Time to Socialize: Organizational Socialization Structures and Temporality

TIME TO SOCIALIZE

Organizational Socialization Structuresand Temporality

Luis Felipe GómezTexas State University

Organizational socialization is a communicative practice that affects and is affected by organizationaltemporality. The relationship between organizational socialization practices and organizational tem-porality is empirically explored through a questionnaire focusing on Ballard and Seibold’s temporal-ity dimensions and measures emphasizing structural dimensions of socialization tactics. Findingsindicate that the perception of time as scarce is related to organizational members’ development offormal structures that promote socialization of newcomers. Further, findings suggest that organiza-tional members holding a future temporal focus may engage in the development of formal socializa-tion structures that provide social support for newcomers and help newcomers predict their careerpath within the organization.

Keywords: communication structures; organizational temporality; socialization practices; temporalfocus; temporal scarcity

“Time is a crucial factor in every event, without it there is no change, nogrowth, no cause and effect. . . .” (Gulick, 1987, p. 115). Gulick’s asser-tion illustrates the importance of understanding the role of time in theorganizational phenomena we study. Scholars have recently increasedtheir attention to temporality as an object of study in itself (e.g., Hassard,1991; McGrath & Tschan, 2004) and have suggested time as a new lensfor organizational research (e.g., Ancona, Goodman, Lawrence, &Tushman, 2001; Zaheer, Albert, & Zaheer, 1999). Nevertheless, we are

A previous version of this article was presented at the annual convention of the NationalCommunication Association, Chicago, Illinois (November 2004). The author conducted his researchwith the permission of his university’s institutional research board. Luis Felipe Gómez is an assistantprofessor in the Department of Communication Studies at Texas State University–San Marcos.Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Dr. Luis Felipe Gómez, Texas StateUniversity, Department of Communication Studies, Centennial Hall Room 205, 601 University Drive,San Marcos, TX 78666; phone: 512-245-3130; e-mail: [email protected].

Journal of Business Communication, Volume 46, Number 2, April 2009 179-207DOI: 10.1177/0021943608328077© 2009 by the Association for Business Communication

at SAN JOSE STATE UNIV on November 24, 2015job.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://job.sagepub.com/

only starting to integrate this collective experience of time, referred to astemporality (Ballard & Seibold, 2003), into our study of organizationalphenomena.

This article is a response to the need for research that explores howorganizational temporality influences organizational communicationprocesses. The conceptualization of organizational temporality as an inter-subjective experience of time that shapes and is shaped by organizationalcommunication structures—activity coordination, feedback cycles, andworkplace technologies—is the base of Ballard and Seibold’s (2003)arguments for the relevance of temporality in organizational communica-tion. However, a potential problematic with their conceptualization arisesbecause their emphasis on communication structures does not inform howorganizational temporality is recursively related to an organization’s com-munication processes. The next step in integrating temporality to organi-zational communication is to explore the other side of this recursiverelationship—how temporality influences communication structures andpractices. This article explores organizational socialization as a communi-cation practice that is related to organizational temporality.

The relationship between socialization and organizational temporalityis empirically explored, focusing on socialization tactics (e.g., Ashforth &Saks, 1996). The study presented here is based on questionnaires distrib-uted to a sample of K-12 educational administrators in charge of socializ-ing new teachers. Findings indicate that temporality and socializationpractices are related. Because socialization is inherently a communicationprocess (McPhee & Zaug, 2000; Myers & Oetzel, 2003), this articleadvances the emerging research on temporality in organizational commu-nication (e.g., Ballard & Seibold, 2004) by providing empirical evidenceof relationships between temporality and communication processes. Therelationships found between socialization processes and organizationaltemporality may lead researchers to explore potential relationshipsbetween organizational temporality and other communication processessuch as decision making and information sharing.

The next section describes socialization and explores its attributes as acommunication practice. Building on the description of socialization as acommunication practice, socialization and temporality are then linked the-oretically through socialization structures. The relationship between tem-porality and socialization is then empirically explored, and findingssuggest that a future temporal focus is related to structural dimensions ofsocialization practices that provide social support for newcomers and helpthem predict their career path within the organization.

180 JOURNAL OF BUSINESS COMMUNICATION



Socialization Structures Shape and areShaped by Temporality

Practice can be defined as “routinized behavior consisting of severalinterconnected elements situated in a social and historical context” (Kuhn& Ashcraft, 2003, p. 42). The organization’s structures and practices havean “emergent property” (p. 39) because organizations are constantly beingconstituted and re-constituted through conversation (Taylor & Robichaud,2004). In this sense, practice is analogous to communication flowsbecause it embeds “constitutive communication processes” (McPhee &Zaug, 2000, p. 3). A critical type of communication flow that constitutesorganizations is membership negotiation—the communication throughwhich the organization relates with each of its members, exemplified byrecruitment and socialization processes (McPhee & Zaug, 2000). Thesecommunication flows can thus be conceptualized as the social practicesthrough which organizational members both enact their own relationshipwith the organization and constrain the relationship of newcomers withthe organization.

As communication practices, socialization processes both shape inter-action and are shaped through interaction over time (Giddens, 1984).These socialization processes are appropriated differently across differ-ent organizations. This article suggests that the temporal differencesacross organizations relate to specific structures in their socializationpractices. Accordingly, the next section focuses on the socialization tac-tics to explore how the different socialization tactic dimensions relate totemporality.

The Structures Behind Socialization Practices

A critical issue in temporality research is that time has multiple dimen-sions (Ancona, Okhuysen, & Perlow, 2001; Ballard & Seibold, 2003;Bluedorn, 2002). This article suggests that socialization processes are struc-tured across several dimensions. Socialization tactics (van Maanen &Schein, 1979) include different dimensions of socialization practices andare related to how socialization process are structured across time and spacemore so than other models of socialization that focus mostly on the contentof these processes (e.g., Chao, Kelly, Wolf, Klein, & Gardner, 1994) or thenewcomers’ knowledge gained regarding organizational norms and theirorganizational roles—the degree of socialization that has taken place(Myers & Oetzel, 2003). By focusing on process (how newcomers’ expected

Gomez / SOCIALIZATION STRUCTURES AND TEMPORALITY 181



roles and organizational norms and policies are communicated), van Maanenand Schein’s socialization tactics capture socialization practices as commu-nicative processes more accurately than content (Chao et al., 1994) ordegree of change (Myers & Oetzel, 2003) models of socialization. Anotheradvantage of van Maanen and Schein’s socialization tactics is that the scaledeveloped by Jones (1986) has been improved and tested extensively (e.g.,Allen & Meyer, 1990; Ashforth & Saks, 1996; Ashforth, Saks, & Lee, 1997,1998; Baker & Feldman, 1991; Black, 1992; Cooper-Thomas & Anderson,2002; Lueke & Svyantek, 2000).

This article suggests that the temporaldifferences across organizations relateto specific structures in their socializa-tion practices.

In order to develop measures of structural dimensions of socialization,the article draws on Ashforth and Saks’s (1996) socialization tacticsscales. Socialization tactics are something “that organizations can use tostructure the socialization experiences of newcomers” (p. 149, italicsadded). Socialization tactics consist of six dimensions, which will bedescribed next.

