Surprise and Sense Making: What New-comers Experience in Entering Unfamiliar Or-ganizational...

Surprise and SenseMaking: What New-comers Experience inEntering Unfamiliar Or-ganizational Settings

Meryl Reis Louis

Growing disillusionment among new members of or-ganizations has been traced to inadequacies in ap-proaches to organizational entry. Current directions ofresearch on organizational entry and their limitations aredescribed, and a new perspective is proposed. The newperspective identifies key features of newcomers' entryexperiences, including surprise, contrast, and change,and describes the sense-making processes by which in-dividuals cope with their entry experiences. Implicationsfor research and practice on organizational entry aredrawn.*

© 1980 by Cornell University,0001-8392/80/2502-0226$00,75

I want to thank Roger Evered, RickMowday, and the ASQ reviewers fortheir encouragement and suggestions forimproving the manuscript. My thanksalso go to Tom Cummings, CarsonEoyang, and Paul Hirsch for helpfulcomments on an early draft of the paper.

Support for the research that resulted inthis paper was provided, in part, by agrant from the Research Board of theUniversity of Illinois at Urbana-Champaignand, in part, by a grant from the Officeof Naval Research Foundation ResearchProgram at the Naval PostgraduateSchool.

June 1980. volume 25

There is growing concern that current organizational entrypractices do not adequately ease the transition of newmembers into work organizations. Voluntary turnover duringthe first eighteen months on the job is increasing amongcollege graduates in first career jobs, and reports of mount-ing disillusionment among new recruits are accumulating incollege placement offices and in corporate personnel de-partments. That these trends are found despite growing at-tention by companies to new member orientation highlightsboth the difficulty of bringing newcomers on board and theneed for improved organizational entry practices.

The purpose of this article is to identify crucial gaps in cur-rent approaches to organizational entry and to develop a per-spective that fills the gaps. The new perspective proposesthat an appreciation of what newcomers typically experienceduring the transition period and how they cope with theirexperiences is fundamental to designing entry practices thatfacilitate newcomers' adaptation in the new setting. The ar-ticle is organized in three parts: a review of previous re-search on organizational entry and suggested limitations ofcurrent perspectives; a new perspective; and its implicationsfor research and practice,

PREVIOUS RESEARCH

Historically, organizational entry has been studied from atleast two distinct perspectives. In one, the dominant themehas been recruit turnover. The other has focused on organi-zational socialization, in which entry represents a major phase.In this section we briefly review the important themesand limitations of each perspective as outlined in Figure 1,

Turnover Perspective

In general, research on turnover has aimed at identifying andmanipulating its causes in order to reduce voluntary turnover,which has been considered wholly undesirable {Porter andSteers, 1973; Hand, Gnffeth, and Mobley, 1977; Price,1977; Bluedorn, 1978; Mobley etal,, 1979a; MuchinskyandTuttle, 1979), However, a more appropriately complex treat-ment of turnover has been urged by recent reviewers (Mo-bley etal,, 1979a; Mobley and Meglino, 1979; MuchinskyandTuttle, 1979), In particular, they have highlighted the need todistinguish between voluntary and involuntary turnover, toidentify turnover antecedents relative to job tenure (e,g,, theturnover process among newcomers may be different fromthe tumover among oldtimers), and to consider positive aswell as negative effects of turnover,

226/Administrative Science Quarterly

Surprise and Sense Making

OrganizationalEntry

Turnover Socialization

- Unrealistic Expectations ' Nature of Socialization

- Unmet Expectations - Stages of Socialization

Role-Related-Content^ Learning

Cultural Learning

L Socialization PracticesFigure 1. Perspectives on organizational entry.

Work on turnover among newcomers represents a specialclass of turnover research. Results of work on the antece-dents of recruit turnover suggest that newcomers' expecta-tions are a critical factor associated with voluntary recruitturnover (Ross and Zander, 1957; Katzell, 1968; Dunnette.Arvey, and Banas, 1973; Porter and Steers, 1973; Wanous,1977, 1980; Mowday. 1979; Muchinsky and Tuttle, 1979}.However, two different approaches to the role of recruitexpectations in turnover have emerged. In the first, volun-tary turnover among newcomers is attributed to unrealisticor inflated expectations that individuals bring as they enterorganizations (Bray, Campbell, and Grant. 1974; Wanous,1977; Mobley et al., 1979b), In the second, turnover is at-tributed to differences betv\/een newcomers' expectationsand early job experiences, called unmet expectations (Rossand Zander, 1957; Katzell. 1968; Dunnette, Arvey, andBanas, 1973). Although previously collapsed into a singlecategory (sometimes labeled the "met expectations hypoth-esis" [Mobley et al,, 1979a]), the approaches are treatedseparately here in light of the substantially differentoperationalizations and action strategies they employ.

Unrealistic expectations. Work on unrealistic expectationsrelies on findings that recruits' expectations of their jobsprior to entering organizations are significantly inflated as aresult of typical organizational recruiting practices (Ward andAthos, 1972) as well as newcomers' cognitive processes(Vroom and Deci, 1971). In response to the findings, a strat-egy to promote more realistic pre-entry job expectationsamong recruits, called the Realistic Job Preview (RJP), wasdeveloped. Using RJP's, greater realism in expectations hasresulted when recruits receive orientation informationthrough booklets, films, or other means, which describe infactual, rather than idealized, terms the company and thejob (Wanous, 1976), Furthermore, Wanous (1977) has foundrealism to be negatively associated with turnover.

Several explanations for the effect of RJP's on turnoverhave been proposed (llgen, 1975; llgen and Dugoni, 1977;Wanous, 1977, 1980). A primary hypothesized explanationsuggests that RJP's lower newcomers' initial expectations;lower expectations are more likely to be met than are higherexpectations; met expectations lead to satisfaction, andsatisfaction is inversely related to turnover (llgen, 1975).

227/ASQ

Although results of early studies on realism seemed promis-ing (Wanous, 1977), Wanous (1979) recently concluded thatevidence of the hypothesized effect of realism on turnoveris weak at best. No comprehensive explanation for therealism effect has been empirically supported (llgen and Du-goni, 1977), and methodological inadequacies (e.g., lack of amanipulation check) and inconsistencies between studiesmake generalization about RJP effects problematic. In addi-tion, the relevant situational conditions and appropnate sub-ject matter of preview information have not been adequatelyexplored {Wanous, 1976, 1978; Reilly, Tenopyr, and Sperling,1979). And finally, although realism suggests accuracy andappropriateness of expectations, it is usually operationalizedmerely as the inverse of expectation level. Lower expecta-tions are considered more realistic than are higher expecta-tions.

Unmet expectations. In contrast to the realism approach,the works of Ross and Zander (1957), Katzell (1968), andDunnette, Arvey, and Banas (1973) operationalize unmet ex-pectations as the difference between initial expectations (orneeds) and actual experiences on the job. As used in thethree studies, "unmet" expectations refer only to "under-met" expectations, that is, experiencing less of somethingdesirable than was anticipated.

In all three studies, voluntary turnover was associated withunmet expectations and not with the level of initial expecta-tions. In fact, in each case the leavers did not differ fromthe stayers in what they initially expected as they enteredthe organization. Like the unrealistic expectations approach,the unmet expectations approach hypothesizes that dissatis-faction and turnover result from disconfirmed expectations,similar to a "broken promise" effect. This approach is alsoplagued with problems in methodology and offers no ade-quate explanation for the effect.

The action strategy based on the unmet expectations ap-proach aims at reducing recruit turnover by ensuring thatnewcomers' expectations of the job are met. The practicalfocus has been on the initial period on the job, rather thanthe pre-entry period. The key is to "manage the joining-upprocess," as Kotter (1973) describes it, by developing a psy-chological contract between the newcomer and supervisor inwhich the expectations of each are clarified and exchanged.The aim is to match individuals and their expectations tospecific jobs. What neither the realism nor the unmetexpectations approach considers, however, is that unmetexpectations, broadly defined, may be an inevitable accom-paniment to the experience of entering an unfamiliar organi-zational setting.

Reconciliation and critique. Both approaches to turnoverfocus on the role of expectations in organizational entry. Therealism approach is concerned with the level of initial expec-tations, and the unmet expectations approach is concernedwith the degree to which expectations are disconfirmedonce the newcomer is on the job. They differ in theoperationalizations and action strategies they use. How canwe reconcile the two approaches? Do they reflect differentpsychological processes?

228/ASQ


Consumer behavior literature bears directly on the issue, asMowday (1979) has recently suggested. In work on productperformance ratings, Oliver (1977) documented independentand separately significant effects of initial expectations anddisconfirmed expectations, lending support to the distinctionproposed here. He concluded that it is necessary to considerboth in explaining the outcomes observed, that the processby which individuals respond to met and unmet expectationsis more complex than is reflected in the single-effect viewcharacteristic of research to date.

Fundamentally, both approaches to turnover are based on anassumption of rationality. It is assumed that newcomers arerational beings who enter unfamiliar organizational settingswith preformed conscious expectations about their new jobsand organizations, which, if met, lead to satisfaction and, ifunmet, lead to voluntary turnover, (In the next section, weshow that this assumption of rationality is not well sup-ported,) The conscious pre-entry expectations consideredprimary in turnover approaches are merely the tip of theiceberg in the view of the newcomer experience that wepropose.

