International Journal of Selection and Assessment Volume 2 Number 3 July 1994 ACADEMIC PAPERS The Organizational Socialization Inventory ROBERT J. TAORMINA 133 Assessing Person-Organization Fit in Personnel Selection: Guidelines for Future Research RONALD J. KARREN and LAURA M. GRAVES 146 The Validity of the SHL Customer Service Questionnaire (CSQ) ADRIAN FURNHAM 157 PROFESSIONAL FORUM Work Samples Should Be Used More (and Will Be) ROBERT WOOD 166 Questionnaire Surveys of Organizational Assessment Practices: A Critique of Their Methodology and Validity, and a Query about their Future Relevance CLIVE FLETCHER m Dragging, a Ball and Chain: Moving Equal Opportunity in the NHS_ ELIZABETH SIDNEY 1%6 BOOK REVIEWS 186 GUIDELINES FOR CONTRIBUTORS 192 INSTRUCTIONS FOR AUTHORS Inside back cover BLACKWELL arryeORGANIZATIONAL SOCIALIZATION - 133 The Organizational Socialization Inventory Robert J. Taormina Organizational socialization is regarded as an interactive process between employees and their organizations such that employee perceptions of socialization may impact on the process. Four social-psychological factors were theorized to influence employee perceptions of their social- ization at work, namely: training; understanding; co-worker support; and prospects for the future. Based on these four factors, an Organizational Socialization Inventory (OSI) was created as a quantitative measure of socialization in Hs. people adjust when they are brought into a group, organization, or society has been the concern of psychologists and sociologists for many years. The term ‘social- ization” was coined to refer to this process, but has been defined differently depending on the psychological or sociological orientation of the person marking the definition. Thus, some definitions center on the individual, such as an infant, who must actively adapt to his or her society or culture, while other definitions center on the social context, such as the organization, emphasizing that the context provides the rules and restrictions to which the individual must conform. Most organizational theorists seem to prefer the latter, such that, organizational socialization is regarded as ‘the process by which an individual acquires the social knowledge and skills necessary to assume an organizational role’ (Van Manaan and Schein 1979, p. 211) The preferred definition recognizes the importance of the psychological and socio- logical foundations of this process, and balances both the individual and contextual compo- nents of the concept. Such a definition, which is used in this paper, was provided by Kam- ‘meyer, Ritzer, and Yetman (1990), namely: “Socialization is the process by which a person earns and generally accepts the established ways of a particular social group, [organiza- tion], or society’ (p. 129) While it may be easy to find a satisfactory definition of socialization, it has been much more difficult to measure it. The problem of creating a standard instrument to assess how ‘employees are socialized into an organization due not only to the differences in the researchers’ perspectives (i.e. whether the © Bas Blackwell Li. 199, 108 Cowley Road, Oxford OX4 1, UK and 238 Main Sweet, Comrie, MA (2142, USA. — anizations. The OSI is intended for general variety of organizational settings. This paper describes the construction of the OSI subscales, reports their reliabilities, relates the results of their initial validity tests, and suggests some potential uses of the OSI. focus is on the individual or the social context), but also to differences in the personalities of the employees, the numerous differences in job types, the great variety in the sizes and types of modern organizations, and the cultural differences between organizations as well as between the societies in which they exist. For example, researchers with a manager's organizational perspective might focus onthe larger picture and prefer to use ‘macro’ measures, such as group productivity or turn- over rates, in attempting to measure social- ization in organizations (e.g. Ross and Zander, 1967; van Manan 1975). On the other hand, organizational psychologists (especially those with a clinical orientation) might focus on the individual and prefer to use ‘micro’ measures, as assessed by psychometric tests, in examin- ing employee adjustment to work (e.g. Nicholson 1984). Such difference in orientation is undoubtedly one reason that attempts to assess the socialization of employees into organizational settings have used multiple instruments rather than a single measure. This is confirmed by two recent reviews of the literature on this topic, which made no mention of a standard measure of organiza- tional socialization (Fisher 1986; Wanous and Colella 1989) In this paper, an attempt is made to con- struct a standard and reliable measure of organizational socialization which reflects the dynamic interaction between the employee and the organization (see Jones 1983; Reichers 1987) becauise it asks employees to assess both their own perceptions of, and their company’s efforts in, the socialization process. To achieve this, four aspects of socialization will be Robert J. Taormina, Consultants for Inter- national Living, 6867 Chickering Road, #324, Fort Worth, TX 76116, USA. Volume 2 Number 3 July 1994134 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SELECTION AND ASSESSMENT examined. They were included because all are considered to be prominent facets of the socialization process (whether it takes place in a group, organization, or society), because of their important psychological bases, and because of their relevance to the organizational setting. The four aspects are assessments of (1) the training one received from the organiza- tion; (2) one’s understanding (or perceptions) of the organizational context; (3) the role played by significant others, i.e. co-workers, ‘who are organizational insiders; and (4) one’s prospects for the future (e.g. for advancement) regarding the organization into which one is being socialized. Training Training is included as a facet of socialization into any group or organization by definition (Kammeyer etal. 1990), and because some sort Of skill or knowledge is required for any job, whether it be a manual, technical, or admini- strative job (Wanous 1980). In organizations, training usually refers to the transfer of some type of skill, knowledge, or ability from an insider to a newcomer who must learn that skill or ability in order to perform a particular job. This transfer can occur in a variety of ways, whether itis formal or informal, verbal or nonverbal. While certain organizations may have no formal training program, it would be difficult indeed for a newcomer to perform his or her work successfully if no verbal or non- verbal cues of any type were ever given. More frequently, however, training or instruction is given by means of some type of apprentice- ship, on-the-job training, seminar, classroom, or written instruction, or combination of these methods. The psychosocial basis for this factor can be found in the long process of learning of accepted behaviors (e.g. toilet training, table manners, etc.) which begins in infancy and takes place within one’s family, social group, community, or society (see Erikson 1963). The training of personnel has been long recognized as influential to the development of both the organization and the employees (e.g. Craig and Bittel 1967; Prestan 1993). This view is supported by studies which show that training has such organizational benefits as helping professionals adapt to their work (Vogt and Herzog 1989), increasing pro- ductivity, reducing anxiety and turnover (Gomersall and Myer 1996), and reducing absenteeism (Frayne 1991). In a discussion of the role training plays in the socialization of employees, Feldman (1989) suggested that training has evolved into an extremely impor- tant part of the socialization process. More Volume 2. Number 3 July 1994 a interesting is his suggestion that employees’ perceptions of training are a significant aspect. Of their socialization. In this vein, Nordhaug, (1989) found empirical evidence for the idea that training can be viewed positively by employees, who reported that training enhanced their self-confidence, and had reward functions in terms of their career development. Thus, whether it occurs in one’s family or organization, training seems to be both necessary and important in helping the individual adjust to a new social context Therefore, in attempting to measure social- ization in organizations, it would seem logical to assess the employees’ views of the training, they received. Understanding/ perceptions Training, like teaching, is not merely a one- way affair in which information is transmitted ‘top-down’ only, without concern for the receiver. Rather, and in accordance with the preferred definition, it is interactive because the trainee or student must learn, understand, or apply what has been taught. Hence, another factor which is deemed relevant to successful socialization into an organization would be the understanding (or perceptions) which the employee has of his or her role in the organization, how things operate in the organization, and the goals of the organiza- tion. The psychosocial bases for this factor, which stresses the importance of understand ing on the part of the individual being socialized, can be found in the works of psychologists such as Carl Jung, Jean Piaget, and Lawrence Kohlberg. For example, in his writings on psychology and education, Jung (1969) listed ‘several psychic disturbances in children and suggested that ‘backward child- ren [are] characterized chiefly by low intel- ligence and a general incapacity to understand’ {p. 59). Piaget (1965) theorized, documented, ‘and emphasized the ‘cognitive’ stages. of mental development, and Kohlberg (1969) extended Piaget's ideas into a cognitive- developmental approach to. socialization. Thus, all emphasize how essential 2 new- comer’s understanding is to the socialization process, Though organization theorists have used different names for ‘understanding’, the topic warrants a closer look. For example, in a discussion of managerial attitudes, Porter and Lawler (1968) suggested that employee per- ceptions (‘clarity’) about and ‘acceptance’ of their work role can influence the employees’ performance. In another discussion of employee perceptions, Louis (1980) stressedORGANIZATIONAL SOCIALIZATION 135 that newcomers have a need to understand their organizational surroundings, and labeled this ‘sense making’. More recently, Rousseau (1988) was more specific, stating that ‘per- ceptions are undeniably necessary to under- standing both the behavior of individuals and the processes characteristic of their organiza- tions’ (p. 139). Feldman (1981), in describing a stage model of socialization, stated that the second (encounter) stage involves both the clarification of one’s role, duties, etc. (‘role definition’) and the learning of new work tasks (initiation to the task’). These tasks all involve employee learning and understanding. To achieve this clarification and understanding of roles, the employees must interact with their ‘work enviroriment (Jones 1983; Reichers 1987), and must be active information seekers (Miller and Jablin 1991; Morrison 1993). Hence, beyond merely offering training courses, the organization should ensure that the employees have a full understanding of the operations and goals of their company and of their roles in that company. This may explain, why the major Japanese corporations put all new hirees through comprehensive training programs (which last as long as one year), and may help to explain why Japanese companies have been so successful (Ballon 1992). There- fore, the employee’s understanding of his or her role in a company and how the company works is included here as an influential aspect of the socialization process. Co-worker support A third force considered to play a significant role in the process of socialization is the actions and behaviors of ‘significant others’ who are already ‘insiders’ as regards the context into which one is being socialized. The psycho- social bases for this factor are well established, and the existence of socializing agents is essential to normal development (see Curtiss 1977; or Singh and Zingg 1942). While the most obvious socializing agents are parents and teachers, other powerful and influential agents may include siblings (Polit and Falbo 1987), and peers (Fine 1967). Similarly, in organizations, there may be many agents of socialization. This view was stressed by Reichers (1987) in a discussion of newcomer socialization from an interactionist, perspective, Here, itis assumed that most of the interactions between workers occur among, those employees who are working at the same echelon in the organization, i.e. among co- workers. As with individuals who are being socialized into a family or social group, if a worker perceives that his or her co-workers are © Basi Blackwell La 199 being accepting, and that their efforts are helpful, then that individual should be social- ized into the organization more successfully. For example, in organizations where workers frequently face stressful situations, it has been argued that social support plays an influential role in alleviating stress caused by work (Cohen and Wills 1985; Eisenberger, Huntington, Hutchison and Sowa 1986; House, Landis and Umberson 1988), and the empirical evidence supports this view (e.g., Eisenberger, Fasolo and Davis-LaMastro 1990; George, Reed, Ballard, Colin, and Fielding 1993). Also, co-worker support has been found to contribute to more positive outcomes, such as job satisfaction (LaRocco and Jones 1978; Seers, McGee, Serey and Graen 1983). There- fore, the influence of co-worker support is included as another essential aspect of socialization into organizations. Prospects for the future ‘The fourth agent which is expected to have an influence on the socialization process is the individual's perceptions of his or her prospects for a rewarding future within the new social context. The psychological bases for this factor are profound, extensive, and varied. For example, the definition stating that individuals must ‘accept the established ways’ of the organization for socialization to be complete has a basis in Henri Tajfel’s (1981) work on social identity theory, which has been applied to organizational socialization (Ashforth and Mael 1989). In theory, socialization involves, some degree of acceptance of the social group by the individual such that the greater the identification, the greater the acceptance of the ways of the group, and the more complete the socialization. In other words, ifthe established ways (e.g. reward structure) of a company are acceptable, the employee will stay, and if they are not, he or she will leave. The above example is a manifestation of a psychological principle which states that satisfying. relationships will be continued, while unsatisfying relationships will be ended (unless other extraneous or intervening factors preclude one from ending an unsatisfying relationship). The psychological