The first of the socialization tactics dimensions is formal-informal, basedon whether or not newcomers are separated from the day-to-day organiza-tional context during socialization. The second dimension is individual-collective, depending on whether the newcomers are socialized as a groupor if each individual goes through a unique set of learning experiences.These two dimensions relate to whether socialization practices have a for-mal structure. The third dimension is sequential-random, based on thedegree to which there is a fixed sequence of steps that lead to the organi-zational role. Their fourth dimension is fixed-variable, depending onwhether newcomers are given a timetable for the stages in the socializa-tion process. The sequential-random and the fixed-variable dimensionsprovide information related to the perceived career possibilities within theorganization. The fifth dimension, serial-disjunctive, is based on whethernewcomers have access to experienced organizational members who serveas role models or whether they have to develop their own definitions of




situations. This fifth dimension relates to the level of social support pro-vided to newcomers. Finally, investiture-divestiture tactics refer to thedegree to which newcomers’ previous identities and experiences are eithervalued and affirmed as these newcomers are encouraged to build upontheir experience in their new roles (investiture) or discouraged in their newrole (divestiture) as organizational members (Ashforth & Saks, 1996).Thus, investiture is related to Jablin’s (2001) individuation processthrough which the individual influences the organization and to thedimension of role negotiation. The higher the investiture socialization tac-tic, the more the newcomer has the discretion to influence the organiza-tion through individuation (March, 1991). Ashforth and Saks note that,except for investiture, the socialization tactic dimensions cluster togetheralong a continuum—institutional to individual—that reflects the degree towhich they are formally structured. As such, this article will consider thedegree to which socialization tactics are institutional as a measure of theformal structure of socialization practices.

Some scholars treat socialization tactics as a tool that current organiza-tional members use to socialize newcomers (Ashforth & Saks, 1996;Baker & Feldman, 1991; Jones, 1986). Socialization tactics in this senseare something “that organizations can use to structure the socializationexperiences of newcomers” (Ashforth & Saks, 1996, p. 149, italicsadded). Nevertheless, previous empirical studies have not assessed howincumbent organizational members who are in the position of socializingnewcomers construct socialization practices. Rather, most research hasfocused on “newcomer perceptions of the tactics rather than the tacticsthemselves” (Cooper-Thomas & Anderson, 2002, p. 426). By focusing onstructural dimensions of socialization, this article takes a step back byfocusing on how socialization tactics are constructed by incumbent orga-nizational members based on their organizational interactions, whichinclude their inter-subjective construction of time (Ballard & Seibold,2003). Further, by classifying socialization tactics as structural dimen-sions, this article explores the relationship between socially constructedtemporal structures and a specific communication practice—socialization.

The relationship between temporality and the structural dimensions ofsocialization practices is complex because both concepts are multidimen-sional. This section described different dimensions of socializationprocesses. Similarly, the following section presents a review of differentdimensions of organizational temporality (Ballard & Seibold, 2003,2004). Because both are socially constructed through organizational




members’ interactions, the review of temporality dimensions illustratestheir potential relation to socialization tactics.

Dimensions of Organizational Temporalityand Their Relation to Socialization

Whereas an objective view of the experience of time implies a metricexternal to the individual, Mosakowski and Earley (2000) argue that “asubjective view suggests that time gains significance only through humaninterpretation” (p. 797). An individual’s interpretation of time, his or herexperience of time, does not happen in a vacuum; instead, it is affectedthrough communication with others (Bourdieu, 1977). Furthermore, insocial groups, these subjective experiences are drawn upon in negotiatingan inter-subjective, or shared, experience that transcends individual inter-pretations and exists as a shared temporality (Ballard & Seibold, 2003).Thus, time is experienced when interacting with others; it achieves sharedmeaning across organizational members through communication (Ballard& Seibold, 2003).

Based on a review of prior research regarding experiences of time,Ballard and Seibold (2003) suggest 10 dimensions of organizational tem-porality grouped within two distinct categories: enactments of time andconstruals of time. Enactments refer to the way work group members “per-form” time and include flexibility (the degree of rigidity in time structuringand task completion plans), linearity (the degree to which tasks are com-pleted one at a time), pace (tempo or rate of activity), precision (the exact-ing nature of timing and deadlines), scheduling (the extent to which thesequencing and duration of plans, activities, and events are formalized),and separation (the degree to which extraneous factors are eliminated orengaged in the completion of a work task). Temporal construals refer to theway work group members interpret or orient to time and include the dimen-sions of scarcity (perceiving time as a limited and exhaustible resource),urgency (preoccupation with deadlines and task completion), and presentand future temporal foci (how organizational members orient to present orfuture events in their interactions). The argument set forth in this article isthat some of Ballard and Seibold’s (2003) dimensions of time affect thedesign and implementation of formal socialization programs.

The types of socialization programs that organizational membersimplement reflect not only their social construction of the humanresources function but also their assumptions about temporality. Forexample, organizational members who construct time as scarce mightsacrifice formal training programs in order to move newcomers into




productive roles as fast as possible. When resources are scarce, “the con-tinual pressure to survive and gain competitive advantage in the marketmay lead a company treating labour as a variable input where it is a costto be minimized” (Kaye, 1999, p. 580). As Kaye notes, organizations thatconstruct time as limited usually reduce support activities such as humanresource development rather than compromise core activities such as pro-duction. For example, a construal of time as limited or scarce may leadorganizational members in charge of socializing others to prefer that new-comers learn as they perform a job rather than through a structured trainingprogram that is separate from the daily job activities and, thus, does not pro-vide immediate benefits to the organization. Accordingly, when organiza-tional members implementing socialization programs construct time asscarce, they may be inclined to reduce institutional socialization programsand socialize newcomers on a more informal-individual basis. The previ-ous discussion leads to Hypothesis 1:

Hypothesis 1: The scarcity temporal enactment is negatively related to formallystructured socialization practices.

The future focus organizational members construct may also affect how new-comers are socialized. Organizational members who construct a long-termview of organizational activities are more likely than members who envisiona short-term perspective to promote structured socialization programs. Forexample, employers who promote a long-term relationship with their employ-ees tend to implement more intensive formal on-the-job training (Frazis,Gittleman, & Joyce, 1998). Further, formally structured socializationprocesses relate to a strategic view of human resources. As Kaye (1999) notes,“By embracing a strategic framework, organizations are dealing with theirpresent reality in order to predict future requirements to gain advantage” (p.578). Constructing a strategic view of human resources implies developingstructured practices that align organizational members’ expertise to the orga-nization’s business objectives (Huselid, Jackson, & Schuler, 1997). This align-ment necessarily includes socialization efforts by incumbent organizationalmembers. Thus, the inter-subjective emphasis on the future, enacted througha strategic view of human resources, leads organizational members to engagein structured socialization practices. Accordingly, organizational memberswho construct a long-term focus are more likely to implement institutional-ized socialization practices. The previous discussion leads to Hypothesis 2:

Hypothesis 2: A future temporal focus is positively related to formallystructured socialization practices.




Another temporal dimension that may be related to formal structures ofsocialization practices is scheduling. Scheduling refers to the extent towhich the sequencing and duration of plans, activities, and events are for-malized (Ballard & Seibold, 2003). Formalized socialization practices aremore likely to include activities with a formalized sequence and duration.For example, structuring may be related to the sequential-random social-ization tactic, which refers to creating a fixed sequence of steps in the orga-nizational socialization process (Ashforth & Saks, 1996). Further, it mayalso be related to the fixed-variable, which refers to the degree to which theduration of each step in the socialization process has been defined andknown beforehand. Thus, scheduling as an enactment of temporality byorganizational members may relate positively to the formal structure ofsocialization practices. The previous discussion leads to Hypothesis 3:

Hypothesis 3: Scheduling is positively related to formally structured social-ization practices.

