Academy of Management Journal

2005, Vol. 48, No. 1, 101116.

NEWCOMER ADAPTATION IN TEAMS: MULTILEVEL

ANTECEDENTS AND OUTCOMES
GILAD CHEN
Texas A&M University

This study tested a multilevel model of newcomer adaptation in teams using longitu-
dinal and multisource data from 65 project teams. Results indicated that newcomer
performance improved over time, particularly early in socialization. Initial newcomer
empowerment, team expectations, and team performance differently predicted new-
comer initial performance and performance improvement. In turn, newcomer initial
performance and performance improvement uniquely related to subsequent team
performance, and newcomer initial performance related to subsequent newcomer
empowerment and intentions to quit.

The increased reliance on interdependent teams
in organizations requires that scholars learn more
about the factors contributing to individual perfor-
mance in team contexts, and about how individual
team members contribute to team effectiveness
(Klimoski & Zukin, 1999; Kozlowski & Bell, 2003).
Additionally, greater reliance on temporary,
project-based work and the rise of knowledge as a
key human resource asset require employees to
transition frequently into new teams, either in the
same or in a new organization (Feldman, 2002).
These trends highlight the importance of studying
newcomer effectiveness in teams. Facilitating new-
comer effectiveness in teams is particularly impor-
tant in high-technology industries, in which
knowledge workers (e.g., computer engineers or
consultants) transition frequently across project
teams and organizations, and in which the cost of
integrating new employees is quite high (Chen &
Klimoski, 2003). In such industries, firms benefit
from the effective and quick integration of new-
comers by improving team productivity and reduc-
ing turnover and replacement costs.
A recent study by Chen and Klimoski (2003),
focusing on the socialization of knowledge workers
An earlier version of this article was presented at the
63rd Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management, in
Seattle. Work on this article was completed while the
author was a faculty member at the Georgia Institute of
Technology. This study was supported by the Seymour
Adler Scientist-Practitioner Doctoral Dissertation Grant,
the Ruth G. and Joseph D. Matarazzo Scholarship, and
the Ellin Bloch and Pierre Ritchie Honorary Scholarship.
I thank Richard Klimoski for his invaluable input during
early stages of the research project; Dov Eden, Brad Kirk-
man, and Rob Ployhart for providing insightful com-
ments on earlier versions of this article; and Paul Bliese
and Jeff Edwards for their data analysis suggestions.
101
who joined existing high-tech project teams, began
addressing these issues. Following Anderson and
Thomass (1996) model of group socialization and
building on Edens (1990) work on the Pygmalion
and Galatea effects, Chen and Klimoski delineated
and tested a model in which newcomer and team
expectations were respectively hypothesized to
trigger the subsequent motivational and interper-
sonal processes that unfold during socialization
and eventually account for newcomer performance
toward the end of the socialization period. Chen
and Klimoski also identified three direct predictors
of newcomer performance: newcomer empower-
ment, team expectations, and team performance.
However, Chen and Klimoski did not examine how
newcomer performance evolves over time, and
whether or not newcomer effectiveness influences
important outcomes (cf. Anderson & Thomas,
1996).
Accordingly, capitalizing on data collected from
Chen and Klimoskis (2003) sample, the present
study extended their work in three important ways.
First, rather than focusing on newcomer perfor-
mance toward the end of socialization, I examined
how newcomer performance evolves throughout
socialization and propose here that more adaptive
newcomers improve their performance more
quickly. Second, I delineated and tested individu-
al- and team-level predictors of both initial new-
comer performance and newcomer performance
improvement. In doing so, I hoped to qualify some
of Chen and Klimoskis findings by testing whether
predictors of newcomer performance toward the
end of socialization also account for newcomer per-
formance earlier in socialization and for newcomer
performance improvement. Finally, I examined the
possible influences of initial newcomer perfor-
102
mance and newcomer performance improvement
on individual- and team-level outcomes.