Historically, researchers have addressed one main question:"Do newcomers' expectations (initial or unmet) lead to vol-untary turnover?" As a number of reviewers (Mobley et al.,1979a; Mowday, 1979; Muchinskyand Tuttle, 1979) havestated, a more complex and process-onented treatment ofthe issue is needed. Since it is not yet clear that rationalpre-entry expectations are the key feature in newcomers'experiences, we need to identify other elements in the entryexperience, in addition to clarifying how turnover is beinginterpreted. Focus on the process requires new ques-tions. How do newcomers cope with the experience ofunrealistic/unmet expectations? As a beginning, the con-sumer behavior literature suggests several psychologicalprocesses through which disconfirmed expectations aremanaged (Sherif and Hovland, 1961; Carlsmith and Aronson,1963; Anderson, 1973), And, more generally, how do new-comers cope with early job experiences? How do they cometo understand, interpret, and respond in and to unfamiliarorganizational settings? Such process-oriented questionshave not as yet been addressed in research on antecedentsof recruit turnover.

Socialization Perspective

The discussion of organizational socialization is organizedaround four key themes. The first deals with the generalcharacteristics of organizational socialization, the secondwith stages of socialization. The third is the content ofsocialization — what is being imparted to the newcomer.The fourth focuses on characteristics and effects of sociali-zation pracf/ces, (See Van Maanen, 1976, fora broad over-view of the area.) Other writings on the subject are foundincreasingly in work on careers, into which, it appears, or-ganizational socialization research is being absorbed (e,g..Hall, 1976; Van Maanen, 1977b; Schein, 1978),

Characteristics of socialization. Organizational socializationis the process by which an individual comes to appreciatethe values, abilities, expected behaviors, and social knowl-

22 9/ASQ

edge essential for assuming an organizational role and forparticipating as an organizational member (Brim, 1966; VanMaanen, 1976; Van Maanen and Schein, 1979). Regardlessof an individual's previous socialization experiences, eachmajor passage (Glaser and Strauss, 1971) or role changeinvolves socialization into the new role and setting. And,considering the variety and number of roles that the typicaladult holds between high school and retirement, we can seethat organizational socialization is a pervasive processthroughout adult life (Bnnn, 1968; Glaser and Strauss, 1971).In general, a descriptively rich picture of the experience ofentering a new organizational setting and role has been de-veloped in the organizational literature on socialization. Theexperience is characterized by disorientation, foreignness,and a kind of sensory overload.

"Reality shock" is the phrase that Hughes (1958) used tocharacterize what newcomers often experience in enteringunfamiliar organizational settings. Time and space becomeproblematic at the moment of entry. At that particular time,all surroundings, that is, the entire organizationally-basedphysical and social world, are changed. There is no gradualexposure and no real way to confront the situation a little ata time. Rather, the newcomer's senses are simultaneouslyinundated with many unfamiliar cues. It may not be clear tothe newcomer just what constitutes a cue, let alone whatthe cues refer to, which cues require response, or how tointerpret and select responses to them. Time and space re-main problematic until, as Van Maanen (1977a) has sug-gested, the newcomer is able to construct maps of time andspace specific to the new setting.

In taking on a new role, the newcomer is typically givensome time in which to "get up speed," that is, to masterthe basics of the job and to perform at or above someminimum level (Becker and Strauss, 1956). The newcomermust also "learn the ropes," as socialization is frequentlytermed by those going through it. Learning the ropes isnecessary in each new organizational culture, since, by defi-nition, cultures differ between organizations, and even be-tween roles within the sanne organization (Berger andLuckman, 1966; Ritti and Funkhouser, 1977; Van Maanen,1977a).

Stages of socialization. The second theme concerns stagesthrough which newcomers pass during organizationalsocialization (Merton. 1957; Schein, 1962, 1968; Feldman,1976; Van Maanen, 1976), According to Merton (1957), theprocess of organizational socialization begins in a stagecalled "anticipatory socialization," Recruits, while still outsid-ers, anticipate their experiences in the organization they areabout to enter. During that period, outsiders develop expec-tations about their life in the organization and on the job. Itis here that the unrealistic expectations identified byWanous (1977) develop.

When beginning work, the individual passes from outsider tonewcomer and enters the encounter stage. Experiences dur-ing the encounter period are critical in shaping the individu-al's long-term orientation to the organization (Hughes, 1958;Berlewand Hall, 1966; Van Maanen, 1976). During en-

230/ASQ


counter, newcomers' anticipations are tested against the re-ality of their new work experiences. Differences betweenanticipations and experiences (including the previously de-scribed unmet expectations) become apparent and contrib-ute to reality shock. Coping with such differences and"learning the ropes" of the new setting typically occupy thenewcomer for the first 6 to 10 months on the job.

The individual's adaptation to the organization occurs withthe passage from newcomer to insider. In most socializationmodels, adaptation is treated more as a state than a stage.That is, the state of being adapted, of having assumed aninsider role are indications of the completion of socialization.Newcomers become insiders when and as they are givenbroad responsibilities and autonomy, entrusted with"privileged" information, included in informal networks, en-couraged to represent the organization, and sought out foradvice and counsel by others.

One critical limitation of the studies of socialization stagesstands out. Although there are situations in which individu-als simply add new roles to their portfolios of life roles,usually the process of entenng an organization and/or rolealso involves leaving another one. Yet, with few exceptions(e.g., Becker and Strauss, 1956), views of organizationalsocialization have focused on the "changing to" process ofentering the new situation, and have excluded the "chang-ing from" process of leaving the old situation. Writingselsewhere suggest that the process of changing from has asignificant impact on the success of the changing to pro-cess. For instance, the works of Lewin (1951), Argyris(1964), and Tannenbaum (1976) indicate that unfreezing,moving away, or letting go is a necessary preliminary step ineffecting change at individual and group levels. Work in an-thropology has focused on leavetaking and transition ritualsin societal status passages (Van Gennep, 1960; Turner,1969). Work on the resocialization of deviants and on brain-washing also bear on leavetaking aspects of assuming neworganizational roles. In total institutional settings and tribalpassage rites, recruits are processed as a group, isolatedfrom former associates, stripped of prior status and individu-ality. Whether such transition rites are relevant in organiza-tions that are not total institutions and in which individualsvoluntarily elect to become members is questionable.Nevertheless, in future studies we must consider howleavetaking and the letting go of old roles do and shouldenter into newcomers' socialization experiences in typicalorganizational settings.

Content of socialization. Two basic kinds of content can bedistinguished in socialization. The first is role-related team-ing, and the second is a more general appreciation of theculture of an organization. In order to perform adequately ina new role, an individual needs ability, motivation, and anunderstanding of what others expect (Brim, 1966). Ideally,during socialization, especially during the encounter stage,the newcomer's role-relevant abilities are identified, others'expectations are conveyed and negotiated, and incentivesand sanctions are clarified, with the aim of enhancing moti-vation to perform.

231/ASQ

Essential elements of any role a newcomer assumes areknowledge base, strategy, and mission (Van Maanen andSchein, 1979), In addition, the newcomer must understandcritical organizational values in order to identify essential orpivotal role behaviors, those that must be performed toavoid the risk of expulsion (Schein, 1971a), Although re-searchers have studied socialization into particular occupa-tional and professional roles (e.g., doctors), no one has yetadequately described how the rote-related content of sociali-zation is conveyed in traditional organizational settings. How-ever, both organizations and newcomers seem to appreciatethe need for role learnings.

In contrast, there is usually very little understanding byeither organization or newcomer of the need to learn the"culture" of the organization (Van Maanen, 1977a). An or-ganization is more than a collection of roles positioned on anorganization chart. It has a personality of sorts, often re-ferred to as an organizational culture. "How we do thingsand what matters around here" are conveyed by an organi-zation's culture. When newcomers are "learning the ropes"they are, in part, learning the culture. In organizations, as insocieties at large, culture conveys important assumptionsand norms governing membership, values, activities, andaims (Gamst and Norbeck, 1976), The norms and assump-tions are collectively shared and interactively emergent; theyare enacted rather than spoken (Mead, 1964; Schutz, 1964).