Precision is a temporal enactment that is closely related to scheduling.While scheduling refers to the degree to which the sequencing and durationof activities are formalized, precision refers to the degree to which organi-zational members abide by the established duration and timing of activities(Ballard & Seibold, 2003). For example, organizational groups that do notstart or finish meetings on time would have low precision. Another exampleof precision is the tri-monthly performance reviews that in some organiza-tions happen exactly at 3 months, whereas in other organizations the tri-monthly review takes place somewhere between the 2nd and 4th months. Asrelated to formal structures of socialization practices, precision relates towhether the structures that have been established are enacted according totheir pre-established timing. The previous discussion leads to Hypothesis 4:

Hypothesis 4: The precision temporal enactment is positively related to for-mally structured socialization practices.

Organizational members who constructa long-term view of organizational activi-ties are more likely than members whoenvision a short-term perspective to pro-mote structured socialization programs.




METHOD

Sample

The sample selected for this study is drawn from the population of edu-cational administrators overseeing teacher development and teacherinduction programs in Independent School Districts (ISDs) within thestate of Texas. One respondent whose job function was related to trainingand induction programs was selected from each independent school dis-trict. By focusing on administrative personnel in charge of organizationalinduction programs for new teachers within the ISDs, this study capturessocialization practices as they are constructed and enacted by experiencedmembers from these ISDs. Because the design of the study was based onan online questionnaire, the criterion for sample selection was that poten-tial respondents had institutional e-mail addresses. The total potentialsample size was 1,255 respondents, 1 per each ISD. After eliminatingthose contacts without institutional e-mail addresses (no e-mail addressesor commercial e-mail addresses like Yahoo, SBC, AOL, etc.), the samplesize was reduced to 885. Following Dillman (2000), three waves ofe-mails were sent within 1 to 2 weeks of each other. An e-mail invitingthem to participate in the study with the link to the consent form of thestudy was sent to these 885 potential respondents. Of these 885 potentialrespondents, 31 e-mails were undeliverable, leaving an effective samplesize of 854. From the 854 respondents who received the e-mail, 131answered the questionnaire after being invited to participate three times,representing a response rate of 15%.

The focus on established organizational members who can provide self-reports on the socialization processes enacted to socialize newcomers iscritical because their experiences can capture the inter-subjective experi-ence of socialization processes. The ISD personnel at a supervisory levelselected for this study can respond to how organizational members col-lectively structure socialization processes for newcomers. As such, theyare in an adequate position, as compared to newcomers, to report social-ization processes as collective enactments. This socialization process isimportant because, just as socialization practices are structured throughorganizational members’ interactions (McPhee & Zaug, 2000), organiza-tional temporality—organizational members’ inter-subjective experienceof time—is also a social construction (Ballard & Seibold, 2003). The nextsection describes Ballard and Seibold’s (2004) temporality scales.




Measures

Structural dimensions of socialization. The questionnaire was devel-oped drawing from the socialization tactics scale developed by Jones(1986) and adapted by Ashforth and Saks (1996). The socialization scalehas been applied to individuals entering organizational contexts. Theassumption made by these scholars applying the scale is that newcomerswho are being socialized (Allen & Meyer, 1990) can assess the socializa-tion tactics. In this study, the items were rephrased to capture the struc-tures of socialization practices as constructed by experienced teacherswho socialize newcomers into the teaching context. Accordingly, the scalehad to be modified to reflect the view of current organizational members.For example, one item originally phrased “there is a sense of ‘being in thesame boat’ among new members in the organization” by Ashforth andSaks was modified to “we try to instill a sense of ‘being in the same boat’among new members in the organization.”

By adapting Ashforth and Saks’s (1996) socialization tactics items toreflect the perspective of incumbent organizational members in charge ofsocializing new teachers into the schools, 21 items related to structuraldimensions were developed. As a first step in the analysis, these 21 itemswere factor analyzed. Although the main focus was on a factor represent-ing structured socialization practices, a six-factor solution was consideredbecause Ashforth and Saks’s (1996) scales represent six dimensions. Theexploratory factor analysis (EFA) results are shown in Table 1.

Three of the six factors emerging from the EFA had at least four itemswith factor loadings above 0.5. These three factors were used in the analy-sis as representing three separate dimensions of the structure of socializa-tion practices. The first factor was labeled formal structures because itrepresents issues related the degree to which socialization practices areformally structured. The formal structures dimension consists of eightitems and had a reliability of α = 0.79. The second factor was labeledcareer prediction because its items reflect the efforts of organizationalmembers to help newcomers understand their career path within the orga-nization. This factor had four items and a reliability of α = 0.73. Finally,the third factor was labeled social support because its four items reflectorganizational members’ supportive intentions toward newcomers. Thesocial support factor had a reliability of α = 0.64. These three factors com-plement and contrast the findings of previous studies that focus on new-comers’ perceptions of socialization tactics rather than the incumbents’




189

Ta

ble

1.

Ex

plo

rato

ry F

ac

tor

Str

uc

ture

of

the

Str

uc

tura

l D

ime

nsio

ns o

f S

oc

ializa

tio

n

Form

alC

aree

rR

ole

Soci

alSt

ruct

ure

Sepa

rati

onP

redi

ctio

nD

iscr

etio

nVa

riat

e 5

Supp

ort

New

mem

bers

are

gen

eral

ly le

ft a

lone

to d

isco

ver

0.72

2–0

.314

0.31

80.

080

–0.0

870.

330

wha

t the

ir r

ole

shou

ld b

e in

this

orga

niza

tion.

(R

)W

e ex

tens

ivel

y in

volv

e ne

w r

ecru

its to

geth

er in

0.

721

–0.0

240.

287

0.08

5–0

.203

0.35

5co

mm

on, r

ole-

rela

ted

trai

ning

act

iviti

es.

We

spec

ific

ally

des

igne

d a

set o

f le

arni

ng

0.71

30.

397

0.24

3–0

.098

–0.2

02–0

.012

expe

rien

ces

to g

ive

new

mem

bers

a th

orou

ghkn

owle

dge

of r

ole-

rela

ted

skill

s.E

xper

ienc

ed o

rgan

izat

iona

l mem

bers

see

adv

isin

g 0.

639

–0.2

290.

084

0.09

40.

066

0.39

7or

trai

ning

new

mem

bers

as

one

of th

eir

mai

nre

spon

sibi

litie

s in

this

org

aniz

atio

n.W

e m

ake

new

mem

bers

fee

l tha

t the

ir s

kills

and

0.

633

–0.1

830.

290

–0.1

20–0

.228

0.32

0ab

ilitie

s ar

e ve

ry im

port

ant t

o ou

r or

gani

zatio

n.E

ach

stag

e of

the

trai

ning

pro

cess

has

, and

will

, 0.

629

–0.0

430.

489

0.15

5–0

.083

–0.1

22ex

pand

and

bui

ld o

n th

e ro

le k

now

ledg

e ga

ined

duri

ng th

e pr

eced

ing

stag

es o

f th

e pr

oces

s.W

e m

ake

new

mem

bers

inst

rum

enta

l in

thei

r 0.

539

–0.0

730.

400

0.25

70.

211

0.27

9un

ders

tand

ing

of e

ach

othe

r’s

role

req

uire

men

ts.

We

put a

ll ne

w m

embe

rs th

roug

h th

e sa

me

set

0.47

20.

016

0.22

40.