THEORY AND HYPOTHESES
A Multilevel Model of Newcomer Adaptation in
Teams
The main goal of the present study was to delin-
eate and test a longitudinal, multilevel model of
newcomer adaptation in teams. The hypothesized
model of relationships, which is depicted in Figure
1, incorporates three levels of analysis: team, indi-
vidual, and within-individual. Newcomer perfor-
mance adaptation is conceptualized as a within-
individual construct, captured by newcomer
performance change. To appropriately model new-
comer performance change, I considered both ini-
tial newcomer performance and newcomer perfor-
mance improvement (cf. Chan & Schmitt, 2000).
Following Anderson and Thomass (1996) model of
work group socialization, I also examined individ-
ual-level and team-level predictors and outcomes
of newcomer adaptation, as summarized in Figure
Hypothesized Multilevel Model of Relationshipsa
a
Level 1 is within individual; level 2 is the individual level; level 3 is the team level. Time time data were collected in the study to
capture the variable.
Academy of Management Journal February
1. Importantly, the hypothesized model includes
both top-down cross-level effects (that is, effects of
higher-level predictors on lower-level outcomes)
and bottom-up cross-level effects (that is, effects of
lower-level predictors on higher-level outcomes)
(cf. Kozlowski & Klein, 2000). Thus, the assump-
tion underlying the hypothesized model is that
newcomer adaptation is a longitudinal process that
evolves within persons (newcomers) over time, and
that newcomer adaptation both influences and is
influenced by certain individual and team constructs.
The Adaptive Nature of Newcomer Performance
Change
According to Chen and Klimoski (2003), six role
domains capture the content domain of newcomer
performance in project teams: (1) job (doing tasks
specified in ones job description), (2) career (ob-
taining the skills needed to progress through ones
organization and career), (3) innovator (coming up
with creative and innovative ideas), (4) customer
service (interacting with and meeting the needs of
FIGURE 1
2005
clients or customers), (5) team (working well with
other team members), and (6) organization (going
above the call of duty in ones concern for ones
firm). The first goal of the present study was to
examine whether and how quickly knowledge
workers improve their performance in these do-
mains during socialization, and so this study exam-
ined newcomer performance as a within-individual
construct.
Research has shown that job performance tends
to change over time (e.g., Hofmann, Jacobs, &
Baratta, 1993; Ployhart & Hakel, 1998), particularly
during transitional periods, such as socialization,
training, and organizational change, when employ-
ees must adapt to new work demands (Keil & Cor-
tina, 2001; Murphy, 1989). In keeping with this
research, scholars have portrayed socialization in
organizations as an adaptation process (e.g., Chan &
Schmitt, 2000; Ostroff & Kozlowski, 1992). Accord-
ing to Chan, individual adaptation is a process by
which an individual achieves some degree of fit
between his/her behaviors and the new work de-
mands created by . . . changing and uncertain work
situations (2000: 4). Thus, extending previous so-
cialization research, in the present study I concep-
tualized newcomer adaptation as the rate of change
in newcomer performance.
It is consistent with Murphy (1989) that new-
comer performance change is likely to be more
dynamic early in a period of socialization, when
newcomers must learn how to match their behavior
to the demands posed by their new work environ-
ment. Indeed, newcomers in Chan and Schmitts
(2000) study reported increased task mastery over
time during socialization. However, by the end of
the socialization period, newcomers adapt better
and create better fit between their behavior and
work demands, and thus performance levels are
less likely to change. Such a negative accelera-
tion performance improvement trajectory
throughout socialization captures what Murphy
(1989) referred to as a shift from transitional to
maintenance periods of work. Surprisingly, there
has been limited research on newcomer perfor-
mance in general, and no research on the nature of
job performance change during socialization
(Bauer, Morrison, & Callister, 1998). Nonetheless,
when newcomers join new teams, even within the
same organization, they often need to adapt to new
work proceduresfor instance, they learn how to
interact with new teammates or clients, or how to
work with new technologiesand thus they are
likely to exhibit the aforementioned pattern of per-
formance improvement/change.
Chen 103
Hypothesis 1. Newcomer performance improves
over time with negative acceleration, in such a
way that performance improvement is more pro-
nounced early rather than late in socialization.