What culture "is," aside from what it conveys, is more dif-ficult to identify. In anthropology, where culture has beenmost directly and extensively studied, a variety of views ofculture has been advanced. For our purposes, a semioticview (Geertz, 1973) seems more appropriate than a cognitiveview (Goodenough, 1964) for examining culture in regularlyconvening organizational milieux. In the semiotic view, cul-ture consists, as Geertz (1973: 12-13) has written, ". . . ofsocially established structures of meaning in terms of whichpeople do such things as signal conspiracies and join them. . . ." More particularly:

it denotes an historically transmitted pattern of meanings embodiedin symbols, a system of inherited conceptions expressed in sym-bolic forms by means of which men communicate, perpetuate, anddevelop their knowledge about and attitudes toward life, (Geertz,1973: 89)

Between different organizations (and, to a lesser extent, be-tween units of the same organization), there are differentcultures. In different organizations, members may have sub-stantially different orientations to one another, their roles,and the organizational mission. For instance, in one organiza-tion members may be personally concerned about the wel-fare of one another and loyal to the organization for life. Inanother, people may participate in more insfumental ways,putting in their 8 hours a day, 5 days a week, and collectingtheir paychecks. Recent characterizations of types A, J, andZ organizations capture the cultural distinctiveness of differ-ent settings (Ouchi and Jaeger, 1978),

In learning the culture, newcomers develop a definition ofthe situation (McHugh, 1968), a scheme for interpretingeveryday events in the setting (Schutz, 1964; Berger and

232/ASQ


Luckman, 1966; Cicourel, 1974). Newcomers need situation-or culture-specific interpretation schemes in order to makesense of happenings in the setting and to respond withnneaningful and appropriate actions. They need a map of theterritory, so to speak, that is sufficiently consonant with themaps that insiders carry and by which members enact theterritory (Weick, 1979).

In general, the processes by which recruits come to ap-preciate pivotal organizational values, role-related abilities andmissions, and interpretation schemes appropriate to the localculture have not been adequately explored in the literatureon organizational socialization. To begin to understand the"appreciation" processes basic to socialization, we need toexamine relevant work in other areas. For example, Weiss(1978) has applied concepts from social learning theory inexplaining the acquisition of values in organizational socializa-tion. Other learning paradigms (Gagne, 1965; Bruner, 1973)could help explain the knowledge-acquisition processes insocialization. Literature on personal change (Schein, 1979),on psychological contracting (Schein, 1965; Kotter, 1973) ongoal setting (Locke, 1968; Latham and YukI, 1975), and onperformance feedback (llgen. Fisher, and Taylor, 1979) couldaid in understanding the processes by which recruits cometo appreciate role expectations, acquire task motivations, andcarry out certain role missions. And work on the phenom-enology of the stranger (Schutz, 1964) and cognitive pro-cesses in organizations (Weick, 1977, 1979) could provide arich starting place in efforts to understand how newcomerslearn the ropes in and of new organizational cultures.

Characteristics of socialization practices. The fourththeme concerns socialization practices and their effects onrecruits. A number of researchers have examined the ef-fects of alternative structures of socialization settings on re-cruits' adaptations (Wheeler, 1966; Glaser and Strauss,1971; Van Maanen and Schein, 1979). Rather than looking atparticular practices used in certain types of settings, theylooked at the generic aspects of socialization practices byfocusing on the structure of the socialization setting. Forinstance. Wheeler traced the effects of individual versus col-lective socialization and serial versus disjunctive socialization,that is, whether or not the recruit had predecessors avail-able to help in learning the role.

Glaser and Strauss (1971) identified a dozen properties oforganizational and other status passages, noting that someare nnore relevant than others, depending on the particularpassage in question. Recently, Hall (1979) described thespecial characteristics of late career passages.

In the most comprehensive work on this theme to date. VanMaanen and Schein (1979) presented a structural analysis ofsocialization tactics, tracing the effects of each on recruits'responses. According to the authors, organizational socializa-tion practices help to shape the kind of member the recruitwill be. Socialization tactics were analyzed using six dimen-sions. In addition to the two that Wheeler proposed, theauthors considered formal versus informal, sequential versusvariable, fixed versus variable, and investiture versus divesti-ture. For each dimension, prototypical cases were described

2 33/ASQ

and hypothesized effects on recruits outlined. Three kindsof recruit response were distinguished: custodianship, inwhich the status quo role is adopted; content innovation, inwhich the status quo mission of the role is adopted but thestrategy for carrying out the role is altered; and role innova-tion, in which the newcomer alters the basic mission orends served by the role (Schein, 1971b).

The work is an integrative framework, which can be used tocompare socialization practices across socialization settings.But, as the authors carefully noted, they were concernedwith the structural aspects of socialization. The internal pro-cesses by which external structure leads to outcome, bywhich socialization tactics or practices affect recruits incharacteristic ways, have not been studied. In addition, deci-sions about which tactical dimensions to study were guidedby logical deduction from empirical observations and ac-counts in the literature (Van Maanen and Schein, 1979: 232).As yet, no theoretical framework has been proposed toguide or justify the choice of particular tactical dimensionsof socialization to study.

Turnover and Socialization: Fundamental Distinctionsand Common Gaps

Whereas the turnover perspective was criticized for conduct-ing overly simplistic empirical research, organizational sociali-zation research suffers from nearly opposite weaknesses. Ithas been criticized for producing descriptive theories rele-vant only to specific socialization settings; instead, predictivemodels are needed that can provide strategic action guidesapplicable across socialization situations (Van Maanen, 1976).The two perspectives are opposites in other ways, so muchso, that proponents of one seldom acknowledge or incorpo-rate the ideas of the other. For instance, experimental andindustrial psychology provide the discipline base and meth-odological tradition for the turnover view; sociology (particu-larly organizational and occupational sociology and sociologyof work) provides the roots for the socialization perspective.Whereas rationality was assumed in turnover research,socialization studies have been grounded in a blend ofphenomenology and social interactionism, in which meaningis assumed to be constructed afresh in interaction andbased on situationally imbedded interpretive schemes(Mead, 1964; Schutz, 1964; Berger and Luckman, 1966).The two perspectives differ in research settings and designsand views of what constitutes data and knowledge. Theyare, in fact, different paradigms (Kuhn, 1970). So it is notsurprising that they have previously not been linked as alter-native perspectives on the same problem. And yet both arecentrally concerned with the entry and adjustment of new-comers into unfamiliar organizational settings. They are con-sidered jointly here in an attempt to piece together a com-pleter picture of the entry phenomenon, by using each toshore up the deficiencies in the other and by exposing gapscommon to both as a guide for future research.

Neither the turnover nor the socialization perspective hassufficiently studied the ways in which newcomers copewith early job experiences. How newcomers detect, diag-nose, interpret, and select responses to features of the new

234/ASQ


setting, including differences between their pre-entry expec-tations and experiences has yet to be described. Nor haseither perspective studied why some newcomers choose toleave work organizations, others try to renegotiate job de-scriptions, and still others accept more readily the unantici-pated reality of the new setting. What it is about the indi-viduals themselves (e.g., personality and background), thesituations they encounter, or the ways in which they inter-nally process their experiences as newcomers that leadsthem to choose one of these responses over another re-mains to be explored. In the next section we propose a newperspective to fill this gap in knowledge about newcomers'organizational entry experiences and coping processes.

A MODEL OF THE NEWCOMER EXPERIENCE

In order to understand the processes by which newcomerscope with entry and socialization experiences, we must firstunderstand that experience. In the following pages we iden-tify some key features of the newcomer experience andoutline a model for understanding the processes of new-comers' coping, or sense making. It is proposed thatchange, contrast, and surprise constitute major features ofthe entry experience. Although all refer to differences as-sociated with entering new settings, they focus on separatetypes of differences.

Entry Experiences

Change. "Change" is defined here as an objective differ-ence in a major feature between the new and old settings. Itis the newness of the "changed to" situation that requiresadjustment by the individual. The more elements that aredifferent in the new situation as compared with the previoussituation, the more the newcomer potentially has to copewith. This is true even though differences represent im-provements over the previous situation. Defined moreelaborately, change is publicly noted and knowable; that is,there is recordable evidence of a difference. Evidence in-cludes new location, addresses, telephone numbers, title,salary, job description, organizational affiliation, prerequisites,etc. Such evidence exists in advance of the transition. Infact, changes themselves are knowable in advance.

With the start of a new job, the individual experiences achange in role and often in professional identity, from stu-dent to financial analyst, for instance. Such role changes areoften accompanied by changes in status. Similarly, there areoften major differences in basic working conditions. Discre-tion in scheduling time, opportunities for feedback, and peerinteraction may be very different at work versus in school, infield sales versus marketing research or management.

Schein (1971a) has stated that an individual entering an or-ganization crosses three boundaries: functional, hierarchical,and inclusionary. Together, the boundaries represent threemore dimensions of change for newcomers. The newcomertakes on a set of tasks within a functional area (e,g,, market-ing, finance) and must learn how they are to be accom-plished. The newcomer also acquires a position in thehierarchy, implying supervisory authority over subordinatesand reporting responsibility to a superior,

23 5/ASQ

A more informal but no less crucial boundary is theinclusionary one, which refers to one's position in the in-formal information and influence networks. Influence and in-formation access from the previous situation can seldom betransferred into the new situation. As a result, newcomersusually hold peripheral rather than central positions in theinclusionary network. Over time they may develop accessand influence bases, but initially they are usually "on theoutside." Based on this view of change, we can generallyexpect a transition from school to a first full-time, career-related job to be accompanied by more changes and, there-fore, more to cope with than a transition from one workorganization to another, especially when the new job is simi-lar to the previous one.