327

0.39

40.

222

of le

arni

ng e

xper

ienc

es.

New

mem

bers

rec

eive

littl

e gu

idan

ce f

rom

0.

457

–0.4

650.

280

–0.2

13–0

.358

0.24

5ex

peri

ence

d co

lleag

ues

as to

how

to p

erfo

rmth

eir

role

. (R

)D

urin

g th

e tr

aini

ng p

rogr

am, w

e ke

ep n

ew

–0.0

440.

690

0.15

00.

199

0.15

7–0

.126

mem

bers

phy

sica

lly a

part

fro

m o

ther

reg

ular

orga

niza

tiona

l mem

bers

.

(con

tinu

ed)



190

Ta

ble

1.

(co

nti

nu

ed

)

Form

alC

aree

rR

ole

Soci

alSt

ruct

ure

Sepa

rati

onP

redi

ctio

nD

iscr

etio

nVa

riat

e 5

Supp

ort

New

mem

bers

do

not p

erfo

rm a

ny f

orm

al r

ole

0.17

60.

584

0.12

1–0

.053

–0.0

030.

354

resp

onsi

bilit

ies

until

they

are

thor

ough

ly f

amili

arw

ith th

e or

gani

zatio

n’s

proc

edur

es a

nd w

ork

met

hods

.M

ost o

f th

e tr

aini

ng f

or n

ew m

embe

rs is

don

e in

0.

076

0.42

80.

155

–0.0

240.

104

–0.1

63gr

oups

.T

here

is a

cle

ar p

atte

rn in

the

way

one

rol

e le

ads

to

0.10

30.

168

0.84

40.

079

0.00

90.

075

anot

her

in th

is o

rgan

izat

ion.

We

clea

rly

com

mun

icat

e to

new

mem

bers

the

way

in

0.32

1–0

.008

0.80

40.

115

–0.0

770.

238

whi

ch th

eir

prog

ress

thro

ugh

this

org

aniz

atio

n w

illfo

llow

a f

ixed

tim

etab

le o

f ev

ents

.T

he m

ovem

ent f

rom

rol

e to

rol

e an

d fu

nctio

n to

0.39

40.

048

0.66

6–0

.212

–0.0

470.

097

func

tion

to b

uild

exp

erie

nce

and

a tr

ack

reco

rd is

very

app

aren

t in

this

org

aniz

atio

n.M

ost o

f ne

w m

embe

rs’k

now

ledg

e of

wha

t may

0.34

0–0

.212

0.50

8–0

.253

–0.4

870.

152

happ

en to

them

in th

e fu

ture

com

es in

form

ally

,th

roug

h th

e gr

apev

ine,

rat

her

than

thro

ugh

regu

lar

orga

niza

tiona

l cha

nnel

s. (

R)

In th

is o

rgan

izat

ion,

you

mus

t “pa

y yo

ur d

ues”

0.28

4–0

.487

0.30

70.

122

–0.2

460.

334

befo

re y

ou a

re f

ully

acc

epte

d. (

R)

The

org

aniz

atio

n do

es n

ot tr

y to

cha

nge

the

valu

es–0

.042

–0.0

570.

124

0.79

4–0

.076

0.07

1an

d be

liefs

of

new

mem

bers

.T

he f

ollo

win

g st

atem

ent d

escr

ibes

the

attit

ude

of0.

196

0.08

3–0

.063

0.65

1–0

.083

–0.0

27or

gani

zatio

nal m

embe

rs to

war

d ne

w m

embe

rs:

“We

like

you

as y

ou a

re—

don’

t cha

nge.

”

(con

tinu

ed)



191

Ta

ble

1 (

co

nti

nu

ed

)

Form

alC

aree

rR

ole

Soci

alSt

ruct

ure

Sepa

rati

onP

redi

ctio

nD

iscr

etio

nVa

riat

e 5

Supp

ort

New

mem

bers

hav

e to

cha

nge

thei

r at

titud

es a

nd0.

094

–0.0

490.

105

0.19

0–0

.787

0.18

6va

lues

to b

e in

this

org

aniz

atio

n. (

R)

Org

aniz

atio

nal m

embe

rs g

o ou

t of

thei

r w

ay to

hel

p0.

257

–0.1

980.

241

0.03

0–0

.333

0.75

9ne

w m

embe

rs a

djus

t.W

e tr

y to

inst

ill a

sen

se o

f “b

eing

in th

e sa

me

boat

”0.

115

–0.0

380.

138

–0.0

180.

132

0.65

1am

ong

new

mem

bers

in th

e or

gani

zatio

n.W

e pr

omot

e a

pers

onal

ly s

uppo

rtiv

e en

viro

nmen

t0.

405

–0.1

250.

143

0.14

6–0

.303

0.64

1fo

r ne

w m

embe

rs.

Cur

rent

org

aniz

atio

nal m

embe

rs k

eep

new

mem

bers

0.30

6–0

.494

0.15

2–0

.007

–0.2

770.

547

at a

dis

tanc

e un

til th

ey c

onfo

rm to

exp

ecta

tions

. (R

)N

ew m

embe

rs a

re m

ade

to f

eel t

hat t

hey

still

hav

e0.

173

–0.2

940.

038

0.09

2–0

.556

0.11

9a

lot t

o le

arn.

(R

)N

ew m

embe

rs h

ave

little

or

no a

cces

s to

peo

ple

0.33

1–0

.313

0.17

5–0

.129

–0.1

490.

100

who

hav

e pr

evio

usly

per

form

ed th

eir

role

in th

eor

gani

zatio

n.T

his

orga

niza

tion

does

not

put

new

mem

bers

–0.7

98–0

.196

–0.3

95–0

.098

0.12

8–0

.133

thro

ugh

an id

entif

iabl

e se

quen

ce o

f le

arni

ngex

peri

ence

s. (

R)

Not

e:E

xtra

ctio

n m

etho

d: p

rinc

ipal

com

pone

nt a

naly

sis.

Rot

atio

n m

etho

d: O

blim

in w

ith K

aise

r no

rmal

izat

ion.

Ita

liciz

ed d

ata

refl

ect a

fac

tor

load

ing

with

a v

alue

abo

ve .5

.



reflection of how organizational members enact socialization as reportedin this article. The differences and commonalities of the factor analysisdeveloped in this article and previous findings are discussed next.

When Jones (1986) first developed scales to measure van Maanen andSchein’s six socialization tactics, his findings suggested that the sixsocialization tactics could be grouped into two factors. Jones’s findingssuggest that investiture-divestiture (whether newcomers’ previous identi-ties and experiences are either valued and affirmed as these newcomersare encouraged to build upon their experience in their new roles) and ser-ial-disjunctive (whether or not newcomers have access to experiencedorganizational members who serve as role models) are both social tacticswhich load on the same factor. Three of the four items loading consider-ably on the social support dimension are items measuring investiture-divestiture, which illustrates that social support in this article is, in part,consistent with Jones’s social tactics.

Jones’s (1986) second dimension, labeled content tactics, includes theserial-random (whether there is a fixed sequence of steps that lead to theorganizational role) and fixed-variable (whether newcomers are given atimetable for the stages in the socialization process) socialization tactics.Jones’s dimension is related to the career prediction factor found in thisarticle. Specifically, both factors capture the fixed-variable socializationtactic and the sequential-random socialization tactics.