Predictors of Initial Performance and
Performance Improvement
Note that Hypothesis 1 concerns average perfor-
mance change across newcomers. Even though
most newcomers are likely to adapt well during
socialization (an expectation reflected here by the
predicted average performance improvement),
there are likely to be meaningful individual differ-
ences in both initial (i.e., early) newcomer perfor-
mance and newcomer performance improvement
(e.g., Hofmann et al., 1993). Research by Ployhart
and Hakel (1998) suggested further that initial lev-
els of, and changes in, performance reflected dis-
tinct constructs that were affected by different pre-
dictors (see also Chan & Schmitt, 2000).
Accordingly, I examined whether or not the in-
dividual-level (i.e., initial newcomer empower-
ment) and team-level (i.e., team expectations and
initial team performance) variables Chen and Kli-
moski (2003) found to predict newcomer perfor-
mance toward the end of socialization also pre-
dicted initial newcomer performance (measured
earlier in the socialization period) and newcomer
performance improvement. The relationships of
initial newcomer empowerment, team expecta-
tions, and team performance with newcomer per-
formance capture top-down cross-level effects, or
how contextual and individual factors motivate
and enable newcomer adaptation.
Initial newcomer empowerment. According to
Thomas and Velthouse (1990), psychological em-
powerment emerges from four motivational states:
(1) impact (the degree to which an employee feels
he/she affects his/her environment), (2) compe-
tence (perceived ability to accomplish work-related
tasks), (3) meaningfulness (intrinsic caring about
work tasks), and (4) choice (perceived self-determi-
nation or autonomy at work). Initial newcomer em-
powerment captures newcomer motivation early in
socialization. Knowledge workers are highly moti-
vated to acquire new knowledge and skills that will
help them progress in their careers (Hall, 1996;
Katz, 1997), and empowering newcomers will pro-
vide them opportunities to learn and improve new
skills. In line with theory and previous research
(e.g., Liden, Wayne, & Sparrow, 2000; Spreitzer,
1995; Thomas & Velthouse, 1990), newcomers with
a higher sense of empowerment are likely to initiate
and direct greater effort toward accomplishing their
work (and thus perform better initially), and also to
104 Academy of Management Journal
sustain a greater amount of effort over time (and
thus improve their performance).
Hypothesis 2a. Initial newcomer empower-
ment positively relates to initial newcomer
performance.
Hypothesis 2b. Initial newcomer empowerment
positively relates to newcomer performance
improvement.
Team expectations. Chen and Klimoski (2003)
defined team expectations as the shared expecta-
tions of a team, including teammates and team
leader, about how effectively a newcomer will per-
form in the various role domains in their team.
Teammates and team leaders are likely to share
expectations about a newcomer because the leader
and members of teams share leadership functions
and interact regularly while working on interde-
pendent tasks (Zaccaro & Marks, 1999). Team ex-
pectations are particularly important early in a
newcomers socialization, because they tend to
form quickly during initial newcomer-team inter-
actions (Liden, Wayne, & Stilwell, 1993) and, over
time, these expectations and their consequences
stabilize and become less malleable (Eden, 1990).
In keeping with Edens (1990) work on the Pygma-
lion effect, Chen and Klimoski (2003) found that
team expectations indirectly predicted newcomer
performance through the assignment of more chal-
lenging work to newcomers and the development
of positive work relationships with newcomers,
which in turn accounted for newcomer empower-
ment. However, Chen and Klimoski, who focused
on subjective ratings of performance assessed to-
ward the end of socialization, also found that team
expectations positively and directly predicted new-
comer performance, which was explained by the
notion that performance raters are more likely to
attend to, process, and retrieve employee behaviors
that are consistent with their expectations (DeNisi
& Williams, 1988). Thus, it is expected that team
expectations will positively and directly predict new-
comer performance assessed earlier in a socializa-
tion process (that is, initial newcomer performance).