bases for this are grounded in reinforcement theory (Skinner 1953), social comparison theory (Festinger 1954), social exchange theory (Homans 1958, 1974), and comparison level theory (Thibaut and Kelley 1959). Stated simply, reinforcement theory posits that we continue behaviors for which we are rewarded, and discontinue those for which we are not rewarded. Social com- Parison theory states that we look to others for Volume 2. Number 3. July 1994136 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SELECTION AND ASSESSMENT a standard of comparison to evaluate our own social situation. Social exchange theory contends that we engage in social behaviors that maximize our rewards and minimize our costs. Comparison level theory reveals how we establish a standard of evaluation when we are considering leaving a relationship in order to determine whether we will continue the rela- tionship. Thus, comparison level theory is relevant to the perceptions employees have of their future prospects with a company, and could help explain why some workers leave their organizations. Empirical support for this idea has been provided in a study which uses relative deprivation theory (a part of com- parison level theory) to predict employee satisfaction with income and pay. level (Sweeney, McFarlan and Inderrieden 1990). Another basis for the prospects factor, which has already been used extensively in organiza- tional settings, is Maslow’s (1970) hierarchy of needs. According to Maslow, people are motivated to fulfill whichever need is most potent at any given time. Basic needs are more Powerful (which explains why some workers may show no interest in career advancement ‘over long time periods), but once these are met, higher order needs (such as the desire for advancement, status, and recognition) are more likely to manifest themselves. There is also research evidence to support the notion that Maslow's theory of need fulfilment is applicable to the workplace (e.g. Betz 1984), suggesting that employee perceptions of theit future prospects in the workplace are related to organizational socialization, and should be measured. McClelland’s (1961) research on the need for achievement is an extension of Maslow’s theory. All employees have a need for achieve- ment, albeit to different degrees. If the desired job situation is not achieved, some employees may feel they are in a ‘dead-end job’, which implies a need for advancement, while others may sense that they are being ‘passed over’ as they watch colleagues receive promotions. Either situation can produce dissatisfaction, andlor lead to resignation, but both are characteristic of inauspicious socialization, In the latter case, the unfulfilled need for achievement occurs with social comparison. The outcome reveals why it is necessary to assess an employee's perceptions of his or her Prospects for future success (recognition, Promotion, etc.) in an organization. Since ‘success’ has economic connotations in busi- ness, perceptions of equity (as assessed by received pay, benefits, etc.) could be a com- ponent of the prospects factor. If payment predicts one’s perceptions of equity, which in turn predict one’s job satisfaction, then such Volume 2. Number 3 July 1994 een perceptions would predict one’s intent to stay with a company. This is precisely what was found in a recent study of these relationships (Berg 1991). Hence, if employees use their perceptions of equity to evaluate their current and future prospects for recognition or success in an organization, then the employees’ view of their future prospects (whether for mere continued employment, or for more ambitious corporate advancement) should play a major part in their socialization. In other words, when a worker realizes that his or her goals may not be forthcoming, or even attainable, it could lead to behaviors that are unproductive, counterproductive, or could lead to resignation, Research evidence for this has shown that when workers perceive they have litle chance of success in an organization, the result is poor socialization; e.g. failure to get a promotion can lead to feelings of inequity and a decrease in commitment, or to an increase in absenteeism (Schwarzwald, Koslowsky and Shalit 1992). On the other hand, the perception that one has favorable prospects for succes in an organization can result in more positive socialization; e.g, strong reward systems in a company can lead to increased commitment (Caldwell, Chatman and O'Reilly 1990), just as being promoted can result in higher levels of commitment (Schwarawald et al. 1992). In summary, organizational socialization ‘was defined as an interactive process involving both the individual employee and the organi- zation. It was stated that the many differences that exist among individuals and organizations most likely contributed to the difficulty in devising a standard measure of this phen- ‘omenon. While it is recognized that there could be numerous possible factors which may affect one’s socialization in an organization, the current approach stresses four factors which have very profound psychosociological foundations, and which are theorized to influence the process of organizational jon from the employee's point of This paper thus describes the construction of a standard, generalized instrument (for use in any organization) to assess employee per ceptions about the inputs of both the indivi- dual and the organization in the socialization process. The factors addressed by the inven tory are the employee's perceptions of: (I) the training received from the organization; (2) his or her understanding of organization opera- tions; (3) the support (or lack thereof) received from co-workers; and (4) his or her prospects for the future in the organization. This instru- ‘ment is called the Organizational Socialization Inventory, or OSL. © Bas Blackwell Le. 1994ORGANIZATIONAL SOCIALIZATION 137 Method Subjects For the initial phase of this study, 369 working people (149 males, 220 females) in the Singapore business community participated as subjects. To obtain a broad, representative cross-section of work settings and workers, people from many diverse types of large and small organizations were surveyed. Repre- sented were more than 30 organizations from both the public and private sectors, as well as the military services. No more than 35 par- ticipants came from any one organization. The participants also came from various echelons in their companies’ organizational heirarchies, and included both blue-collar and white-collar workers. They also performed a variety of tasks in their organizations, such as clerical, educational, manufacturing, retailing, service, technical, and trading functions. For the second phase of this study, which assessed the validity of the Organizational Socialization Inventory (OSI, the subjects were 18 middle-echelon managers from an aircraft maintenance company in China. ‘Materials Alll the items of the OSI were constructed to assess the influence of the four components which were theorized to play a role in the socialization of workers into an organization. Namely, the items were constructed to assess the extent to which a worker perceives that: ) his or her company trains its employees; @)he or she understands the company policies and operations; (3) his or her coworkers played a role in his or her adjustment to the organiza- tion; and (4) he or she has good prospects for developing a career in the organization. Through brainstorming, discussions with colleagues for suggestions, and gathering and revising items from my previous