Contrast. The second feature of the entry experience iscontrast, which is personally, rather than publicly, noticedand is not, for the most part, knowable in advance. Contrast,an effect described by gestalt psychologists (Koffka, 1935;Kohler, 1947), involves the emergence within a perceptualfield of "figure," or noticed features, against ground, orgeneral background. Particular features emerge when indi-viduals experience new settings. Which features emerge asfigure is, in part, determined by features of previously expe-nenced settings. Both differences between settings andcharacteristics within (new) settings contribute to the selec-tion of features experienced as figure. For example, howpeople dress in the new setting may or may not be noticedor experienced as a contrast by the newcomer, depending inpart on whether dress differs between new and old set-tings. The presence of a difference in dress is a necessarybut not sufficient precondition for the noticing of a con-trast. Similarly, the absence of windows may or may notemerge through the contrast effect as a distinguishing fea-ture of the new setting, depending on the individual and thefull set of potential contrasts in the situation. Contrast is,therefore, person-specific rather than indigenous to the or-ganizational transition. That is to say, for two people under-going the same change, (e.g., leaving Stanford and enteringMerrill Lynch), different contrasts will emerge.

A special case of contrast is associated with the process ofletting go of old roles, which often seems to continue wellinto the socialization process. The prolonged letting go inorganizational entry seems to differ markedly from the situa-tion in tribal rites of passage and total institution inductions,as described earlier. In typical entry situations no newcomertransition ritual erases all trace of the old role before thenew role is taken on. Instead, newcomers voluntarily under-take the role change, change only one of the many rolesthey simultaneously hold, and carry into the new rolememories of experiences in old roles. The first time thenewcomer is involved in ainnost any activity in the new role(e.g., a professor uses the computer or library or has a man-uscript typed at the new university), the memory of thecorresponding activity in one or more old roles may bebrought to mind. The process is similar, though on a lessemotionally charged scale, to the event-anniversaryphenomenon that occurs in adjusting to the death of a lovedone. As experiences from prior roles are recalled, contrasts

236/ASQ


are generated, and a variety of subprocesses may betriggered. For instance, the newcomer may evaluate aspectsof the new role using old-role experiences as anchors oninternal comparison scales. Or the newcomer may try toincorporate aspects of the old into the new role or resist thenew role in favor of the old role.

Based on the natural limits of human capabilities for percep-tual processing (Miller, 1956), we surmise that there may besome maximum number of contrasts to which individualscan attend simultaneously. In addition, it appears that forindividuals in new situations, some minimum number of thecontrasts emerge. The contrasts represent subjective differ-ences between new and old settings by which newcomerscharacterize and otherwise define the new situation.

Surprise. The third feature of the entry experience is sur-prise, which represents a difference between an individual'santicipations and subsequent experiences in the new set-ting. Surprise also encompasses one's affective reactions toany differences, including contrasts and changes. Surprisemay be positive (e.g., delight at finding that your office win-dow overlooks a garden) and/or negative (e.g., disappoint-ment at finding that your office window can not be opened).The subject of anticipation and, therefore, surprise may bethe job, the organization, or self. Anticipations may be con-scious, tacit, or emergent; either overmet or undermet an-ticipations can produce surprise. Figure 2 summarizes sey-eral forms of surprise in relation to three dimensions forunderstanding organizational entry phenomena. It is pre-sented to illustrate some typical sources and forms of sur-prise and is not intended to be inclusive.

Emergeni

Level of Awarsness of Eitoectation(a priori condition)

Figure 2. Varieties of surprise.

Several forms of surprise often arise during the encounterstage and require adaptation on the part of the newcomer.Only the first three can be traced directly to Figure 2. Thefirst form of surprise occurs when conscious expectationsabout the job are not fulfilled in the newcomer's early jobexperiences. Unmet expectations, as typically used, refers toundermet conscious job expectations, shown as the shadedarea in Figure 2.

A second form of surprise that may occur during encounterarises when expectations (both conscious and unconscious)

237/ASQ

about oneself are unmet. Choice of the new organization isoften based on assumptions about one's own skills, values,needs, etc. During encounter, errors in assumptions some-times emerge, and the newcomer must cope with the rec-ognition that he or she is different from his or her previousperceptions of self. For example: "I chose this job becauseit offered a great deal of freedom; now I realize I really don'twant so much freedom,"

A third form of surprise arises when unconscious job expec-tations are unmet or when features of the job are unantici-pated. Job aspects not previously considered importantstand out as important because their presence or absence isexperienced as undesirable. As one newcomer said, "I hadno idea how important windows were to me until I'd spent aweek in a staff room without any," This is an example bothof inadequacy in anticipations producing surprise and a con-trast, indicating a typical overlap between the two features.

A fourth form of surprise arises from difficulties in accu-rately forecasting internal reactions to a particular new expe-rience. "What will happen" (the external events) may beaccurately anticipated, whereas "how it will feet" (the inter-nal experience of external events) may not be accuratelyassessed by the individual. How new experiences will feel,as opposed to how the individual expected them to fee!, isdifficult to anticipate and often surprising. The difference isanalogous to the distinction that can be drawn between"knowing about" in a cognitive sense and being "acquaintedwith" in an experiential sense, "I knew I'd have to put in alot of overtime, but I had no idea how bad I'd feel after amonth of 65-hour weeks, how tired I'd be all the time," Inthis example, the facts were available to the individual andwere accepted; what was inaccurately anticipated and,therefore, surprising was how it would "actually feel," thesubjective experience. The individual in this example mightinterpret his experience as, "I don't have as much energy asI thought," a form of unmet expectation about self.

A fifth form of surprise comes from the cultural assump-tions that newcomers make. Surprise results when thenewcomer relies on cultural assumptions brought from pre-vious settings as operating guides in the new setting, andthey fail. Van Maanen {1977a: 20) describes the situation asfollows:, , , a newcomer assumes that he knows what the organization isabout, assumes others in the setting have the same idea, andpractically never bothers to check out these two assumptions.What occurs upon experience is that the neophyte receives a sur-prise of sorts . , - in which he discovers that significant others , , ,do not share his assumptions. The newcomer must then reorienthimself relative to others , . , through a cognitive revision of hispreviously taken-for-granted assumptions.

Since cultures differ between organizations, a cognitiveframework for expressing and interpreting meanings in aparticular culture must be developed in and for the specificculture in which it will be used.

A final point about surprise is necessary. Both pleasant andunpleasant surprises require adaptation. However, traditionalformulations of unmet expectations implicitly treat onlyundermet expectations or unpleasant surprises. In the fu-

238/ASQ

Surprise and Sense Malting

ture, it will be important to include both overmet andundermet expectations in considering surprises that contrib-ute to newcomers' entry experiences.The picture of the newcomer experience developed heresuggests that the strategy of enhancing the realism only ofconscious pre-entry job expectations is not adequate. Simi-larly, strategies to ensure that conscious pre-entry job ex-pectations are not underfulfilled (unmet) in early job experi-ences are also not sufficient. Ultimately both views seek toaid newcomers by reducing the extent of their unmet ex-pectations. Both implicitly deny the near inevitability of themyriad unanticipated and even unanticipatable changes, con-trasts, and surprises attendant on entering substantially dif-ferent organizational settings. Unmet conscious job expecta-tions constitute merely one subset of surprise.

It is proposed that appreciation of changes, contrasts, andsurprises characteristic of newcomers' entry experiences isessential in designing organizational structures that facilitatenewcomer transitions. In essence, they constitute a part ofthe experiential landscape of individuals during the en-counter stage of organizational socialization.

Sense MakingThe role of conscious thought in coping. In order to un-derstand how individuals in organizational settings cope withentry experiences, particularly surprises, we must first askhow people anywhere cope with normal, everyday situationsthat are not surprising. In familiar, nonsurprising situations,individuals seem to operate in a kind of loosely prepro-grammed, nonconscious way, guided by cognitive scripts. Acognitive script, as defined by Abetson (1976: 33) is " . . . acoherent sequence of events expected by the individual... ."Several constructs are similar in idea to the cognitivescript, among them schema (Bartlett, 1932: VVeick, 1979),habitualization (Berger and Luckman, 1966), and "trustwor-thy recipes for thinking-as-usual" (Schutz, 1964: 95). Whateach of the constructs suggests is that conscious thought isnot a very large part of our everyday mode of operating. Wemay dnve to work, greet our colleagues, and sit in meetingswith about the same deliberateness with which we brushour teeth. In fact, Taylor and Fiske (1978) suggest that mostof our everyday decisions are made "off the top of ourheads." In acting that is guided by cognitive scripts, con-scious thought is minimal.

If that is the case, then it is necessary to know under whatconditions coping is guided by thought or cognition ratherthan by preprogrammed scripts. One possibility is that con-scious thought is provoked when the individual sensessomething "out of the ordinary," A number of writers havesuggested that possibility, including James (1890), Dewey(1933), Mills (1940), Lewin (1951), Schutz (1964), and Langer(1978). Schutz (1964: 105), for example, states:If we encounter in our experience something previously unknownand which therefore stands out of the ordinary order of our knowl-edge, we begin a process of inquiry-Mills (1940: 905) expressed his view as follows:. . . men live in immediate acts of experience and their attentionsare directed outside themselves until acts are in some way frus-trated. It is then that awareness of self and of motive occur.