However, it is less clear whether or how team
expectations might relate to newcomer perfor-
mance improvement. On the one hand, teams
whose members expect a newcomer to be effective
might continuously or even increasingly process
positive instances of newcomer behavior. On the
other hand, teams that expect the newcomer to be
effective might be more likely to be disappointed
by low or modest initial levels of newcomer perfor-
mance, which are likely during early stages of so-
cialization, when the newcomer is still adapting to
February
new work demands. Thus, although I explored the
potential impact of team expectations on new-
comer performance improvement, no a priori hy-
pothesis was advanced for this possible relation-
ship. Finding that team expectations related to
initial newcomer performance but was negatively
related or unrelated to newcomer performance im-
provement would support the discriminant valid-
ity of the initial performance and performance im-
provement constructs.
Hypothesis 3. Team expectations positively re-
late to initial newcomer performance.
Initial team performance. Anderson and
Thomas (1996) proposed that initial levels of team
effectiveness affect socialization and newcomer
success in teams. According to Schneiders (1987)
attraction-selection-attrition (ASA) framework, ef-
fective teams are more likely to attract, select, and
retain effective newcomers (see also DeNisi, 2000).
Additionally, effective teams are likely to form high
productivity norms that motivate new members to
perform well (cf. Hackman, 1992). Moreover, mate-
rial and personnel resources (for example, strong
technology and talented employees) are usually
limited in organizations, and better resources are
more likely to be allocated to teams that have used
such resources effectively (DeNisi, 2000). Thus,
newcomers who join more effective teams are
likely to be motivated by higher productivity norms
and have better access to the human and material
resources needed for them to do their jobs well
early on. Furthermore, newcomers in more effec-
tive teams are more likely to improve their perfor-
mance, because high productivity norms and ac-
cess to personnel and material resources are also
likely to motivate and enable newcomers to contin-
uously improve their performance.
Hypothesis 4a. Initial team performance posi-
tively relates to initial newcomer performance.
Hypothesis 4b. Initial team performance posi-
tively relates to newcomer performance im-
provement.
Outcomes of Initial Performance and
Performance Change
Very little socialization research has tested the
impact newcomers can have on their work groups
and organizations (Anderson & Thomas, 1996) and,
likewise, very little job performance research has
tested whether or not individual job performance
influences performance at higher levels of analysis
(Ployhart & Schneider, 2002; Schneider, Smith, &
Sipe, 2000). Anderson and Thomass (1996) model
2005
of work group socialization suggests that newcomer
performance is not only influenced by newcomer
motivation and aspects of the social system, but
also has nontrivial influences on newcomer moti-
vation and an organizations social system. More-
over, this study explicitly examined whether initial
newcomer performance and newcomer perfor-
mance improvements differently or uniquely re-
lated to certain outcomes. Note that the relation-
ships of initial newcomer performance and
newcomer performance improvement with out-
comes capture bottom-up cross-level effects, or the
impact of newcomer adaptation on subsequent in-
dividual-level and team-level outcomes.
Subsequent newcomer empowerment. Examin-
ing subsequent newcomer empowerment, in addi-
tion to initial empowerment, is important because
it is likely to predict job performance following
socialization (Liden et al., 2000). Initial newcomer
performance and newcomer performance improve-
ment are likely to positively predict subsequent
newcomer empowerment for two reasons. First, as
Thomas and Velthouse (1990) noted in a review,
research on the specific components of empower-
ment has shown that successful performance posi-
tively influences these components; for example,
performance positively affects subsequent compe-
tence beliefs (Bandura, 1997). Second, team leaders
and teammates view newcomers who perform well
early and/or who improve over time as more adapt-
able. Thus, these newcomers are more likely to be
empowered with more challenging work, which, in
turn, is likely to positively impact their subsequent
sense of empowerment.
Hypothesis 5a. Initial newcomer performance
positively relates to subsequent newcomer
empowerment.
Hypothesis 5b. Newcomer performance im-
provement positively relates to subsequent
newcomer empowerment.