attempts to assess organizational climate, orientation, and socialization, roughly fifty potential items were obtained. The main criteria for keeping items were that they had to be: (a) classifiabie into ‘one of the four categories, listed above; (b) concise enough to preclude confusion regard- ing the intent of the question; and (c) easily understandable. The resulting inventory had a total of 20 items, with five items composing each of the four subscales (see Appendix). The various items from the different subscales were interspersed throughout the OSI to preclude response bias. For each item, a 7-point, Likert-type response continuum was added. The end- points of the scale ranged from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 7 (Strongly Agree). Respondents © Bast Blackwell La, 194 were asked to indicate the extent of their agreement or disagreement with each state- ment by circling the appropriate number on the corresponding scale. An individual respondent's score could be computed for each OSI subscale by adding together the scores for that respondent on the five items for each subscale. The scores for any of the 5-item subscales could range from 5 to 35. Similarly, a total OSI score could be computed for each respondent by summing his or her responses for all 20 items. The total OSI scores could range from 20 to 140. On any scale, lower scores mean less favorable, and higher scores mean more favorable employee perceptions of an organization's endeavors to socialize its workers. In the second part of the study, a version of Misumi’s (1984) “Performance-Maintenance’ (PM) questionnaire was used along with the OSI. Since the subjects in this phase of the study were Chinese, both the PM and the OSI were translated from Japanese and English Geespectvely) into Chinese by. bilingual Chinese nationals (reverse translations were also performed and these were deemed ade- quate by an independent bilingual Chinese national). The Chinese version of the PM questionnaire contains ten 5-item subscales. ‘These examine: motivaton; satisfaction with financial rewards; satisfaction with physical work conditions; psychological well-being: group spirit; quality of work meetings; communication patterns; involvement with work; quality of the leader's performance plan; and management-employee relations. Each item on the PM questionnaire has a 5-point, Likert-type response scale. Some items are negatively worded, but reverse scored, so that the scales are scored in a manner similar to that of the OSI. A respondent's score on each PM. subscale can range from a minimum of 5 (low motivation, low satisfaction, etc.) to a maxi- ‘mum of 25 (high motivation, high satisfaction, etc.) Procedure In the first phase of this study, a survey team of 30 individuals was recruited from a local university to execute the survey. The survey team members split up into groups to canvass different geographic sections of the city. The groups then split into individuals and each team member located from one to three businesses, and obtained permission from the senior management to survey their employees. ‘Once permission was obtained, workers were individually asked to complete the question- naires. Only those employees who agreed were provided with the inventory. The Volume 2 Number 3 July 1994INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SELECTION AND ASSESSMENT eo subjects were assured that they would remain anonymous, and their answers would never bbe revealed to their employers. The subjects were then requested to read the instructions carefully, and answer each question as candidly’ as possible before returning the inventories. In the second phase of this study, the Chinese subjects were met at a company- owned learning center in Beijing, China. The company which employs these workers regu- larly puts members ofits management through ‘courses at its learning center. The group had been previously selected by upper manage- ment for testing, On the scheduled day, the subjects were asked to complete voluntarily and anonymously both the PM questionnaire and the OSI. All subjects present completed both inventories, and were subsequently debriefed. Results Factor analyses The data were subjected to a principal com- ponents factor analysis (with iterations) and varimax rotation. Initially, four factors ‘emerged with most items from the same con- the same factors. However, there were two notable anomalies. The first was that most of the training and understanding items loaded together on the same factor. The second was that one item from each of the conceptual groupings loaded in a way which suggested they could be eliminated from the present analysis. Items were retained for further analysis only if they had a loading which was greater than 0.46 on any factor. This reduced the OSI to 16 items, with four items from each conceptual grouping. The reduced list of items was resubmitted toa principal components factor analysis (with iterations) and varimax rotation. After six iterations, the new analysis yielded three factors with eigenvalues greater than unity. The results of this factor analysis are shown in Table 1. Eight items (loading 0.47 or above) con- verged on Factor 1. Half of these were the four training items, and the other half were the four ‘understanding items. Though these constructs were originally conceived as independent facets of socialization, their convergence onto a single factor indicates that they may be different perspectives of the same concept. Namely, they may be the two (teaching and learning) portions of the same orientation ceptual groupings (training, understanding, polarity. Thus, Factor 1 may be tualized co-workers, and prospects) loading heavily on _as the Orientation Subscale of the OSI, with Table 1: Item factor loadings for the organizational socialization inventory (OSI)* Factor Subscale/Item 1 2 3 Orientation Subscale Training Component Item 1 0.72 0.19 Item 2 0.66 0.19 Item 3 0.68 0.28 Ttem 4 0.57 0.41 Understanding Component Item 5 0.7 0.27 0.07 Item 6 0.58 0.35 0.20 Item 7 0.62 0.21 0.30 Item 8 0.47 0.28 0.41 Co-worker Support Subscale Item 1 0.32 0.69 0.05 Item 2 0.29 on 0.18 Item 3 0.00 0.80 0.19 Item 4 0.04 0.81 0.24 Prospects Subscale Item 1 0.29 0.08 0.76 Item 2 0.28 0.29 0.64 Item 3 0.18 0.15 0.84 Item 4 0.23 0.34 0.45 IN = 368, Volume 2 Number 3. July 1994 (© Basi Blackwell Lad 194ORGANIZATIONAL SOCIALIZATION 129 ‘two subcomponents. (Suggestions for how this subscale and its subcomponents may be used in practice are described in the discussion section of this paper.) The Training component of this first factor asks the respondents to assess whether they were put through a formal training program, if all newcomers are provided with the same learning experiences, if company training gave them a thorough knowledge of their job skills, and whether they are satisfied with the job training the company provided. The Understanding (Perceptions) compo- nent of this factor asks each respondent whether the way to do things was made clear, if he or she has a clear understanding of his, or her role in the company, whether company policies had been made explicit, and to what extent the company's goals are known to company members. Factor 2 consisted of four items (loading 0.69 or above). All of the items came from the originally theorized co-worker construct, giving a clear indication of their conceptual ‘convergence. This factor may be called the Co- worker Support Subscale. The items on this subscale ask the respondent to assess the degree to which his or her colleagues have provided