239/ASQ

More recently, Langer (1978: 58) developed a set of condi-tions under which thinking occurs. She proposed that con-scious thinking is necessary when the outcomes of our actsare inconsistent with anticipated outcomes or when scriptedbehavior is effortful or interrupted. Abelson (1976) andLanger (1978) also treat behavior in novel situations as un-scripted and, therefore, guided by thinking. However, it isclear that people do not always recognize when situationsare novel and act, or rather think, accordingly (Schutz, 1964;Van Maanen, 1977a).

Scripts provide the individual with predictions of event se-quences and outcomes. Implicitly, reasons for outcomes,that is, prospective explanations, are supplied. As long asthe predicted outcomes occur, thinking is not necessary.However, when predicted outcomes do not occur, the indi-vidual's cognitive consistency is threatened (Festinger, 1957;Abelson et al., 1968). The discrepancy between predictedand actual outcomes, that is, between anticipations and ex-perience, produces a state of tension which acts as aquasi-need, in Lewin's (1951) terms, unbalancing the equilib-rium of the individual's psychological field. The quasi-need isfor a return to equilibrium. Hence, when scripts fail, theindividual must develop explanations for why the actual out-comes occurred and why the predicted outcomes did not.The retrospective explanations help to resolve tension statesby restoring equilibrium, although in a new configuration.Retrospective explanations are produced through a particu-lar thinking process that we call sense making. Theexplanatory products of sense making have been studiedunder such labels as accounts (Scott and Lyman, 1968) andattributions (Ross, 1977). Accounts are ". . . statementsmade to explain untoward behavior and bridge the gap be-tween actions and expectations" (Scott and Lyman, 1968:46). They provide reasons for outcomes, and for discrepan-cies.

In attribution research, individuals have been viewed asnaive scientists, who make sense of events on the basis ofavailable information (Ross, 1977). Researchers have iden-tified rules and biases that guide naive scientists in attribut-ing causes to events and properties to causes (Jones andDavis, 1965; Kelley, 1967; Jones et al., 1972). They havealso characterized types of attributions and examined attribu-tion patterns produced in response to different outcomes(Weiner, 1974). Attributions about anticipated outcomes thatactually occurred are examined; attributions about antici-pated outcomes that did not occur are overlooked. Similarly,inadequate attention has been given to the question ofwhen attributions are made (Kelley, 1976). Instead, this re-search seems to have assumed that people are always mak-ing attributions (and, hence, are engaged in thinking) andthat attributions prospectively guide, as well as retrospec-tively explain, events (Taylor and Fiske, 1978). Attribution re-search has not adequately considered either the cognitiveprocesses through which attributions are created or the so-cial and institutional conditions in which attributions are em-ployed (Kelley, 1976).

On the other hand, Weick (1977, 1979) has examined cogni-tive processes in organizational settings. He suggested that

240/ASQ


an analysis of cognition in organizations ought to addressthe question of what provokes cognition in organizations(1979: 71), What we suggest here is that one kind of eventthat provokes cognition is surprise and that surprise seemsto be an inevitable part of the experience of entering (in thesense of joining) an unfamiliar organizational setting.

How individuals cope with surprise. Recently a model de-scribing the processes by which individuals detect and inter-pret surprises was developed (Louis, 1978), It suggests thatsense making can be viewed as a recurring cycle comprisedof a sequence of events occurring over time. The cycle be-gins as individuals form unconscious and conscious anticipa-tions and assumptions, which serve as predictions about fu-ture events. Subsequently, individuals experience eventsthat may be discrepant from predictions. Discrepant events,or surprises, trigger a need for explanation, or post-diction,and, correspondingly, for a process through which interpre-tations of discrepancies are developed. Interpretation, ormeaning, is attributed to surprises. Based on the attributedmeanings, any necessary behavioral responses to the im-mediate situation are selected. Also based on attributedmeanings, understandings of actors, actions, and settings areupdated and predictions about future experiences in the set-ting are revised. The updated anticipations and revised as-sumptions are analogous to alterations in cognitive scripts.

The cycle as described focuses on the more rational ele-ments in sense making. It is meant to represent generalstages in understanding one's experience, rather than theliteral process by which all individuals respond to each expe-rience. It is crucial to note that meaning is assigned to sur-prise as an output of the sense-making process, rather thanarising concurrently with the perception or detection of dif-ferences.

In making sense, or attributing meaning to surprise, individu-als rely on a number of inputs. Their past experiences withsimilar situations and surprises help them in coping withcurrent situations. Individuals are also guided by their moregeneral personal characteristics, including predispositions toattribute causality to self, others, fate, etc, (e,g,, the locus ofcontrol [Rotter, 1966] and anomie [McClosky and Schaar,1963]), as well as their orienting purposes in the situationand in general. Another input that shapes how sense ismade of surprise is the individual's set of cultural assump-tions or interpretive schemes, that is, internalizations ofcontext-specific dictionaries of meaning, which ", , . struc-ture routine interpretations and conduct within an institu-tional area" (Berger and Luckman, 1966: 138), In addition,information and interpretations from others in the situationcontribute to the sense-making process. Figure 3 sum-marizes the model and presents it in relation to the featuresof entry experiences described earlier in the section.

What newcomers need. In order to assess the specialneeds of newcomers during sense making, we comparetheir situation in general with that of insiders. The experi-ences of newcomers differ in three important ways fromthose of insiders. First, insiders normally know what to ex-pect in and of the situation. For the most part, little is sur-

241/ASQ

nputs to Sense Making.

\e'5' InTerpretalic

Figure3. Sense making in organizational entry.

prising or needs to be made sense of. Second, when sur-prises do arise (e.g., not getting an expected raise), the in-sider usually has sufficient history in the setting to interpretthem more accurately or to make sense based on relevantknowledge of the immediate situation. An insider probablyknows, for instance, whether the denied raise is due tocompany-wide budget cuts or is related to the job perform-ance and whether it is an indication of how the future mayunfold or a temporary situation. Third, when surprises ariseand sense making is necessary, the insider usually has otherinsiders with whom to compare perceptions and interpreta-tions.

The comparison of newcomers' and insiders' experiencessuggests that two types of input to sense making shown inFigure 3 may be problematic for newcomers: local interpre-tation schemes and others' interpretations. Concerning localinterpretation schemes, newcomers probably do not haveadequate history in the setting to appreciate as fully as in-siders might why and how surprises have arisen. With timeand experience in the new setting, they may come to un-derstand how to interpret the actions of superiors andothers and what meanings to attach to events and out-comes in the work setting. According to Berger andLuckman (1966), during the early stages in a new setting,newcomers internalize context-specific dictionaries of mean-ing used by members of the setting. At the outset, how-ever, newcomers typically are unfamiliar with these interpre-tation schemes of the new setting. And, as we saw earlier,they are usually unaware of both their need to understandcontext-specific meaning dictionaries, or interpretationschemes, and the fact that they are unfamiliar with them(Van Maanen, 1977a).

As a result, newcomers often attach meanings to action,events, and surprises in the new setting using interpretationschemes developed through their experiences in other set-

242/ASQ


tings. Based on these, inappropriate and dysfunctional in-terpretations may be produced. For example, what it meansto "take initiative" or "put in a hard day's work" in a schoolsituation may be quite different from its meaning in a worksetting. In essence, this constitutes a variation on the kindof surprise that arises when tacit job-related expectationsare unmet. Newcomers may also attribute permanence orstability to temporary situations, or vice versa (Weiner,1974). Or, newcomers may see themselves as the source orcause of events when external factors are responsible foroutcomes (Weiner, 1974). Similarly, one's understanding ofwhy a supenor responds in a particularly harsh manner maybe inadequate. Overpersonalized attributions may result inthe absence of knowledge about how that superior typicallybehaves toward other subordinates or without relevantbackground information, for instance, about the superior'srecent divorce, lack of promotion, or reduction in scope ofauthority and responsibility.

The dysfunctional effects of such interpretational errors canbe seen by tracing how the responses chosen are influ-enced by the meanings attributed in situations. In a series ofstudies by Weiner (1974), subjects attributing events to sta-ble causes changed behavior more often than did subjectsattributing events to unstable or temporary causes (e.g., theboss is always like this, or the boss is going through arough, but temporary, period). In laboratory experiments,shifts in subjects' affect were more likely to result frompersonal, or internal, attributions than from external attribu-tions (e.g., the boss doesn't like me, or the boss treatseveryone harshly). Although further work is needed toassess the extent to which Weiner's findings hold in organi-zational settings, it seems obvious that individuals selectresponses to events at least in part on the basis of themeaning they attach to them. Decisions to stay in or leaveorganizations and feelings of commitment or alienationwould appear to follow from sense made by newcomers ofearly job experiences.