Newcomer turnover intentions. DeMarco
(1996) estimated that high-tech firms often invest
more than $150,000 in staffing each new technical
position and socializing its new incumbent. Given
this expenditure on newcomer socialization, orga-
nizations are clearly motivated to retain newcom-
ers. Turnover intentions, or intentions to quit a
job, have been found to be one of the best predictors
of actual quitting (turnover; Griffeth, Hom, &
Gaertner, 2000), and thus such intentions are im-
portant outcomes of socialization (Bauer et al.,
1998). Newcomers who perform well early and
who improve their performance are not only moti-
vated to perform their jobs well (as captured by
Chen 105
newcomer empowerment), but are also likely to be
motivated to remain with their organizations. Such
newcomers are likely to feel they are doing mean-
ingful work that contributes to their own career
development and to their organizations (Hall, 1996;
Katz, 1997).
Hypothesis 6a. Initial newcomer perfor-
mance negatively relates to newcomer turn-
over intentions.
Hypothesis 6b. Newcomer performance im-
provement negatively relates to newcomer
turnover intentions.
Subsequent team performance. Teams are com-
posed of interdependent individuals, and therefore
the performance of each individual can directly
affect the performance of other individuals on the
team and of the team as a whole (DeNisi, 2000).
This suggests that initial newcomer performance
positively relates to subsequent team performance.
It is also possible that, irrespective of initial new-
comer performance, newcomer performance im-
provement positively relates to subsequent team
performance. In particular, newcomers who per-
form well more quickly require less help from other
members of a team and contribute more to team
effectiveness. Thus, initial newcomer performance
and performance improvement can reduce team pro-
cess losses and help improve team effectiveness.
Hypothesis 7a. Initial newcomer performance pos-
itively relates to subsequent team performance.
Hypothesis 7b. Newcomer performance im-
provement positively relates to subsequent
team performance.
METHODS
Sample
This study used the same sample examined in
Chen and Klimoski (2003), though several different
measures and different analyses were used here.
Also, the present investigation addressed different
research questions and hypotheses. The sample
consisted of 390 knowledge workers (of whom 104
were newcomers) in 104 project teams from three
high-tech firms. The employees worked interde-
pendently on developing and/or maintaining infor-
mation technology systems (e.g., data integration or
security systems). The projects were time-limited,
but their time spans varied widely between six
months and three years. Each teams members
worked in one geographic location, but teams were
dispersed throughout the United States. The organ-
izations based formal evaluations and rewards for
106 Academy of Management Journal
all the teams in the sample on both individual
behavior and the extent to which the teams met
their project goals and objectives. Given the length
of the survey used here and concerns about inter-
fering with work, data were collected from one
newcomer, one or two teammates, and the team
leader in each team; the teammates and team lead-
ers deemed the most likely to interact closely and
regularly with the newcomers were surveyed. On
average, the teams had 8 members, excluding the
team leader and the newcomer, range 215; and
newcomers reported interacting 10 hours per week
with their team leaders and 13 hours per week with
the teammates sampled during the time of the
study.
Complete data were available from 65 teams (a 63
percent response rate); of the 226 respondents, 65
were newcomers, 65 were team leaders, and 96
were teammates. Multivariate analyses of variance
indicated that those providing complete data did
not differ from those providing partial data on any
demographic or substantive variable. Fifty-nine
newcomers were new hires (new to both a relevant
team and organization), and 6 were internal trans-
ferees (new to the team, but not to the organiza-
tion). The average participants age was 39 years; 76
percent were male; 75 percent were Caucasian, 12
percent were African American, 5 percent were
Asian, and 3 percent were Hispanic. Of the team-
mates and team leaders, average organizational ten-
ure was two years, and average team tenure was
one year. Analyses in which demographic vari-
ablesincluding newcomer gender, newcomer
type (transferee/new hire), and team sizewere
controlled for indicated these variables did not sig-
nificantly influence any outcome or relationship of
interest.