The first two dimensions emerging from the factor analysis in this arti-cle resemble Jones’s (1986) first two dimensions. However, because Jonesfound no clear factor loadings for his proposed third dimension, contexttactics, the similarities with the formal structure dimension emerging fromthe factor analysis in this article are difficult to establish. Nevertheless, for-mal structure is consistent with Ashforth and Saks’s (1996) conceptual-ization of institutionalized socialization tactics as reflecting “a morestructured program of socialization” (p. 151).

The view of institutional socialization tactics as reflecting formal struc-tures in socialization programs has been consistently supported in studiesbased on newcomers’ self-report measures (e.g., Ashforth & Saks, 1996;Ashforth et al., 1997, 1998; Cooper-Thomas & Anderson, 2002). Withinorganizational communication, Hart and Miller (2005) conceptualizeinstitutional socialization tactics as structured contexts in which the con-tent of socialization is communicated. Consistent with previous researchalso focusing on newcomers’ perceptions, Hart and Miller found thatstructured contexts reduced newcomers’ perceived role ambiguity.




Ashforth and his colleagues’ (1997) findings provide further support forcategorizing all six socialization tactics dimensions as reflecting formalstructure. Although Ashforth and colleagues’ (1997) findings indicatestatistically significant fit differences [χ2(15) = 323.77, p < .001] betweena one-factor model (all socialization tactics as reflecting structured social-ization, with a goodness of fit of 0.725) and a six-factor model (eachsocialization tactic as one distinct dimension, with a goodness of fit of0.807), they also find that the improvement in fit is not large and neitherof the goodness-of-fit indices reaches the suggested cut-off point of 0.900.

The preceding paragraphs illustrate similarities in the factor structuresof socialization tactics in previous studies focusing on newcomers’ self-reports and socialization tactics in the present study, based on administra-tive personnel representing organizational members in charge ofsocializing newcomers. Consistent with prior research, the dimensions ofsocialization tactics appear to reflect the degree of formal structure insocialization activities. The second similarity is that Jones’s (1986)dimensions of social tactics resemble the social support dimension thatemerged from the EFA in this article. Finally, the third dimension emerg-ing from the EFA in this article, career prediction, is related to Jones’scontent tactics. Thus, although this article takes the point of view of orga-nizational incumbents rather than newcomers and the items are adapted toreflect this difference, the dimensions that emerge resemble prior researchbased on newcomers’ perceptions.

Temporality measures. The temporality scales are adapted from Ballardand Seibold’s (2004) dimensions of organizational temporality and areincluded in the appendix. The items in Ballard and Seibold’s urgency andscarcity subscales start with the following statement: “In my particular lineof work, we usually talk about time as. . . .” The scarcity subscaleincluded six items: time as insufficient, time as limited, time as not enough,time as plentiful (reverse coded), time as scarce, and time as inadequate;this scale had a reliability of α = .91. The items created by Ballard andSeibold (2004) for the pace, flexibility, precision, and scheduling scalesstart with, “In my particular line of work, we usually talk about our actionsor activities as. . . .” The pace subscale included four items: activities asfast-paced, hurried, quick, racing, and rapid; this scale had a reliability ofα = .73. The flexibility subscale included Ballard and Seibold’s (2004) twoitems with highest loading on the flexibility factor: rigid and inflexible. Inorder to reflect flexibility, these two items were reverse coded. This scalehad a reliability level of α = .68. Ballard and Seibold’s (2004) precision




scale included two items: running late and behind schedule. These twoitems had a reliability of α = .82. The scheduling scale consisted of the fol-lowing three items: unstructured, unscheduled, and unplanned. This scalehad a reliability of α = .61, which is higher than Ballard and Seibold’s(2004) α = .53 but still implies low statistical power. Dropping the unstruc-tured item increased the reliability to α = .78. Although it is not generallyrecommended to have fewer than three items per scale, given the differencein complexity of the potential response to unstructured as compared to thesimple understanding of scheduled and unplanned, it was decided to goahead with a two-item scale.

As developed by Ballard and Seibold (2004), the items that measuretemporal foci start with the following statement: “In my particular line ofwork, we usually discuss events that happen at work in terms of. . . .”The items that measure the present temporal focus scale in this study were“the immediate consequences,” “the here-and-now,” and “what is urgenttoday.” The present temporal focus scale had a reliability of α = .69. Thefuture temporal focus scale included the following items: lessons for thefuture, long-term expectations, long-term plans, upcoming activities,future developments, and guide for the future. The reliability of the futuretemporal focus scale was α = .89.

Thus, although this article takes thepoint of view of organizational incum-bents rather than newcomers and theitems are adapted to reflect this differ-ence, the dimensions that emergeresemble prior research based on new-comers’ perceptions.

Although there are other scales that measure temporal perceptions(e.g., Zimbardo & Boyd, 1999), Ballard and Seibold’s (2004) measurescapture temporal experience as inter-subjective—emerging from communi-cation among organizational members. Their scales capture organizationalmembers’ communication by focusing on how organizational members“talk about time” or how members “discuss events that happen at work.”The framing of their questions in this manner ensures that the items cap-ture what organizational members talk about rather than what individualorganizational members perceive.




Analysis

Following Ashforth and Saks (1996), canonical correlation was used totest the relationships among the structural dimensions of socialization, aswell as their relationship with temporality dimensions. Canonical correla-tion analysis (CCA) has advantages. First, using multivariate methodssuch as CCA reduces the probability of committing “experiment-wise”Type 1 errors—finding relationships that are not there—by performingseveral regressions or other univariate tests (Humphries-Wadsworth,1998; Sherry & Henson, 2005).

A second advantage of CCA is that multivariate analyses best capturethe complex cause-effects relationships of human behavior (Humphries-Wadsworth, 1998; Sherry & Henson, 2005). Testing the relationships ofthe socialization structures and the temporal dimensions simultaneouslythrough CCA captures the complex relationships of these constructs.Similar to factor analysis, each canonical function, or variate—a weightedcombination of predictor and dependent variables—captures a proportionof the total variance. Accordingly, it is recommended (Sherry & Henson,2005) to focus the analysis and discussion only on those variates that cap-ture a significant portion of the variance.1

RESULTS

Table 2 summarizes the descriptive statistics of the socialization struc-tures and temporality dimensions. Table 3 presents the Pearson correla-tions between all the temporality dimensions studied and the socializationstructures considered. Regarding the relationship between temporality andsocialization tactics, the correlation table indicates that scarcity, precision,scheduling, and future temporal focus are significantly related to all fivesocialization tactics considered. Future temporal focus is related with allfive socialization tactics at the p > .001 level.

The CCA yielded three functions with squared canonical correlations(RC

2) of .497, .176, and .035, respectively, for each successive function.Collectively, the full canonical model across the six functions was statisti-cally significant, Wilks’s λ = .400, F(24, 3537.04) = 5.226, p < .001.Because Wilks’s λ represents the variance unexplained by the model, 1 – λyields the full model effect size and is a R2 metric. Thus, for the set of threecanonical functions, the R2 type effect size was .600, which indicates thatthe full model explained a substantial portion, 60%, of the variance shared




between the variable sets. The model with functions two and three was sta-tistically significant, Wilks’s λ = .795, F(14, 234.00) = 2.034, p = .016. Themodel with function three in isolation was not statistically significant.Given the lack of statistical significance and low effect sizes of functionthree, the analysis focused only on the first two canonical functions.