The second type of input to make sense making problematicfor newcomers is information and interpretations fromothers in the situation. In comparison to the situation ofinsiders, newcomers probably have not developed relation-ships with others in the setting with whom they could testtheir perceptions and interpretations. Since reality testing isseen as an important input to sense making, it seems par-ticularly important for newcomers to have insiders whomight serve as sounding boards and guide them to impor-tant background information for assigning meaning to eventsand surprises. Insiders are seen as a potentially rich sourceof assistance to newcomers in diagnosing and interpretingthe myriad surprises that may arise during their transitionsinto new settings. Insiders are already "on board"; presum-ably, they are equipped with richer historical and currentinterpretive perspectives than the newcomer alone possess-es. Information may also come through insider-newcomerrelationships, averting and/or precipitating surprises. Theserelationships might also facilitate the newcomer's acquisitionof the context-specific meaning dictionary or interpretationscheme.

243/ASQ

The framework presented here suggests that sense madeof surprises by newcomers may be inadequate in the ab-sence of relevant information about organizational, interper-sonal, and personal histories. Inputs to sense making fromsources in the organization balance the inputs provided bythe newcomer (i.e,, past experiences, personal predisposi-tions, and interpretive schemes from old settings), whichare likely to be inadequate in the new setting. Until new-comers develop accurate internal maps of the new setting,until they appreciate local meanings, it is important that theyhave information available for amending internal cognitivemaps and for attaching meaning to such surprises as mayarise during early job experiences.

IMPLICATIONS FOR RESEARCH AND PRACTICE

Summary

In the first section, we reviewed previous work on organiza-tional entry as it has been approached in studies of recruitturnover and organizational socialization. The basic limitationsof each approach and critical gaps common to both wereidentified. Specifically, both approaches were seen to sufferfrom the lack of a theoretical framework for understandingwhat newcomers experience and how they cope with theirexperiences in entering unfamiliar organizational settings.

In the second section, we proposed a new perspective de-signed to fill that particular gap. The new perspective firstprovided a picture of what the newcomer is likely to expen-ence. Conceptual categories were created to distinguishamong features of the entry experience. Change was said torepresent the external, objective differences in moving fromone organization to another (e,g., a change in physical loca-tion, title, salary). Contrast was used to refer to those differ-ences that emerge in the newcomer's perceptual field aspersonally significant, as subjectively experienced charac-teristics of the new situation. Surprise was used to refer todifferences between newcomers' anticipations of and actualexperiences in the organization. Anticipations may be formedbefore or after entering the organization; anticipations andother action-guiding assumptions (e.g., cultural assumptions)may be conscious, tacit, and/or emergent, and anticipationscan be focused on oneself, as well as the job, the organiza-tion, and its culture.

How newcomers cope with their entry experiences was thesubject of the second component of the new perspective.We developed a model of newcomers' processes of copingbased on the earlier picture of the newcomers' experienceand on a comparison of ways in which people cope ineveryday, unsurprising situations with ways of coping innovel or surprising situations. The sense-making model weproposed focused on the cognitive processes that individu-als employ in organizational settings to cope with surpnseand novelty. We identified newcomers' special sense-making needs. In particuiar, they need help in interpretingevents in the new setting, including surprises, and help inappreciating situation-specific interpretation schemes or cul-tural assumptions. We saw that insiders are a potentially richsource of such help.

244/ASQ


Research Implications

Theoretical and empirical implications of the perspective de-veloped here for each of the two literatures concerned withorganizational entry are briefly outlined below. First, the per-spective provides a theoretical framework for understandingwhich aspects or dimensions of socialization are critical andwhy. It suggests that socialization practices that facilitatesense making and, in the process, encourage appreciation ofthe local culture and acquisition of a setting-specific interpre-tation scheme ultimately facilitate adaptation to the new set-ting and progress through the stages of socialization. Prac-tices that facilitate sense making provide the newcomerwith relevant and reliable information. Specific information ismade available in response to newcomers' needs, ratherthan in advance, according to what is considered to be or-ganizationally efficient. The information comes from some-one who knows and is willing and able to share with thenewcomer a particular part of "how things operate aroundhere." Other newcomers do not have this information, andwritten orientation material usually does not give it. The per-spective leads us to expect that "in-response" socializationpractices facilitate sense making and adaptation far moreeffectively than "in-advance" practices. And similarly, prac-tices in which insiders, rather than other newcomers, arethe newcomers' primary associates and informal socializingagents should facilitate adaptation.

Although several socialization dimensions developed in pre-vious studies touch on aspects of socialization suggested bythe perspective, none does so exclusively. For instance, al-though formal (versus informal) socialization usually impliesin-advance socialization, it conveys a set of other charac-teristics as well. Formal orientations typically process severalnewcomers at one time; they tend to present a great dealof general information representing official policy, ratherthan actual practice. In individual (versus collective) socializa-tion, the newcomer probably has greater access to insidersas associates (rather than other newcomers), who are will-ing to speak "off the record" and share local norms withthe newcomer. But individual socialization is also more likelyto be informal than formal, confounding the picture further.Finally, in serial (versus disjunctive) socialization, insiderswho previously held the role that the newcomer is assum-ing are present in the organization. Although suggesting thatinsiders may be among the newcomer's associates, serialsocialization does not rule out the possibility that other new-comers are the primary associate group for the newcomer.Therefore, we suggest that future research specificallyexamine the separate effects of dimensions of socializationderived from the theoretical framework offered by the newperspective.

The surprise and sense-making perspective bears on recruitturnover research in a number of ways. We saw that theturnover approach to organizational entry focused on new-comers' conscious pre-entry expectations about the job. Yetthe perspective proposed here suggests that surprise mayarise from tacit and even emergent anticipations and as-sumptions, as well as from conscious expectations. It alsosuggests that expectations are not formed once and for all

245/ASQ

before entering the new setting, but evolve and are periodi-cally revised as a result of sense made of surprises. Further,it indicates that assumptions about oneself (e.g., what I canand want to do) may lead to surprises that have at least asmuch impact as expectations about the job. On the basis ofthe variety of sources and types of surprise typically experi-enced in entering organizations, we suggest that the narrowview of unmet expectations adopted in earlier researchshould be broadened in future research. In addition, theseparate effects of initial and disconfirmed expectations andovermet as well as undermet expectations should be as-sessed. Future research is also needed to explore the under-lying psychological processes by which expectations, andsurprise in general, affect individuals. Toward that end, thesense-making model presented here provides a theoreticaloutline of some basic processes by which surprise precipi-tates sense making and through which individuals select re-sponses to surprise.

Other implications for future research include the need tounderstand the processes by which cultural knowledge isacquired. Although we saw that surprise may result whencultural assumptions from old settings are not supported innew settings, we haye not yet traced how newcomers learnthe ropes and come to appreciate the local culture of thenew setting. One way to pursue the question is to examinehow culture is manifested in organizational settings andfrom there to trace how cultural manifestations are transmit-ted. In work on the role of stories, myths, and symbols inorganizational life, cultural manifestations are being studiedby a growing number of researchers, including Mitroff andKilmann (1976), Dandridge (1979), Leifer (1979), Wilkins(1979), and Wilkins and Martin (1979).

Another area in which future research is needed is the tran-sition from the old role itself, the leavetaking aspect ofchanging roles. How do newcomers in modern organizationslet go of old roles as they take on new ones? Two alterna-tive explanations of the letting-go process have beensuggested here. In the tabula rasa process initiates arestripped of old roles before taking on new roles. In theevent-anniversary process, letting go occurs gradually as ex-periences in the new role trigger recall of complementaryexperiences in old roles. The relative nnerit of each as anexplanation of letting go during organizational entry is aquestion for future research.

Finally, further work is needed on surprise and sense mak-ing. Specific subprocesses within the sense-making cyclehaye not been adequately articulated. Perceptual and cogni-tive processes overlap from the detection to the interpreta-tion of surprise. How do the processes interface? In termsof surprise, what personal and situational factors influencethe newcomer's "novelty" threshold? Why do some peopleseem to thrive on novelty, whereas others seem burdenedand surprised by almost any novel experience?

Practical Implications

Previous research has favored strategies for managing new-comers' entry into work organizations that provide individualswith more accurate (realistic) initial expectations, through a

246/ASQ


Realistic Job Preview. In contrast, strategies developed fromthe new perspective take as given the near inevitability thatnewcomers will experience some unmet expectations and,more generally, surprise in entering unfamiliar organizationalsettings. Strategies based on the present framework wouldaim to intervene in the newcomer's cycle as sense is madeof surprise, rather than merely attempting to prevent oneform of surprise, the unmet conscious pre-entry job expec-tation.What this means at the practical level is that, at a minimum,certain secrecy norms, tha sink-or-swim, learn-on-your-ownphilosophy, and sanctions against sharing information amongoffice members are dysfunctional for newcomers and fortheir employing organizations as well. Each of these restrictspossible sources of relevant information available to new-comers. On the other hand, fostering links between new-comers and their insider peers or nonsupervisor superiorswould be beneficial. Superiors can support informal associa-tions between newcomer and co-worker insiders or moreformal programs, such as buddy systems, in which insidersreceive skills training and serve as guides for newcomers.Informal sponsor and mentor links between junior and seniormembers offer other models of relationships through whichinformation, perceptions, and interpretations of events in theorganization can be exchanged.