Design and Procedure
As reported in Chen and Klimoski (2003), the
socialization period of newcomers in project teams
usually lasts about two to three months. Therefore,
data were collected four times, the first (time 1) as
close as possible to newcomer entry and the fourth
(time 4) no more than about three months after
newcomer entry. At time 1, an average 21 days after
entry, teammates and team leaders completed the
team expectation measure, and team leaders com-
pleted the team performance measure. At time 2 (21
days following time 1), newcomers completed the
empowerment measure, and teammates and team
leaders rated the performance of the newcomers.
Teammates and team leaders again rated the new-
comers performance at times 3 (21 days following
time 2), and 4 (21 days following time 3). At time 4,
February
team leaders completed the team performance mea-
sure, and newcomers completed the empowerment
and turnover intentions measures. All data were
collected using surveys that were sent to and re-
ceived from participants via e-mail attachment.
When participants failed to complete a survey
within two days, a reminder was sent; up to five
reminders were sent, 48 hours apart. On average,
the final newcomer performance measure was ob-
tained 84 days after newcomer entry to a team
(range 66 110), although variation in the time
lags between data collection times (that is, between
times 1 and 2, 2 and 3, and so forth) was very small.
Differences in the total duration of the socialization
period captured did not affect any outcome or re-
lationship of interest.
Measures
The team expectations, newcomer empower-
ment, and newcomer performance variables were
conceptualized as aggregate multidimensional con-
structs (Edwards, 2001), as their components com-
bined to form the overall construct. Also, the cor-
relations between dimensions were moderate to
rather high (for instance, the average correlation
among the performance dimensions was .79). Ad-
ditionally, no different relationships were expected
a priori with different dimensions of each con-
struct, and therefore it was more parsimonious to
examine the specific dimensions as components of
a single composite. Moreover, owing to high corre-
lations among dimensions, examining them sepa-
rately would have incurred possible multicol-
linearity. Thus, for both conceptual and statistical
reasons, the dimensions of these measures were
aggregated into single composites.
Newcomer performance. The 24-item role per-
formance measure developed by Welbourne, John-
son, and Erez (1998) and expanded by Chen and
Klimoski (2003) was used. This scale captures new-
comer performance of six work roles: task (e.g.,
quantity of work output), career (e.g., making
progress in his/her career), innovator (e.g., find-
ing improved ways to do things), customer service
(e.g., providing high-quality service to custom-
ers), team (e.g., making sure his/her work team
succeeds), and organization (e.g., doing things to
promote the company). Teammates and team lead-
ers rated the performance of newcomers on each of
24 role performance items (1 needs much im-
provement; 5 excellent) at times 2, 3, and 4.
Teammate and team leader ratings at each sepa-
rate measurement occasion were aggregated and
then averaged into a single scale for each team (
.98). Aggregating ratings of teammates and team
2005
leaders was justified on both conceptual and statis-
tical grounds. Conceptually, teammates and team
leaders in project teams share leadership responsi-
bilities (Zaccaro & Marks, 1999), and thus they are
more similar to each other than employees and
supervisors in many other organizational settings.
Also, there was no reason to suspect that ratings
provided by team leaders and teammates would be
motivated by different political agendas, because
the ratings were used only for research purposes.
Statistically supporting the aggregations across the
three measurement occasions, interrater reliability
and agreement (Bliese, 2000; James, Demaree, &
Wolf, 1984) were sufficiently high and significant
(ICC[1] .25.32; ICC[2] .47.53; Fs 1.812.11,
p .05; average rwg(j) 0.90 0.93). Note that the
low ICC(2) values obtained in this study were
largely a function of sampling similar types of
teams in similar types of organizations, which re-
sulted in less reliable differences between teams
and thus lower ICC(2) values (cf. Bliese, 2000;
James et al., 1984)
Newcomer performance improvement. I exam-
ined newcomer performance improvement in two
different ways. First, newcomer performance
scores from times 2, 3, and 4 composed a trajectory
of performance improvement analyzed using ran-
dom coefficient modeling (RCM). Second, for each
newcomer, I obtained the empirical Bayes parame-
ter estimate from an RCM analysis in which perfor-
mance was regressed on a time factor (coded as 0, 1,
and 2 for times 2, 3, and 4, respectively), and used
the unstandardized weight obtained from these
analyses to index newcomer performance improve-
ment (cf. Bliese & Ployhart, 2002). The individual
weights obtained from RCM capture the within-
person relationship between time and performance
and therefore directly measure newcomer perfor-
mance improvement.