After identifying that the model itself was significant, the next step wasto identify the specific significant relationships (Thompson, 1997). Table4 presents the structure coefficients, the squared structure coefficients, andthe commonalities (Hypothesis 2) across the two functions. The firstobservation from Table 4 is that all three structural dimensions load con-siderably into the first canonical variate. Accordingly, the first variate wasconsidered as representing structured socialization. This first canonicalvariate accounted for 49.70% of the total variance while the second vari-ate accounted for 17.60%. Because the only structural dimension thatloaded considerably into the second canonical variate was social support,this variate was labeled as support.

Hypothesis 1 tests the proposed negative relationship between scarcityand formally structured socialization practices. This hypothesis was sup-ported at the multivariate level. Scarcity has a considerable negative loadon the institutional canonical variate (–0.514). Nevertheless, further uni-variate analysis illustrated in Table 5 found significant negative relation-ships between scarcity and the structures that allow newcomers to predicttheir career path (β = –0.407, p = .006) but not to formal structures of


Table 2. Means and Standard Deviations of Structural Dimensionsof Socialization and Temporality Dimensions

N Min. Max. M SD

Urgency 129 1.00 7.67 3.80 1.46Scarcity 129 1.83 8.00 5.07 1.58Flexibility 128 2.67 8.00 6.04 1.16Pace 129 1.20 7.40 4.77 1.33Precision 129 1.00 7.67 2.64 1.31Scheduling 127 1.00 8.00 2.59 1.50Present 130 1.67 7.67 4.72 1.36Future 130 2.14 8.00 6.55 0.88Formal structure 131 2.00 7.75 5.76 1.08Career prediction 131 1.00 7.75 5.22 1.40Social support 131 4.50 8.00 6.83 0.81



197

Ta

ble

3.

Pe

ars

on

Co

rre

lati

on

s o

f Te

mp

ora

lity

Dim

en

sio

ns a

nd

So

cia

liza

tio

n T

ac

tic

s

Urg

ency

Scar

city

Fle

xibi

lity

Pace

Pre

cisi

onSc

hedu

ling

Urg

ency

1Sc

arci

ty0.

346*

1Fl

exib

ility

–0.4

10*

–0.2

211

Pace

0.53

5*0.

446*

–0.2

88*

1Pr

ecis

ion

0.51

1*0.

227

–0.3

72*

0.24

4*1

Sche

dulin

g0.

519*

0.19

7–0

.506

*0.

331*

0.52

2*1

Pres

ent

0.52

6*0.

114

–0.2

53*

0.38

4*0.

204

0.35

6*Fu

ture

–0.1

21–0

.107

0.19

3–0

.010

–0.3

39*

–0.3

19*

Form

al s

truc

ture

–0.2

61*

–0.3

05*

0.18

7–0

.190

–0.3

73*

–0.4

02*

Car

eer

pred

ictio

n–0

.168

–0.4

44*

0.04

2–0

.217

–0.2

90*

–0.2

49*

Soci

al s

uppo

rt–0

.138

–0.0

930.

267*

–0.0

24–0

.345

*–0

.316

*

Pre

sent

Fut

ure

Form

al S

truc

ture

Car

eer

Pre

dict

ion

Soci

al S

uppo

rt

Pres

ent

1Fu

ture

–0.0

821

Form

al s

truc

ture

–0.1

060.

513*

1C

aree

r pr

edic

tion

–0.0

880.

319*

0.47

2*1

Soci

al s

uppo

rt–0

.151

0.42

9*0.

418*

0.29

1*1

*Cor

rela

tions

sig

nifi

cant

at t

he .0

1 le

vel.



socialization practices. Thus, perception of time as scarce by organiza-tional members reduces organizational members’ use of structures andresources that would allow newcomers to predict their career paths withinthe organization.

Hypothesis 2 tests the proposed positive relationship between a futuretemporal focus and the formal structure of socialization practices.


Table 4. Canonical Solution for Urgency, Scarcity, Flexibility,Pace, Scheduling, and Present and Future TemporalPerspectives as Predictors of Structural Dimensionsof Socialization for Canonical Functions 1 and 2

FormalSocialization Support

Variable rs rs2 (%) rs rs

2 (%) h2 (%)

Formal structure 0.894 79.92 0.059 0.35 80.27Career prediction 0.720 51.84 –0.595 35.40 87.24Social support 0.635 40.32 0.612 37.45 77.78RC

2 49.70 17.60Urgency –0.369 13.62 0.018 0.03 13.65Scarcity –0.514 26.42 0.686 47.06 73.48Flexibility 0.298 8.88 0.460 21.16 30.04Pace –0.276 7.62 0.35 12.25 19.87Scheduling –0.612 37.45 –0.211 4.45 41.91Precision –0.617 38.07 –0.165 2.72 40.79Present –0.152 2.31 –0.135 1.82 4.13Future 0.835 69.72 0.335 11.22 80.95

Note: Italicized data reflect a canonical loading with an absolute value above .5.

Table 5. Temporality Dimensions as Predictors of InstitutionalSocialization Tactics

Formal Structure Career Prediction Social Support

Urgency –0.050 0.095 0.104Scarcity –0.164 –0.407* –0.008Flexibility –0.092 –0.191 0.125Pace –0.044 –0.052 0.081Scheduling –0.229 –0.149 –0.106Precision –0.079 –0.144 –0.177Present 0.099 0.004 0.075Future 0.442* 0.236* 0.338*

*Significant at the p < .01 level.



Hypothesis 2 was supported. A future temporal focus loaded considerablyon the formal socialization variate (0.835). Further, a future temporalfocus is a significant predictor of formal structures (β = 0.442, p < .001),structures that help newcomers predict their career path (β = 0.236, p =.006), and social support structures (β = 0.338, p < .001). Accordingly, afuture focus may promote formal socialization structures, structures thathelp newcomers predict their future within the organization, and struc-tures that enhance social support toward newcomers.

Hypothesis 3 tests the proposed relationship between scheduling andthe structural dimensions of socialization practices. Hypothesis 4 tests theproposed positive relationship between precision in the timing of organi-zational activities and the institutional configuration of socialization tac-tics dimensions. These two hypotheses were not supported. Although bothprecision and scheduling loaded considerably into the formal socializationcanonical variate, their loading was negative. Thus, precision—the exact-ing nature of timing and deadlines—and scheduling—the extent to which thesequencing and duration of plans, activities, and events are formalized—may have a negative relationship with formal structures of socializationpractices. These reflect counter-intuitive findings that need to be furtherconsidered. Further, in the univariate analyses, these two temporal dimen-sions are not significant predictors of formal structures, structures thathelp newcomers predict their career path, or social support structures.

DISCUSSION

The experience of time is embedded in organizational practices. Thisarticle explores the relationship between temporality and structural dimen-sions of organizational socialization processes in educational (K-12) set-tings. Most empirical research in organizational socialization relies onself-reports of newcomers being socialized into organizations. In contrast,I focus on the rules and resources created by organizational members thatsocialize newcomers. This approach is consistent with the view of social-ization as people-processing strategies (van Maanen & Schein, 1979).The findings suggest that temporality is related to how socialization struc-tures are enacted by organizational members in charge of socializingnewcomers.

Support for Hypotheses 1 and 2 suggests that temporal dimensions arerelated to the structures of organizational socialization processes. Forexample, a critical temporality dimension is the perception that time is a




scarce, non-renewable resource. The scarcity of resources is one of threetemporal problems inherent in collective action (McGrath & Kelly, 1986).Organizational functions thus battle for the allocation of these resources.The findings in this article suggest that human resource functions such astraining and socialization may be losing this allocation battle to otherfunctions such as production—getting teachers into classrooms as soon aspossible. Socialization structures are just one communication practice thatmay be affected by perceived scarcity of time. Other research also pro-poses that when time is scarce, communication that applies to the produc-tive core is also reduced across organizational members (Perlow, 1997).Accordingly, the perception of time as scarce may reduce all forms ofcommunication within organizations.