Another potential aid for newcomers is the appraisal pro-cess. Timely formal and informal feedback from superiors tonewcomers about their performance may reduce thestress-producing uncertainty of "not knowing how you're do-ing," and replace possibly inaccurate self-appraisals withdata from superiors, which guide the newcomer's sub-sequent assessments of equity in the situation. An earlyappraisal could provide newcomers with an understanding ofthe process and criteria of performance evaluation. Withsuch first-hand knowledge, the newcomer can be expectedto make more reality-based self-assessments; in addition,he or she is better equipped to interpret other events re-lated to evaluation, a crucial area in the newcomer's earlyorganizational life. An early appraisal could be treated as acollaborative sense-making session, in which the superiorhelps the newcomer try on a portion of an important in-sider's interpretive scheme.

Finally, there are implications for newcomers themselvesand for those who help prepare them to select and enterorganizations. It would be beneficial for newcomers to enterorganizations with an understanding of the nature of entryexperiences: why it is likely that they may experience sur-prises during the socialization period; why they, as new-comers, are relatively ill-equipped to make accurate sense ofsurprises arising during early job experiences; and how theymight proactively seek information from insiders at work tosupplement their own inadequate internal interpretiveschemes. Toward that end, college curricula and placementactivities could, as a matter of course, provide students witha preview of typical entn/ experiences and ways to managethem.

The implications for research and practice are based on theassumption that newcomers are ill-equipped to make sense

247iASQ

of the mynad surprises that potentially accompany entry intoan unfamiliar organization. It has been proposed that entrypractices that enhance newcomers' understandings of theirexperiences in and of new organizational settings will facili-tate newcomers' adaptation. Socialization practices shouldbe developed that help provide newcomers with insiders'situation-specific interpretations and setting-specific interpre-tive schemes. The insiders' view can supplement and bal-ance natural inadequacies in newcomers' sense-making ten-dencies and can hasten the development of more adequatelong-term self-sufficient functioning. Furthermore, it is likelythat supplementing newcomers' sense making will facilitateaccuracy in newcomers' interpretations of their immediateexperiences, on the basis of which individuals choose affec-tive and behavioral responses to early experiences on thejob and in the organization.

REFERENCES

Abelson, Robert P.1976 "Script processing In attitude

formation and decision mak-ing." In John S. Carroll andJohn W. Payne (eds.). Cogni-tion and Social Behavior:33-46. Hillsdale, N.J.; Law-rence Erlbaum.

Abelson, Robert P., Elliot Aronson,William J. McGuire, Theodore M.Newcomb, Milton J. Rosenberg,and Percy H. Tannenbaum1968 Theones of Cognjtive Con-

sistency: A Sourcebook.Chicago: Rand McNaily.

Anderson, Rolph E.1973 "Consumerdissatisfaction:

The effect of disconfirmedexpectancy on perceivedproduct performance." Jour-nal of Marketing Research,10: 38-44.

Argyris, Chris1964 Integrating the Individual and

the Organization. New York:John Wiley.

Bartlett, F. C.1932 Remembering. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Becker, Howard S., and Anselm L.Strauss1956 "Careers, personality, and

adult socialization." AmericanJournal of Sociology, 62:253-263.

Berger, Peter, and ThomasLuckman1966 The Social Construction of

Reality: A Treatise in theSociology of Knowledge. NewYork: Anchor Books.

Berlew, David E., and Douglas T.Hall1966 "The socialization of manag-

ers: Effects of expectationson performance." Administra-tive Science Quarterly, 11:207-223.

Bluedorn, Allen C.1978 "A taxonomy of turnover."

Academy of Management Re-view, 3: 647-650.

Bray, D., R. Campbell, and D.Grant1974 Formative Years in Business:

A Long-Term AT&T Study ofManagerial Lives. New York:Wiley.

Brim, OrvilleG., Jr.1966 "Socialization through the life

cycle." In Orville G. Brim, Jr.and Stanton Wheeler (eds.),Socialization after Childhood:Two Essays, 1-49. New York:Wiley.

1968 "Adult socialization." In JohnA. Clausen (ed.). Socializationand Society: 182-226. Bos-ton; Little, Brown.

Bruner, Jerome S., ed.1973 Beyond the Information Giv-

en: Studies in the Psychologyof Knowing. New York: Nor-ton.

Carlsmith, J. Merrill, and ElliotAronson1963 "Some hedonic conse-

quences of the confirmationand disconfirmation of expec-tancies." Journal of Abnormaland Social Psychology, 66:151-156.

Cicourel, Aaron V.1974 Cognitive Sociology: Lan-

guage and Meaning in SocialInteraction. New York: FreePress.

Dandridge, Thomas C.1979 "Major corporate anniversary

celebrations as means ofintra-organizational communi-cation." Presentation to theAcademy of Managementmeetings, Atlanta, August.

Dewey, John1933 How We Think: A Restate-

ment of the Relation of Re-flective Thinking to theEducative Process. Lexington,MA: Heath.

Dunnette, Marvin D., Richard D.Arvey, and Paul A. Banas1973 "Why do they leave?" Per-

sonnel, 50: 25-39.

Feldman, Daniel Charles1976 "A contingency theory of

socialization." AdministrativeScience Quarterly, 21: 433-452.

Festinger, Leon1957 A Theory of Cognitive Disso-

nance. Stanford, CA: StanfordUniversity Press.

Gagn6, R.M.1965 The Conditions for Leaming.

New York: Holt, Rinehart andWinston.

248/ASQ


Gamst, Frederick C, and EdwardNorbeck, eds.1976 Ideas of Culture: Sources and

Uses. NewYork: Holt,Rinehart and Winston.

Geertz, Clifford1973 The Interpretation of Cultures.

NewYork: Basic Books.Glaser, Barney G., and Anselnri L.Strauss1971 Status Passage. Chicago: Al-

dine.

Goodenough, Ward H.1964 Explorations in Cultural An-

thropology. New York:McGraw-Hill.

Hall, Douglas T.1976 Careers in Organizations.

Padfio Palisades, CA:Goodyear.

1979 "Socialization processes in lat-ter years: Adult developmentin organizations." Presentationto the Academy of Manage-ment meetings, Atlanta, Au-gust.

Hand, Herbert H., Rodger W. Grif-feth, and William H. Moblay1977 "Militar/enlistment, reenlist-

ment, and withdrawal re-search: A critical review ofthe literature." Columbia, SC:Center for Management andOrganizational Research, Uni-versity of South Carolina, Of-fice of Naval Research, Tech-nical Report No. 3 (ONR:TR3), ADA048955, April.

Hughes, Everett C.1958 Men and Their Work. Glen-

coe, IL: Free Press.

llgen, Daniel R.1975 "The psychological impact of

realistic job previews." Tech-nical Report No. 2, Depart-ment of Psychological Sci-ences, Purdue University, Au-gust.

llgen, Daniel R., and Bernard L.Dugoni1977 "Initial orientation to the or-

ganization: The impact onpsychological processes as-sociated with the adjustmentof new employees." Presen-tation to the Academy ofManagement meetings, Kis-simmee. FL, August.

llgen, Daniel R., Cynthia D. Fisher,and M. Susan Taylor1979 "Consequences of individual

feedback on behavior in or-ganizations." Journal ofApplied Psychology, 4: 349-371.

James, William1890 Principles of Psychology. New

York: Holt.

Jones, E. E., and K. E. Davis1965 "From acts to dispositions:

The attribution process in per-son perceptions." In L. Ber-kowitz (ed.). Advances in Ex-perimental Social Psychology,2: 219-266.

Jones, E. E., D. E. Kanouse, H. H.Kelley, R. E. Nisbett, S. Valins, andB. Weiner, eds.1972 Attribution: Perceiving the

Causes of Behavior. Morris-town, NJ: General LearningPress.

Katzell, Mildred Engberg1968 "Expectations and dropouts in

schools of nursing/' Journalof Applied Psychology, 52:154-157.

Kelley, Harold H.1967 "Attribution theory in social

psychology." In D. Levine(ed.), Nebraska Symposium onMotivation. Lincoln, NB: Uni-versity of Nebraska Press, 15:192-238.

1976 "Recent research in causal at-tribution." Address to West-ern Psychological Association,Los Angeles, April 10.

Koffka, Kurt1935 Principles of Gestalt Psychol-

ogy. NewYork: HarcourtBrace.

Kohler, Wolfgang1947 Gestalt Psychology. New

York: Mentor.

Kotter, John Paul1973 "The psychological contract:

Managing the joining-up pro-cess." California ManagementReview, 15: 91-99.

Kuhn, Thomas S.1970 The Structure of Scientific

Revolutions. Chicago: Univer-sity of Chicago Press.

Langer, Ellen J.1978 "Rethinking the role of

thought in social interac-tions." In John H, Harvey, Wil-liam Ickes, Robert F. Kidd(eds.). New Directions in At-tribution Research, 2: 35-58.

Latham, Gary P., and Gary A. YukI1975 "A review of research on the

application of goal setting inorganizations." Academy ofManagement Journal, 18:824-845.

Leifer, Richard1979 "Mythology as an organiza-

tional variable." Unpublishedpaper. Department of Man-agement, University of Mas-sachusetts.

Lewin, Kurt1951 Field Theory in Social Science.