Team expectations. The same 24 newcomer per-
formance items were used to measure team expec-
tations. Teammates and team leaders were asked to
rate how confident you are that [newcomer name]
will successfully accomplish each of the following
outcomes and activities while working as a part of
your current work team (1 not at all confident;
5 extremely confident). I aggregated average
teammates and team leaders responses within
each team to the team level and then averaged them
to form a single scale ( .98). Interrater reliability
(ICC[1] .15, ICC[2] .30, F 1.42, p .06) and
agreement (average rwg(j) 0.98, range 0.851.00)
justified the aggregation of expectations to the
team-level. Confirmatory factor analysis showed
that the team expectations and newcomer perfor-
Chen 107
mance measures captured different constructs (de-
tailed results are available upon request).
Team performance. Team leaders rated team
performance using an 11-item scale developed by
Campion, Papper, and Medsker (1996; example:
productivity/quantity of work done, 1 needs
much improvement; 5 excellent). I used rat-
ings provided at time 1 to measure initial team
performance ( .96) and ratings at time 4 to
measure subsequent team performance ( .98).
Empowerment. Empowerment was measured
using Spreitzers (1995) 12-item scale, which taps
meaningfulness (e.g., The work I do is very impor-
tant to me), competence (e.g., I am confident
about my ability to do my job), choice (e.g., I can
decide on my own how to go about my work), and
impact (e.g., My impact on what happens in my
work team is large; 1 strongly disagree; 5
strongly agree). The three impact items were
slightly modified, so that the perceived impact
items tapped a newcomers team, not department. I
averaged the 12 items into a single empowerment
scale. The time 2 empowerment score was used as
a measure of initial newcomer empowerment (
.83), whereas the time 4 score was used as a mea-
sure of subsequent newcomer empowerment (
.89).
Turnover intentions. Kelloway, Gottlieb, and
Barhams (1999) four-item scale measured new-
comer turnover intentions (e.g., I am thinking
about leaving this organization, I am planning to
look for a new job; 1 strongly disagree; 5
strongly agree; .94).
Levels of Analysis
Data in this study were conceptually at three
levels of analysisteam, individual (newcomer),
and within-individual (within-newcomer)and
the hypotheses involved cross-level relationships
(relationships between variables at different levels
of analysis). However, statistically the team and
individual levels were the same, given that there
was only one newcomer per team. Hypothesis 1
concerns the average within-newcomer perfor-
mance improvement across newcomers, and the
remaining hypotheses involve various cross-level
predictors and outcomes of initial newcomer per-
formance and newcomer performance improve-
ment. To test these cross-level relationships, I con-
ducted RCM analyses using version 3.0 of the
nonlinear and linear mixed effects (NLME) pro-
gram for S-PLUS and R (Pinheiro & Bates, 2000),
following the analytical procedures outlined by
Bliese and Ployhart (2002). RCM analyses appropri-
ately model cross-level relationships by separating
108 Academy of Management Journal February

out the variance terms and parameter estimates into
two levels: the within-individual level (level 1) and
the individual and team levels (level 2). The spe-
cific analyses conducted are explained in the Re-
sults section.
RESULTS
Table 1 provides descriptive statistics and corre-
lations. Initial newcomer performance (time 2 new-
comer performance) was unrelated to newcomer
performance improvement (r .02, n.s.), suggest-
ing these constructs could be distinguished. Note
that the correlations between repeated measures
(for example, the correlation between newcomer
performance at times 2 and 3) can also be inter-
preted as test-retest reliability coefficients.