The temporality dimension most related to the development of struc-tural dimensions of socialization practices may be a future temporal focus.Having a future focus becomes critical when time is perceived as a scarceresource because resources have to be allocated across time (Levinthal &March, 1993; March, 1991). For example, how organizational resourcessuch as person hours, investments, equipment, and effort are allocatedacross time may be related to the value organizational members assign tothe present and to the future (March, 1991). The knowledge newcomersbring to organizations is critical for organizational learning and futureadaptation (March, 1991). The findings in this study suggest that organi-zational members’ future focus may be related to the development ofstructures that formalize socialization practices, help newcomers predicttheir future within the organization, and provide social support. Althoughthe theoretical argument is that a future focus promotes the developmentof formalized socialization structures, the cross-sectional design of thestudy allows only for the testing of relationships and not causation.Nevertheless, the finding that a future focus is related to formalizedsocialization structures suggests that a future focus may help promoteeffective socialization tactics through structures that help newcomersassimilate into the organization by receiving social support and under-standing their future within the organization.

The main contribution in this article is the finding that socially con-structed organizational temporality is related to how organizational mem-bers enact socialization practices. When discussing communicationprocesses, scholars need to take into account both the content of communi-cation as well as structure through which the message is communicated—the how (Hart & Miller, 2005). Accordingly, in organizational socializationresearch, it is important to understand the reasons behind the structuring of




communication messages toward newcomers. This article finds a relation-ship between organizational members’ temporal focus and organizationalmembers’ enactment of structured socialization practices toward newcom-ers. As Hart and Miller (2005) note, it is important to understand both thestructure and the content of organizational socialization. This article takesa step back by suggesting how temporality influences the structure ofsocialization practices. Future research might consider not only the rela-tionship between temporality and structure of socialization practices butalso whether temporal focus is related to the content of socialization mes-sages. Further, by focusing on socialization as a communication practice,this article extends the research relating temporality to communication out-comes such as communication load and satisfaction with inter-departmen-tal communication (Ballard & Seibold, 2006). This contribution may leadto further research focusing on the relationship between temporality andother communication practices within organizational contexts. For exam-ple, temporal focus may influence other communication processes by orga-nizational members such as information sharing, participation, anddecision making. Future research may shed light on how temporalityrelates to these and other communication processes.

The findings suggest that temporalityis related to how socialization struc-tures are enacted by organizationalmembers in charge of socializingnewcomers.

At a practical level, managers and administrators benefit from the find-ings that relate temporal scarcity and temporal foci to the degree of struc-turing of socialization practices. Specifically, the findings may help theseadministrators and managers understand that they may need to compensatefor their natural inclination to reduce efforts in socializing newcomerswhen time is perceived as scarce. Further, they also benefit by under-standing that a short-term focus may reduce their investment efforts inactivities such as developing their people. Understanding that a lack offocus on the future may inhibit communication practices that could bene-fit organizational members in the long term could lead these administra-tors to find ways to foster a future focus within their organizations.




LIMITATIONS AND IMPLICATIONSFOR FURTHER RESEARCH

This study was both enabled and constrained by the assumptions madeto inform prior research. Most prior research is based on newcomers’ self-reports (e.g., Allen & Meyer, 1990; Ashforth & Saks, 1996; Chao et al.,1994; Myers & Oetzel, 2003). In contrast, following the premises ofsocialization tactics as tools that “organizations can use to structure thesocialization experiences of newcomers” (Ashforth & Saks, 1996, p. 149),this article takes the point of view of organizational members in charge ofsocializing newcomers. Just as focusing on newcomers captures only onepart of the socialization dynamics, taking the point of view of current orga-nizational members may also capture only part of the story. Understandingthe structures behind socialization processes does allow for greater under-standing of those mutual influence processes. Nevertheless, other views ofsocialization processes that treat socialization as socially constructedthrough the interaction of current organizational members and newcomers(e.g., Callister, Kramer, & Turban, 1995; Kramer, 1995; Miller, Johnson,Hart, & Peterson, 1999) can inform this research. To get at this social con-struction process, future research needs to integrate the content of social-ization (e.g., Chao et al., 1994), the outcomes related to socialization (e.g.,Myers & Oetzel, 2003), and the structural dimensions of socializationprocesses and how they are influenced by other organizational issues suchas temporality. Given that socialization processes involve both the organi-zation and newcomers (Jablin, 1987, 2001), further research is needed todevelop a scale that can adequately capture how current organizationalmembers and newcomers co-construct the structures that enable and con-strain socialization processes.

CONCLUSION

Findings indicate that there is a relationship between socialization tac-tics and temporality. In other words, socialization tactics are processesthat can be conceptualized as communication structures that shape and areshaped by temporality. Some of the relationships found between socializa-tion tactics and temporality provide insights into March’s (1991) exploita-tion-exploration paradox in organizational learning. The fact that therelationship between socialization and temporality informs organizationallearning reinforces the argument that socialization is a form of learning.Socialization processes have the additional advantage of allowing us to




study the inherently communicative learning processes through a meso-level approach. A meso-level approach to organizational communicationresearch allows us to focus on “the construction of context by individualpsychological processes and social dynamics” (Rousseau & House, 1994,p. 16). Socialization processes provide a meso-level vantage point becausethey are inherently social dynamics through which organizational mem-bers and newcomers co-construct their context and, hence, learn fromeach other in the process (March, 1991). Future research is needed inorder to understand the relationship between organizational members’experience of time and organizational learning practices from the meso-level vantage point that socialization processes provide.

APPENDIX

Ballard and Seibold’s (2004) Temporality Scales

“In this organization, we usually talk about our activities as . . .”Urgency

EmergencyPressingUrgent

FlexibilitySet in stone (R)Inflexible (R)Fixed (R)Rigid (R)

SchedulingTightly scheduledUnplannedUnscheduled

LinearityStructuredJuggling several things at once

PunctualityOn timeRunning lateBehind schedule

“In this organization, we usually talk about time as . . .”Scarcity

InsufficientScarceLimited


(continued)



APPENDIX (continued)

Not enoughPlentiful (R)Inadequate

PaceHurriedRapidQuickRacingFast-paced

“We usually talk about events that happen in this organization in terms of . . .”Present Temporal Focus

What is urgent todayThe here-and-nowThe immediate consequencesPresently developing issues

Future Temporal FocusLong-term expectationsLessons for the futureUpcoming activitiesProjected datesLong-term plansFuture developmentsGuide for the future

Note: (R) = reverse coded.

NOTE

1. Because canonical correlation analysis allows for correlation between variables inthe model, it is recommended that the analysis be based on structure coefficients—“thedirect contribution of one predictor to the predictor criterion variable [variate] regardless of[the contribution of] other predictors” (Sherry & Henson, 2005, p. 43)—instead of on betaweights. Beta weights are standardized and control for the contribution of other predictors,treating them as independent. Further, the square of the structure coefficients captures theeffect size. Although sometimes ignored by some scholars, effect size might be more rele-vant to understanding relationships among variables than significance, since a relationshipcan be significant and yet have a negligible effect size (Sherry & Henson, 2005).