moral, professional, and emotional support and guidance in helping the respon- dent adjust to the company. ‘On Factor 3, all four items (loading 0.45 or above) came from the originally theorized prospects construct, which was designed to assess the employee's perceptions for the future within his or her company. Together, these items compose the Prospects Subscale. The items ask each respondent to evaluate aspects of his or her future employment within that company. These include whether his or her career path in that company is known, if the steps in the company’s career ladder are clearly stated, if prospects for promotion can be anticipated, and if he or she desires to continue working in that company. Whereas the results of the factor analyses suggested reducing the number of items in the scale, all further tests of the OSI described in this paper (unless otherwise noted) will use only the retained 16 items. Also, since the first factor combines two concepts which were theorized to represent different constructs, the analyses of Factor 1 will be given for both the ‘combined 8-item Orientation Subscale and for the two 4-item (Training and Understanding) subsubsales of which it is composed. Tests of normality Since the OSI is intended for research and practice, and most statistical tests (e.g. (© Baa Blackwell Lad. 1994 ANOVAs, regressions, etc.) used with scale data assume that the data are normally distributed, some mention should be made of the normality of the OSI data. Theoretically, for any given scale, if the data are normally distributed, the scores for any population (or representative sample thereof) should cover the entire range of the scale, and, ideally, the mean should fall on the midpoint ofthat scale. Thus, two rough gauges of normality for a sample would be: (1) a broad range of scores; and (2) a mean score that is close to the scale midpoint. (However, whereas significant differences between the scale midpoint and an obtained mean could occur for reasons other than non-normality of the data, even if the scores are normally distributed, the latter gauge of normality should be used with care.) For the 8-item Orientation Subscale, the scores could range from 8 to 56, and the obtained range was from 9 to 56. The midpoint of the scale was 32, and the obtained mean of this sample on the Orientation Subscale was 31.80 (s.d. = 8.98). A two-tailed t-test of the obtained mean against the scale midpoint yielded no significant difference between the Values, 368) = —0.4231, NS. Other measures of centrality were also near the scale midpoint, with the median at 32, and the mode at 33. Thus, the data obtained for the Orientation Subscale have range and midpoint values which conform to a normal distribution. In addition, the computed skewness value was found to be near zero (+0.038), and the kurtosis value was found to be relatively small and negative (~0.252), both of which are further indications that the distribution of scores on the Orientation Subscale did not deviate from normality (see Nunnally 1978). The scores on the Training portion of the Orientation Subscale could range from 4 to 28, and the obtained scores covered the entire range (4 to 28). The scale midpoint was 16, and the obtained mean was 15.09 (s.d. = 5.15). A ‘two-tailed t-test of the obtained mean against the scale midpoint yielded a significant differ- ence between the values, #(368) = -3.3994, p <.0.001. The median and mode were both at 15. The skewness value for the distribut of the Training scores was near zero (+0.037), and the kurtosis value was relatively small and negative (—0.349). Though all three centrality measures were one point below the scale midpoint, the skewness and kurtosis values indicated no noticeable deviation from normality, Scores on the Understanding (Perceptions) portion of the Orientation Subscale could ange from 4 to 28, and the obtained range was from 4 to 28. The scale midpoint was 16, and the obtained mean was 16.71 (s.d. = 4.64). A Volume 2 Number 3. July 1994INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SELECTION AND ASSESSMENT eee ere eranere eeeenrnes two-tailed t-test of the obtained mean against the scale midpoint also yielded a significant difference between the values, ((368) = 2.9508, P < 0.005. Thus, the sample mean was sig nificantly higher than the scale midpoint, as were the other centrality measures, with the median at 17, and the mode at 18. All of these scores were, however, well within one standard deviation of the scale midpoint. The skewness value for the distribution of Understanding scores was near zero (~0.037), and the value of the kurtosis was relatively small and negative (—0.282), showing little deviation from normality The scores on the 4-item Co-worker Support Subscale could range from 4 to 28, and the obtained values ranged from 4 to 28. The scale midpoint was 16, and the obtained mean was 17,71 (6.4. = 4.60). A two-tailed t-test of the obtained mean versus the scale midpoint yielded a highly significant difference between the values, (368) = 7.1281, p < 0.0001. The median value was 18, and the mode was 19. Alll these values of central tendency, though higher than the scale’s theoretical center, remained within one standard deviation of the scale midpoint. Further, the skewness value for the distribution of Co-worker Support scores was near zero (—0.175), and the kurtosis value was relatively small and negative (~0.347), indicating little deviation from normality. Scores on the ‘item Prospects Subscale could range from 4 to 28, and the obtained values ranged from 4 to 28. The scale midpoint ‘was 16, and the obtained mean was 15.69 (s.d. = 4.93). A two-tailed t-test of the obtained mean against the scale midpoint yielded no significant difference between the values, #368) = ~1.1931, NS. The median and mode values were both 16, exactly equal to the theoretical scale mean. The very small skew- Table 2: Proportions of total area under different sections of the normal curve, and total OSF ness value for the distribution of Prospects scores (~0.016), and the relatively small and negative kurtosis value (—0.427), indicated very little deviation from normality. ‘The scores for the entire OSI inventory could range from 16 to 112, and the obtained range was from 26 to 105, covering 83% of the entire scale. the scale midpoint was 64, and the obtained mean was 65.20 (s.d. = 15.73). A two-tailed t-test of the obtained mean against the scale midpoint yielded no significant difference between the values, (368) = 1.4691, NS. The median value was 66, fairly close to the theoretical mean. The mode was 69, a bit higher than the scale midpoint. However, the second mode was considerably lower than the scale midpoint, and the third and fourth modes were multimodal. The average of all these modes was 64.70, which was very close to the theoretical mean. A more strict test of the normality of a dis- tribution of obtained scores involves the z-test for the significance of a proportion. To deter- mine whether the scores on the OSI and its subscales were normally distributed, propor- tions of the scores under different sections of each of the curves were computed and com- pared to those of a normal curve. The z-test Was used to evaluate whether the obtained proportions of different sections of the curves for the OSI and its subscales were significantly different from the expected proportions (i.e. proportions under the relevant sections of a normal curve). As can be seen in Table 2, which lists these ions, only one in 36 Ge. 2.78%) of the’ computed. diferences reached the 