of employee performance: A review and suggestions for future research. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 6, 257–268. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879–904. Pratt, M. G. (2000). The good, the bad, and the ambivalent: Managing identification among Amway distributors. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45, 456–493. Pratt, M. G., Rockmann, K. W., & Kaufmann, J. B. (2006). Constructing professional identity: The role of work and identity learning cycles in the customization of identity among medical residents. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 235–262.

D.M. Sluss, B.S. Thompson / Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 119 (2012) 114–125 Pratt, M. G. (1998). To be or not to be? Central questions in organizational identification. In D. A. Whetten & P. C. Godfrey (Eds.), Identity in organizations: Building theory through conversations (pp. 171–207). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40, 879–891. Rousseau, D. M. (1995). Psychological contracts in organizations: Understanding written and unwritten agreements. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Saks, A. M., & Ashforth, B. E. (1997). Organizational socialization: Making sense of the past and present as a prologue for the future. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 51, 234–279. Saks, A. M., & Ashforth, B. E. (2002). Is job search related to employment quality? It all depends on the fit. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 646–654. Saks, A. M., Uggerslev, K. L., & Fassina, N. E. (2007). Socialization tactics and newcomer adjustment: A meta-analytic review and test of a model. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 70, 413–446. Scandura, T. A., Graen, G. B., & Novak, M. A. (1986). When managers decide not to decide autocratically: An investigation of leader–member exchange and decision influence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 579–584. Schriesheim, C. A., Castro, S. L., & Cogliser, C. C. (1999). Leader–member exchange (LMX) research: A comprehensive review of theory, measurement, and dataanalytic practices. Leadership Quarterly, 10, 63–114. Schriesheim, C. A., Neider, L. L., & Scandura, T. A. (1998). Delegation and leader– member exchange: Main effects, moderators, and measurement issues. Academy of Management Journal, 41, 298–318. Schriesheim, C. A., Neider, L. L., Scandura, T. A., & Tepper, B. J. (1992). Development and preliminary validation of a new scale (LMX-6) to measure leader–member exchange in organizations. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 52, 135–147. Schriesheim, C. A., Scandura, T. A., Eisenbach, R. J., & Neider, L. L. (1992). Validation of a new leader–member exchange scale (LMX-6) using hierarchically-nested maximum likelihood confirmatory factor analysis. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 52, 983–992. Shore, L. M., Coyle-Shapiro, J. A. M., Chen, X.-P., & Tetrick, L. E. (2009). Social exchange in work settings: Content, process, and mixed models. Management and Organization Review, 5, 289–302.

125

Shore, L. M., Tetrick, L. E., Lynch, P., & Barksdale, K. (2006). Social and economic exchanges: Construct development and validation. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 36, 837–867. Sluss, D. M., Klimchak, M., & Holmes, J. J. (2008). Perceived organizational support as a mediator between relational exchange and organizational identification. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 73, 457–464. Stepina, L. P., Perrewe, P. L., Hassell, B. L., Harris, J. R., & Mayfield, C. R. (1991). A comparative test of the independent effects of interpersonal, task, and reward domains on personal and organizational outcomes. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 6, 93–104. Stryker, S., & Burke, P. J. (2000). The past, present, and future of an identity theory. Social Psychology Quarterly, 63, 284–297. Takeuchi, R., Wang, M., Marinova, S. V., & Yao, X. (2009). Role of domain-specific facets of perceived organizational support during expatriation and implications for performance. Organization Science, 20, 621–634. Thomas, C. H., & Lankau, M. J. (2009). Preventing burnout: the effects of LMX and mentoring on socialization, role stress and burnout. Human Resource Management, 48, 417–432. van Knippenberg, D., & Hogg, M. A. (2003). A social identity model of leadership effectiveness in organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 25, 243–295. Van Maanen, J., & Barley, S. R. (1984). Occupational communities: Culture and control in organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 6, 287–365. Van Maanen, J., & Schein, E. H. (1979). Toward a theory of organizational socialization. Research in Organizational Behavior, 1, 209–264. Venkataramani, V., & Dalal, R. S. (2007). Who helps and harms whom? Relational antecedents of interpersonal helping and harming in organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 952–966. Wilson, K. S., Sin, H. P., & Conlon, D. E. (2010). What about the leader in leader– member exchange? The impact of resource exchanges and substitutability on the leader. Academy of Management Review, 35, 358–372. Zhao, H., Wayne, S. J., Glibkowski, B. C., & Bravo, J. (2007). The impact of psychological contract breach on work-related outcomes: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 60, 647–680.