REFERENCES

Allen, J. A., & Meyer, J. P. (1990). Organizational socialization tactics: A longitudinalanalysis of links to newcomers’ commitment and role orientation. Academy ofManagement Journal, 33, 847-858.




Ancona, D. G., Goodman, P. S., Lawrence, B. S., & Tushman, M. L. (2001). Time: A newresearch lens. Academy of Management Review, 26, 645-663.

Ancona, D. G., Okhuysen, G. A., & Perlow, L. A. (2001). Taking time to integrate tempo-ral research. Academy of Management Review, 26, 512-529.

Ashforth, B. E., & Saks, A. M. (1996). Socialization tactics: Longitudinal effects on new-comer adjustment. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 149-178.

Ashforth, B. E., Saks, A. M., & Lee, R. (1997). On the dimensionality of Jones’ (1986)measures of organizational socialization tactics. International Journal of Selection andAssessment, 5, 200-214.

Ashforth, B. E., Saks, A. M., & Lee, R. (1998). Socialization and newcomer adjustment:The role of organizational context. Human Relations, 51, 897-926.

Baker, H. E., & Feldman, D. C. (1991). Linking organizational socialization tactics with humanresource management strategies. Human Resource Management Review, 1, 193-202.

Ballard, D. I., & Seibold, D. R. (2003). Communicating and organizing in time: A meso-level model of organizational temporality. Management Communication Quarterly, 16,380-415.

Ballard, D. I., & Seibold, D. R. (2004). Organizational members’ communication and tem-poral experience: Scale development and validation. Communication Research, 31,135-172.

Ballard, D. I., & Seibold, D. R. (2006). The experience of time at work: Relationship tocommunication load, job satisfaction, and interdepartmental communication.Communication Studies, 57, 317-340.

Black, J. (1992). Socializing American expatriate managers overseas: Tactics, tenure, androle innovation. Group and Organization Management, 17, 171-192.

Bluedorn, A. C. (2002). The human organization of time: Temporal realities and experi-ence. Stanford, CA: Stanford Business Books.

Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a theory of practice. Cambridge, UK: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Callister, R. R., Kramer, M. W., & Turban, D. B. (1995). Feedback-seeking followingcareer transitions. Academy of Management Journal, 42, 429-438.

Chao, G. T., Kelly, A. M., Wolf, S., Klein, H. J., & Gardner, P. D. (1994). Organizationalsocialization: Its content and consequences. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 730-743.

Cooper-Thomas, H., & Anderson, N. (2002). Newcomer adjustment: The relationshipbetween organizational socialization tactics, information acquisition and attitudes.Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 75, 423-437.

Dillman, D. A. (2000). Mail and Internet surveys: The tailored design method (2nd ed.).New York: John Wiley.

Frazis, H., Gittleman, M., & Joyce, M. (1998). Determinants of training: An analysis usingboth employer and employee characteristics. Washington, DC: Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society: Outline of the theory of structuration.Berkeley: University of California Press.

Gulick, L. (1987). Time and public administration. Public Administration Review, 47, 115-119.Hart, Z. P., & Miller, V. D. (2005). Context and message content during organizational

socialization: A research note. Human Communication Research, 31, 295-309.Hassard, J. (1991). Aspects of time in organization. Human Relations, 44, 105-125.Humphries-Wadsworth, T. M. (1998). Features of published analyses of canonical results.

Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational ResearchAssociation, San Diego, CA.




Huselid, M., Jackson, S. E., & Schuler, R. E. (1997). Technical and strategic humanresources management effectiveness as determinants of firm performance. Academy ofManagement Review, 40, 171-188.

Jablin, F. M. (1987). Organizational entry, assimilation, and disengagement/exit. In F. M.Jablin & L. L. Putnam (Eds.), Handbook of organizational communication: An inter-disciplinary perspective (pp. 679-740). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Jablin, F. M. (2001). Organizational entry, assimilation, and disengagement/exit. In F. M.Jablin & L. L. Putnam (Eds.), The new handbook of organizational communication:Advances in theory, research, and methods (pp. 732-818). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Jones, G. R. (1986). Socialization tactics, self-efficacy, and newcomers’ adjustments toorganizations. Academy of Management Journal, 29, 262-279.

Kaye, L. (1999). Strategic human resources management in Australia: The human cost.International Journal of Manpower, 20, 577-587.

Kramer, M. W. (1995). A longitudinal study of superior-subordinate communication dur-ing job transfers. Human Communication Research, 22, 39-64.

Kuhn, T., & Ashcraft, K. L. (2003). Corporate scandal and the theory of the firm:Formulating the contributions of organizational communication studies. ManagementCommunication Quarterly, 17, 20-57.

Levinthal, D. A., & March, J. G. (1993). The myopia of learning. Strategic ManagementJournal, 14, 95-112.

Lueke, S., & Svyantek, D. (2000). Organizational socialization in the host country: Themissing link in reducing expatriate turnover. International Journal of OrganizationalAnalysis, 8, 380-400.

March, J. G. (1991). Exploitation and exploration in organizational research. OrganizationScience, 2, 71-87.

McGrath, J. E., & Kelly, J. R. (1986). Time in human interaction: Toward a social psy-chology of time. New York: Gilford.

McGrath, J. E., & Tschan, F. (2004). Temporal matters in social psychology: Examiningthe role of time in the lives of groups and individuals. Washington, DC: AmericanPsychological Association.

McPhee, R. D., & Zaug, P. (2000). The communicative constitution of organizations: Aframework for explanation. Paper presented at the Western States CommunicationAssociation Convention, Sacramento, CA.

Miller, V. D., Johnson, J. R., Hart, Z., & Peterson, D. L. (1999). A test of antecedents andoutcomes of employee role negotiation ability. Journal of Applied CommunicationResearch, 27, 24-48.

Mosakowski, E., & Earley, P. C. (2000). A selective review of time assumptions in strat-egy research. Academy of Management Review, 25, 796-812.

Myers, K. K., & Oetzel, J. G. (2003). Exploring the dimensions of organizational assimi-lation: Creating and validating a measure. Communication Quarterly, 51(4), 438-457.

Perlow, L. A. (1997). Finding time: How corporations, individuals, and families can ben-efit from work practices. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Rousseau, D. M., & House, R. J. (1994). Meso organizational behavior: Avoiding threefundamental biases. In C. L. Cooper & D. M. Rousseau (Eds.), Trends in organiza-tional behavior (Vol. 1, pp. 13-30). New York: John Wiley.

Sherry, A., & Henson, R. (2005). Conducting and interpreting canonical correlation analysisin personality research: A user friendly primer. Journal of Personality Assessment, 84,37-48.




Taylor, J. R., & Robichaud, D. (2004). Finding the organization in the communication:Discourse as action and sensemaking. Organization, 11, 395-413.

Thompson, B. (1997). Editorial policies regarding statistical significance tests: Furthercomments. Educational Researcher, 26, 29–32.

van Maanen, J., & Schein, E. H. (1979). Toward a theory of organizational socialization.Research in Organizational Behavior, 1, 209-264.

Zaheer, S., Albert, S., & Zaheer, A. (1999). Time scales and organizational theory.Academy of Management Review, 24, 725-741.

Zimbardo, P. G., & Boyd, N. J. (1999). Putting time in perspective: A valid, reliableindividual-differences metric. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 6,1271-1288.




Time to Socialize: Organizational Socialization Structures and Temporality

Documents

Transcript of Time to Socialize: Organizational Socialization Structures and Temporality