0.05 level of significance, suggesting that this difference could have occurred by change. This result, when com- bined with the other indices, convincingly affirms that the scores on the total OSI and its subscales were normally distributed, the OSI subscales, Curve Areas Scale X sd > sd Dad Normal Curve — = 0.0228 0.1587 0.5000 0.5000 0.1587 0.0228 Orientation 31.80 8.98 0.0163 0.1978* 0.4715 0.5285 0.1518 0.0271 Training 15.09 5.15 0.0163 0.1382 0.5257 0.4743 0.1518 0.0244 Understanding | 1671 4.64 0.0190 0.1843 0.4688 0.5312 0.1518 0.0352 Co-workers 17.71 4.60 0.0163 0.1816 0.4661 0.5339 0.1491 0.0217 Prospects 15.69 4.93 0.0136 0.1653 0.4715 0.5285 0.1680 0.0217 Total OSI 65.20 15.73 0.0163 0.1707 0.4878 0.5122 0.1653 0.0271 AN = 369. *p < 008. Volume 2 Number 3 July 1994 (© Basi Blackwell Lad. 194ORGANIZATIONAL SOCIALIZATION ui Correlations Correlations were computed to assess the relationships between the items, the different subscales, and the total OSI inventory. These are shown in Table 3. The item-subscale cor- relations demonstrate a consistent pattern, with all items being significantly related to all of the subscales, and evincing their highest correlations with their own subscales. The item-total correlations were also highly significant, as were the subscale-subscale correlations. Also, extremely high values were obtained for the subscale-total correlations. ‘The entire pattern demonstrates that all of the items hang together quite well, not only on their own subscales, but also with the total OSI, and that each of the subscales, although independent, is well-integrated with the total Osi. Reliabilities Reliability tests were performed on all of the subscales as well as on the total (16-item) OSI inventory. The 8.item Orientation Subscale yielded a reliability value of 0.8580. The Training portion of this subscale had a relia- bility value of 0.7643, and the Understanding portion yielded a reliability of 0.7882. (For all scales p < 0.001.) The ‘item Co-workers Support subscale had a reliability of 0.8113. The 4-item Prospects ‘Subscale yielded a reliability of 0.7600. The reliability for the entire 16-item OSI inventory reached 0.8993. (For all scales, p < 0.001.) Validity ‘The convergent validity of the OSI was tested by using a separate sample of subjects from Beijing, China. Subjects were asked to com- plete Chinese versions of both Misumi's (1984) ‘PM questionnaire and the OSI. (Since the data came from a new sample of subjects which came from a different culture, all of the original 20 items of the OSI were used in their testing, and in the validity tests, s0 as to preclude climinating items that are potentially useful in other cultures.) Table 3: Intercorrelations* between items,” subscales, and total OSI inventory! Subscales Item Orientation Co-workers __Prospects__‘Total OSI Training 1 071 0.25 0.40 0.61 Training 2 0.66 0.21 0.37 0.55 Training 3 0.73 0.34 0.48 0.67 Training 4 0.74 0.41 0.57 0.72 Understanding 1 0.76 0.39 0.43 0.68 Understanding 2 0.68 0.43 0.47 0.67 Understanding 3 0.72 0.36 0.51 0.68 Understanding 4 0.68 0.42 0.52 0.87 Co-workers 1 0.44 0.76 0.36 0.59 Co-workers 2 0.48 0.81 0.45 0.65 Co-workers 3 0.29 0.79 0.39 0.52 Co-workers 4 0.34 0.83 0.42 0.57 Prospects 1 0.52 0.33 0.81 0.65 Prospects 2 054 0.46 0.76 0.68 Prospects 3 050 0.37 0.82 0.65 Prospects 4 045 0.39 0.67 0.58 Subscalé Orientation 0.86 0.49 0.66 0.92 Co-workers. = 0.81 0.51 0.73 Prospects = - 0.76 0.84 Total OSI = - - 0.90 “All correlations shown are significant at p < 0.01 or beyond. Sitem-toitem correlations are deleted to simplify the table. internal consistency/scale reliabilities are on the diagonal 6N = 369, (© Bast Blackwell Lad 1994 Volume 2 Number 3. July 1994INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SELECTION AND ASSESSMENT ‘The Chinese version of the PM questionnaire is composed of ten subscales (see the method section of this paper for details). Of the ten PM subscales, three (‘involvement with work’, ‘communication patterns’, and ‘satisfaction with financial rewards’) assess constructs that were deemed to be related to socialization. Therefore, these three PM subscales were selected for further comparison. ‘The PM ‘Involvement with Work’ Subscale asks employees to report on some of their thoughts and feelings about their work en- vironment. These questions relate to the desire to compete with other work units, feelings of being at ease or tense when at work, exchang- ing ideas about the work, and the willingness to do more to complete the work. This subscale may be thought of as a measure of the employee's general orientation toward his or her work. Therefore, it should have a high, positive correlation to the (10-item) Orientation Subscale of the OSI. The correlation between these two subscales was a significant one and in the predicted direction (r = 0.6183, p < 0.01). As the PM ‘Involvement with Work’ Sub- scale asked for the employees’ thoughts and feelings about work, it was expected that the items also should have a high, positive correla- tion to the (5-item) worker Understanding (or Perceptions) portion of the OSI Orientation Subscale. This correlation also proved to be significant (r = 0.6391, p < 0.01). The PM questionnaire did not measure training of employees, so no direct assessment could be made regarding the validity of the Training portion of the Orientation Subscale of the OSI However, whereas the Training and Under- Standing portions are related theoretically (and statistically, by factor analysis), the PM ‘Involvement with Work’ Subscale should bear some positive correlation to the (5-item) Training portion of the OSI. The correlation was found to be marginally significant (r = 0.4683, p < 0.10) The PM ‘Communication Patterns’ Subscale asks the worker to evaluate interpersonal ‘communications in the company. The ques- tions address the sharing of information between, and the quality of the relationships among, members of the company. Whereas good communication patterns are essential to favorable interpersonal relations, this PM subscale should have a high, positive correla- tion to the (S-item) Co-Worker Support Sub- scale of the OSI. The obtained correlation was significant, and in the predicted direction (r = 0.6037, p < 0.01), ‘The PM ‘Satisfaction with Financial Rewards’ Subscale asks the respondents to indicate how satisfied they are with the salary, raises, Volume 2 Number 3 July 1994 bonuses, and other compensations and benefits ‘provided by the company. Since financial rewards and benefits are one way of measuring professional advancement, this subscale should have a high, positive correlation with the (5-item) Prospects (for the Future) Subscale of the OSI. The correlation between these subscales was high and positive (r = 0.6385, p < 0.01). In sum, the convergent validity of the OSI was assessed by using subscales of the OSI in coordination with subscales of a different instrument to measure concepts theoretically related to organizational socialization. The results revealed statistically significant correlations between the different measures of the socialization construct. Though additional studies should be performed, these initial assessments of the convergent validity of the OSI subscales tend to corroborate the validity of the OSI. Discussion The OSI was created in response to the evolving need for a standard, generalized instrument to assess the socialization of employees into their work environments across a wide range of organization settings. During development, the OSI and its sub- scales demonstrated normal distributions, a