Dorwin Cartwright, ed. NewYork: Harper and Row.

Locke, E. A.1968 "Toward a theory of task

motivation and incentives."Organizational Behavior andHuman Performance, 3:157-189.

Louis, Meryl Reis1978 "How MBA graduates cope

with early job experiences: Anexpectation/attribution ap-proach." Unpublished disser-tation. Graduate School ofManagement, University ofCalifornia-Los Angeles.

McClosky, Herbert, and John H.Schaar1963 "Psychological dimensions of

anomy." American Sociologi-cal Review, 30: 14-40.

McHugh, Peter1968 Defining the Situation: The

Organization of Meaning inSocial Interaction. In-dianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill.

Mead, George Herbert1964 On Social Psychology. Anselm

Strauss, ed. Chicago: Univer-sity of Chicago Press.

Merton, Robert1957 Social Theory and Social

Structure. Glencoe, IL: FreePress.

Miller, George A.1956 "The magical number seven,

plus or minus two: Some lim-its on our capacity for pro-cessing information." Psycho-logical Review, 63: 81-96.

Mills, C.Wright1940 "Situated actions and vocabu-

laries of motive." AmericanSociological Review, 5: 904-913.

Mitroff, lan I., and Ralph Kilmann1976 "On organizational stories: An

approach to the design andanalysis of organizationsthrough myths and stories."In Ralph H. Kilmann, Louis R.Pondy, and Donald P. Slevin(eds.). The Management ofOrganization Design:Strategies and Implementa-tion: 189-208. NewYork:Elsevier.

249/ASQ

Mobley, W, H., H, H. Hand, B, M.Meglino, and R, W, Griffeth1979a "Review and conceptual

analysis of the employeeturnover process," Psycho-logical Bulletin, 85: 493-522.

Mobley. William H,, Herbert H.Hand, Robert L, Baker, and BruceM, Meglino1979b "Conceptual and empirical

analysis of military recruittraining attrition," Journal ofApplied Psychology, 64:10-18-

Mobley, William H., and Bruce M.Meglino1979 "Toward further understand-

ing of the employee turnoverprocess," Presentation to theAcademy of Managementmeetings, Atlanta, August,

Mowday, Richard T.1979 "Reconciling expectations

with job experiences: Somethoughts on the role ofunmet expectations in theturnover process," Unpub-lished paper, Graduate Schoolof Management, University ofOregon,

Muchinsky, Paul M., and Mark L,Tuttle1979 "Employee turnover: An em-

pirical and methodological as-sessment," Journal of Voca-tional Behavior, 14: 43-77,

Oliver, Richard L.1977 "Effect of expectation and

disconfirmation on post expo-sure product evaluations: Analternative interpretation,"Journal of Applied Psychol-ogy, 62: 480-486,

Ouchi, William G., and Alfred M.Jaeger1978 "Type Z organization: Stability

in the midst of mobility,"Academy of Management Re-view, 3: 305-314.

Porter, Lyman W,, and Richard M.Steers1973 "Organizational, work, and

personal factors in employeeturnover and absenteeism,"Psychological Bulletin, 80:151-176.

Price, James L.1977 The Study of Turnover, Ames,

lA: Iowa State UniversityPress,

Reilly, Richard R,, Mary LTenopyr, and Steven M. Sperling1979 "Effects of job previews on

job acceptance and survival oftelephone operator candi-dates," Journal of AppliedPsychology, 64: 218-220.

Ritti, R, Richard, and G, Ray Funk-houser1977 The Ropes to Skip and the

Ropes to Know, Columbus,OH: Grid,

Ross, Ian C, and Alvin Zander1957 "Need satisfaction and em-

ployee turnover," PersonnelPsychology, 10: 327-338,

Ross, Lee1977 "The intuitive psychologist

and his shortcomings: Distor-tions in the attribution pro-cess," In L. Berkowit2 (eds,),Advances in Experimental So-cial Psychology, 10: 173-220,

Rotter, Julian B,1966 "Generalized expectations for

internal versus external con-trol of reinforcement," Psy-chological Monographs: Gen-eral and Applied, 80, No, 1,

Schein, Edgar H.1962 "Problems of the first year at

work: Report of the firstcareer panel re-union," Schoolof Industrial Management,Massachusetts Institute ofTechnology, September, No,03-62.

1965 Organizational Psychology,Englewood Cliffs, NJ:Prentice-Hall,

1968 "Organizational socializationand the profession of man-agement," Industrial Man-agement Review, 9: 1-16,

1971a "The individual, the organiza-tion, and the career: A con-ceptual scheme," Journal ofApplied Behavioral Science,7: 401-426,

1971b "Occupational socialization inthe professions: The case ofthe role innovator," Journalof Psychiatric Research, 8:521-530,

1978 Career Dynamics: MatchingIndividual and OrganizationalNeeds, Reading, MA:Addison-Wesley,

1979 "Personal change through in-terpersonal relationships," InWarren Bennis, John VanMaanen, Edgar H, Schein,Fred I, Steele (eds,), Essays inInterpersonal Dynamics:129-162, Homewood, IL:Dorsey Press,

Schutz, Alfred1964 Collected Papers M: Studies in

Social Theory, Arvid Broder-sen, ed- The Hague: MartinusNijhoff,

Scott, Marvin B., and Stanford M.Lyman1968 "Accounts," American

Sociological Review, 33:46-62,

Sherif, Muzafer, and Carl I,Hovland1961 Social Judgment: Assimilation

and Contrast Effects in Com-munication and AttitudeChange, New Haven: YaleUniversity Press.

Tannenbaum, Robert1976 "Some matters of life and

death," OD Practitioner, 8:1-7,

Taylor, Shelley E., and Susan T.Fiske1978 "Salience, attention and at-

tribution: Top of the headphenomena," In L, Berkowitz(ed,). Advances in Expen-mental Social Psychology, 11:249-288,

Turner, Victor W.1969 The Ritual Process, Chicago:

Aldine.

Van Gennep, Arnold1960 The Rites of Passage, Lon-

don: Routledge and KeganPaul,

Van Maanen, John1976 "Breaking in: Socialization to

work," In Robert Dubin (ed,).Handbook of Work, Organiza-tion, and Society: 67-130,Chicago: Rand McNally.

1977a "Experiencing organization:Notes on the meaning ofcareers and socialization,"InJohn Van Maanen {ed,). Or-ganizational Careers: SomeNew Perspectives: 15-45,New York: Wiley,

1977b Organizational Careers:Some New Perspectives.NewYork: Wiley,

Van Maanen, John, and Edgar H.Schein1979 "Toward a theory of organiza-

tional socialization," In BarryM, Stawfed,), Research inOrganizational Behavior, 1:209-264,

Vroom, Victor, and Edward L, Deci1971 "The stability of post-decision

dissonance: A follow-up studyof the job attitudes of busi-ness school graduates/' Or-ganizational Behavior andHuman Performance, 6:36-49.

Wanous, John P.1976 "Organizational entry: From

naive expectations to realisticbeliefs," Journal of AppliedPsychology, 61: 22-29.

1977 "Organization entry: New-comers moving from outsideto inside," Psychological Bul-letin, 84: 601-618,

2 50/ASQ

1978 "Realistic job previews: Can aprocedure to reduce turnoveralso influence the relationshipbetv\/een abilities and per-formance?" PersonnelPsychology, 31: 249-258.

1979 "Socialization processes atorganizational contact: Organi-zational entry reconcep-tualized." Presentation to theAcademy of Managementmeetings, Atlanta, August.

1980 Organizational Entry. Reading,MA. Addison-Wesley.

Ward, Lewis B., and Anthony G.Athos1972 Student Expectations of Cor-

porate Life: Implications forManagement Recruiting. Bos-ton: Division of Research,Harvard University.


Weick, Kar! E.1977 "Enactment processes in or-

ganizations." In Barry M. Stawand Gerald R. Salancik (eds.).New Directions in Qrganiza-tional Behavior: 267-300.Chicago: St. Clair.

1979 "Cognitive processes in or-ganizations." In Barry M. Staw(ed.), Research in Organiza-tional Behavior, 1: 41-74.

Weiner, Bernard1974 Achievement Motivation and

Attribution Theory. Morris-town, NJ: General LearningPress.

Weiss, Howard M.1978 "Social leaming of work val-

ues in organizations." Journalof Applied Psychology, 63:711-718.

Wheeler, Stanton1966 "The structure of formally or-

ganized socialization settings."In Orville G. Brim, Jr., andStanton Wheeler (eds.).Socialization after Childhood:Two Essays: 51-116. NewYork: Wiley.

Wilkins, Alan L1979 "Organizational history,

legends, and control." Unpub-lished paper, Department ofOrganizational Behavior,Brigham Young University.

Wilkins, Alan L., and JoanneMartin1979 "Organizational legends." Un-

published paper, GraduateSchool of Business, StanfordUniversity.

251/ASQ

Surprise and Sense Making: What New-comers Experience in Entering Unfamiliar Or-ganizational...

Documents

Transcript of Surprise and Sense Making: What New-comers Experience in Entering Unfamiliar Or-ganizational...