well-integrated pattern of correlations, high reliabilities, and satisfactory convergent validities, thus yielding acceptable results in all the requirements for a practical measure of the socialization of employees into their organizations. Of course, additional studies should be performed to (a) confirm these outcomes, and (b) augment its (convergent, discriminant, etc.) validities. The OSI should prove to be a useful tool in both research and practice. For example, in discussing the directions which future social- ization research should take, Wanous and Colella (1989) pointed out that studies should be conducted across a variety of organizations to enable making generalizations about the Socialization process. According to this suggestion, a large number of workers were tested at dozens of public and private organizations during the development of the OSI in order to obtain the broadest possible sample of organizations (within the resource limits of this study). Thus, having an instrument which was developed in this way makes the inventory applicable to many types or organizations. Additional research can and should be performed using the OSI to clarify various relationships which have been suspected to © Basi Blackwell Lad. 1994ORGANIZATIONAL SOCIALIZATION us exist between socialization and certain other variables. As examples: What is the relation- ship between a company’s culture (or climate) and a worker's understanding (or perceptions) of the company, including his or her role in the company (Pascale and Athos 1981)? What is the relationship between socialization and work involvement (Etzioni 1961), or between socialization and commitment (Kanter 1968)? How is job satisfaction related to socialization (Geers et al., 1983)? Which types of company training lead to more complete socialization (Feldman 1989; Nordhaug 1989)? How is socialization (particularly workers’ views of their own prospects for the future) related to such important measures as performance, absenteeism, and turnover (Berg 1991)? For ‘each of these questions, the OSI can provide direct, quantitative measures of socialization. Some other interesting areas of research in which the OSI can be beneficially applied include studies that would measure the extent of socialization at various stages of the process (eg. Feldman 1981), or measure the degree of socialization which results when organizations use different socialization tactics (e.g. van Manaan and Schein 1979). Also, the OSI could be employed in cross-cultural studies of socialization, since organizations in different societies tend to utilize different socialization techniques. ‘Addition to its usefulness in basic research and the testing of organizational theory, the OSI should have very practical applications in organizational settings, especially when Human Resource Management (HRM) con- ‘cerns are at issue. That is, corporations could benefit by employing the OSI to uncover needed modifications in training, job design, ‘or even corporate communications. The changes could alleviate problems thought to bbe associated with poor socialization, including absenteeism, cheerless corporate climates, and resignations. For example, a corporation wishing an ‘overall assessment of how its employees are being socialized could administer the OSI and utilize the total (summed) scores. If the cor- poration would like to evaluate how well its orientation program is working, scores on the Orientation Subscale would provide such an assessment. More specifically, the Training scores would reveal whether the employees felt their training program was adequate; while the Understanding’ scores would reveal whether the corporate philosophy and goals. were being transmitted, and whether the workers comprehended their roles in the company. The OSI also could give corporations an assessment of how well its workers are inter- © Bas Blacovll La 1994 acting. If used as a general index, aggregate scores on the Co-worker Support Subscale can reveal the overall health of an organization's social climate. At the same time, personnel managers may wish to examine individuals’ scores on this subscale to identify employees who haven't been receiving the social support required for smooth socialization into. an organization. Another HRM concern which the OSI can help address is the extent to which workers accept their anticipated future within their company. This can be assessed by the Prospects Subscale of the OSI. Aggregate scores from employees on this subscale can provide corporate executives with a general assessment of how satisfied workers are with the compensations, benefits, and advance- ‘ment opportunities provided by the company, and whether the corporate policy may necd revision. Additionally, personnel managers may use individuals’ ‘scores to identify unsatisfied employees, thus enabling the managers to counsel discontented individuals and thereby prevent their loss as a human resource. In conclusion, the OSI satisfactorily passed its initial tests of useability, and possesses considerable potential in future research and practice as a serviceable instrument for assessing several social and organizational variables that can facilitate or impede organizational socialization. Appendix: The Organizational Socialization Inventory (OSI) Training items TL. Iwas put through a formal training pro- gram by my company. 2. This company puts all newcomers through the same learning experiences 13. Company training gave me a thorough knowledge of my job skills Té. I'm satisfied with the type of job training this company gave to me. TS. My superiors Rave given’ me excellent guidance and instruction.* Understanding/perception items U1. The way to do things in this company was always made clear to me. U2. Thave a clear understanding of my role in this company. U3. This company’s policies have been made very explicit U4. This company's goals are known to almost everyone in the company. US. I think I know very well the way this company operates." “These tems were in. cluded for the Chinese sample. Volume 2 Number 3. July 1994“a INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SELECTION AND ASSESSMENT ‘Co-worker support items Cl. Other workers have helped me to understand my job requirements. C2. received a lot of guidance from experi- ‘enced company members. C3. Almost all my colleagues have given me personal or moral support. C4. My colleages did a great deal to help me adjust to this company. C5. The interpersonal relations in this com- any are very good.* Prospects for the future items PL. Ican predict my future career path in this organization. P2, The steps in the career ladder are clearly stated in this company. P3. Ican teadily anticipate my prospects for promotion inthis company. P4. I'd like to continue working for this company for many more years. PS. I usually know in advance when I'll receive a new job assignment.* References Ashforth, B.E. and Mael, F. (1989) Social identity theory and the organization. Academy of Management Review, 14, 20-39. Ballon, RJ. (1992) Foreign Competition im Japan. Human Resource Strategies. New York: Routledge. Berg, T.R. (1991) The importance of equity Perception and job satisfaction in predicting ‘employee intent to stay at television stations. Group and Organization Studies, 16, 258-284. Betz, E.L. (1964) Two tests of Maslow’s theory of need fulfilment. Journal of Vcational Behavior, 24, 204-220, Caldwell, D-F., Chatman, J.A. and O'Reilly, C.A (1990) Building organizational commitment multifirm study. Journal of Occupational Paychology, 63, 3, 245~261, Cohen, S. and Wills, T.A. (1985) Stress, social apport and the bultering hypothesis. Psychological Bulletin, 98, 310-357. Craig, RL. and Bittel, LR (eds.). (1967) Training ‘and Development Handbook. New York: McGraw Hil. Curtiss, S. (1977). Genie: A Poycholinguistic Study of ‘@ Modern-day ‘Wild Child’. New York: Academic Press. Eisenberger, R., Fasolo, P. and Davis-LaMastro, V. (1990) Perceived organizational support, and employee diligence, commitment, and innova- tion. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 51-59. Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchison, S. and Sowa, D. (1986) Perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, ‘These items were in- 500507, cluded for the Chinese Erikson, E.H. (1963) Childhood and Society. New sample York: Norton. Volume 2 Number 3 July 1994 Etzioni, A. (1961) A Comparative Analysis of Complex ‘Organizations. New York: Free Press. Feldman, D.C. (1981) The multiple socialization of organization members. Academy of Management Review, 6, 308-318, Feldman, D.C; (98) Socialization, rescalzation, and training: Reframing the research agenda. In LL, Goldstein (ed.), Training and Development in Organizations. (pp.376-416). San Francisco: Josey-Bass. Festinger, L. (1954) A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7, 117140 Fine, G.A. (1987) With the Boys: Little Lengue Baseball and Pre-adolescent Culture, Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Fisher, C-D. (1986) Organizational socialization: An integrative review. In KR. Rowland and G.R. Ferris (eds.), Research in Personnel and Human Resource Management: Vol. 4 (pp. 101-145). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Frayne, C.A. (1991) Reducing Employee Absentecism through Self management Training: A Research-based Analysis and Guide. New York: Quorum. George; .M., Reed, TF, Ballard, K.A., Colin, J. and Fielding, J. (1993) Contact with AIDS patients as a'source of work-related distress: effects of organizational and social_ support. Academy of Management Journal, 36, 157—171. Gomersall, E.R. and Myer, M.S. (1966) Break- through in on-the-job training. Haroard Business Review, 44, 62-72. Homans, G.C. (1958) Social behavior as exchange. “American Journal of Sociology, 63, 597~606. Homans, G.C. (1974) Social Behavior: Its Elementary Forms (Rev. edn.). New York: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich. House, 'S., Landis, K.R. and Umberson, D. (1988). Social relationships and health. Science, 241, 540-545, Jones, G.R. (1983) Psychologica orientation and the process of organizational eae Interactionist perspective. Academy of Management Review, 8, 464~474. Jung, C.G. (1969) Poychology and Education (RE. Hill, Trans.). Princeton, NJ: Princeton Unive sity "Press. “(Original work published as, Analytic Peyhaogie und Erekung, 1928) Kammeyer, K.C.W., Ritzer, G., and Yetman, N.R (1990) Sociology: Experiencing Changing Societies Boston: Alyn and Bacon" Kanter, R.M. (1968) Commitment and social organ- ization: a study of commitment mechanisms in Utopian communities. American Sociological Review, 33, 499-517. Kohiberg, L’ (1969) Stage and sequence: The cognitive-developmental approach to socialization. In D.A. Goslin (ed }, Handbook of Socialization Theory and Research (pp. 347~480) Chicago: Rand McNally. LaRocco, .M. and Jones, A:P. (1978) Co-worker and leader support as moderators of stress-strain relationships in work situations, Journal of Applied Psychology, 63, 629-638. Louis, M.R- (1980) Surprise and sense making: What ‘newcomers experience in entering ‘unfamiliar organizational settings. Administrative Science Quarterly, 28, 226-251. (© Band Blackwell Lad. 199¢ORGANIZATIONAL SOCIALIZATION 5 Maslow, A.H, (1970) Motivation and Personality nd ‘edn.). New York: Harper and Row. McClelland, D.C, (1961) The Achieving. Society Princeton, NJ: Van Nostrand. Miller, V.D., and Jablin, FM. (1991) Information seeking during, tional entry: influences, tactics, and a model of the process. Academy of Management Review, 16, 92120. Misumi, J. (1984) The Behavioral Science of Leadership @nd edn.). {in Japanese.] Tokyo: Yuhikaku. Morrison, E.W. (1993) Newcomer information seeking: exploring types, modes, sources, and outcomes. Acidemy of Management Journal, 36, 557-589. Nicholson, N. (1984) A theory of work role transitions. Administrative Science Quarterly, 28, 172-191. Nordhaug, ©. (1989) Reward functions of personnel training. Human Relations, 42, 373-388. Nunnally J.C. (1978) Psychometric Theory (2nd edn). New York: McGraw-Hill Pascale, R.T., and Athos, A.G. (1981) The Art of Japanese Management. New York: Simon and Schuster. Piaget, J. (1965) The Moral Judgment ofthe Child, New York: Free Press. Polit, D-F. and Falbo, T. (1987) Only children and [personality development: A quantitative review. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 49, 308-325, Porter, L.W., and Laver, ELE. (1968) Managerial Attitudes and Performance. Fornewood, IL: Irwin, Prestan, D. (1993) Management development structures as symbols of organizational culture. Personnel Review, 22, 18-30. Reichers, A.E. (1987) An interactionist perspective ‘on newcomer socialization rates. Acedemy of Management Review, 12, 278-287. Ross, I.C., and Zander, A.F. (1967) Need satisfaction and employee turnover. In E.A. Fleishman (ed), Studies in Personnel anid Industri Psychology (rev. edn.) (pp. 297-304). Homewood, IL: Dorsey Press. Rousseau, D.M. (1988) The construction of climate in organizational research. In C.L. Cooper and 1. Robertson (eds.), International Retoew of (© Baal Blackwell Lad. 199¢ Industrial _and Organizational Psychology (pp. 139-158). New York: J. Wiley and Sons, Schwarewald, J., Koslowsky, M. and Shalit, B. (1982) A field study of employees’ attitudes and behaviors after promotion decisions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 511~ 514. Seers, A., McGee, G.W., Serey, T.T., and Graen, G.B. (1983) The interaction ‘of job stress and social support: a strong inference investigation. ‘Academy of Management Journal, 26, 273-284. Singh, J.A-L. and Zingg, RM. (1942) Wolf Children and Feral Man. New York: Harper and Row. Skinner, B.F. (1953) Science and Human Behavior. ‘New York: MacMillan. Sweeney, P.D., McFarlan, D.B. and Inderrieden, EJ. (1990) Using relative deprivation theory to explain satisfaction with income and pay level: a multi-study examination. Academy of ‘Management Jounal, 33, 423-436, Tafel, H. (1981) Human Groups and Social Categories: ‘Studies in Socal Psychology. Cambridge, Engl Cambridge University. ‘Thibaut, J.W. and Kelley, H.H. (1959) The Social Psychology of Groups. New York: John Wiley. van Manan, J. (1975) Police socialization: a longitudinal examination of job attitudes in an urban police department, Administrative Science Quarteriy, 20, 267-228. van Manan, J. and Schein, E.H. (1979) Towards a theory of socialization. In B.M. Staw (ed.) Research in Organizational Behavior: Vol. 1 (pp. 209-264) Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Vogt, J.P. and Herzog, E.L. (1989) Facilitating the new professional's transition to business. Organization Development Journal, 7, 59-68. Wanous, J.P. (1980) Organizational Entry: Recrit- ‘ment, Selection and Socialization of Neweomer. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. ‘Wanous, J.P. and Colella, A. (1989) Organizational entry research: Current status and future direc- tions. In G.R. Ferris and KR. Rowland (eds.), Research in Personnel and Human Resource ‘Management: Val. 7 (pp. 59-120). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Volume 2 Number 3 July 1994