Measurement Invariance Tests
I conducted measurement invariance tests on the
newcomer performance, newcomer empowerment,
and team performance measures to ensure they
captured the same construct over time. Following
Chan and Schmitt (2000), I estimated the measure-
ment models of each construct separately in
LISREL. For newcomer performance, scale scores
on the six role dimensions from each data collec-
tion time (times 2, 3, and 4) served as observed
indicators and the three respective times as corre-
lated latent factors. For newcomer empowerment,
scale scores for each empowerment dimension (im-
pact, competence, meaningfulness, and choice) for
times 2 and 4 served as observed indicators, and
the times 2 and 4 scores were correlated latent
factors. For team performance, the 11 items were
reduced to four parcels (each composed of a ran-
dom set of two or three items, which were the same
for each of the two data collection times), and the
four parcels were the indicators for the two corre-
lated time factors. The sample sizes were 157 team-
mates and team leaders who provided complete
newcomer performance ratings, 73 newcomers who
provided complete empowerment data, and 72
team leaders who provided complete team perfor-
mance data. In each of the analyses, the error vari-
ances of the same indicators were set to covary
freely across the time periods. Results of the new-
comer empowerment and team performance analy-
ses are based on particularly small sample sizes,
and thus should be interpreted with caution.
The model in which factor loadings relating the
indicators to their respective time factors were
freely estimated across time periods fitted the data
well for newcomer performance (2 [114, n 157
299.86], SRMR .05, CFI .98), newcomer em-
powerment (2 [21, n 73 34.21], SRMR .06,
CFI .96, and team performance (2 [21, n 72
36.43], SRMR .07, CFI .98). A more con-
strained measurement model in which respective
factor loadings were set to be equal across the three
time periods fitted the data just as well as the less
constrained measurement model for newcomer
performance (2 [10, n 157] 3.93, n.s., new-
comer empowerment (2 [3, n 73] 7.65, n.s.),
and team performance (2 [3, n 72] 3.27, n.s.),

TABLE 1
Descriptive Statistics, Reliability Coefficients, and Correlationsa

Variable Mean s.d. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

1. Initial newcomer empowerment, time 2 4.14 0.43 (.83)

2. Team expectations, time 1b 4.15 0.41 .09 (.97)
3. Initial team performance, time 1c 4.10 0.81 .01 .19 (.96)
4. Newcomer performance, time 2b 3.66 0.61 .22 .71* .21 (.98)
5. Newcomer performance, time 3b 3.76 0.61 .30* .65* .42* .79* (.98)
6. newcomer performance, time 4b 3.78 0.66 .24 .56* .37* .76* .86* (.98)
7. Newcomer performance improvementd 0.06 0.08 .11 .02 .32* .02 .39* .63* (.92)
8. Subsequent newcomer empowerment, time 4 4.20 0.46 .67* .05 .13 .27* .29* .16 .07 (.89)
9. Newcomer turnover intentions, time 4 2.14 0.81 .22 .04 .21 .24 .17 .17 .03 .36* (.94)
10. Subsequent team performance, time 4c 4.05 0.79 .05 .36* .64* .47* .53* .61* .38* .11 .03 (.98)

a
n 65; internal consistency reliability coefficients (alphas) appear on the diagonal. Newcomers provided data for all variables unless
a different source is indicated.
b
Data were provided by teammates and by a team leader;
c
A team leader was the source.
d
The performance improvement variable reflects the empirical Bayes estimates relating time to performance, obtained separately in
RCM for each newcomer.

p .10
* p .05
Two-tailed tests.
2005
indicating that a single and structurally equivalent
factor fitted the data equally well over the time
periods for each of the measures, or that the same
constructs were assessed over time.
Analysis of Newcomer Performance Change
Following Bliese and Ployhart (2002), I first
tested an intercept-only model using RCM to assess
the amount of variance in performance residing
between and within newcomers. The intraclass cor-
relation (ICC[1]) obtained from this model sug-
gested that 79 percent of the total performance vari-
ance resided between newcomers and 21 percent of
the total performance variance resided within new-
comers. Next, to test Hypothesis 1, a second model
was examined using RCM where, for each new-
comer, a time factor (designated as 0, 1, and 2 for
times 2, 3, and 4) was set to predict the three
performance scores. In essence, this model in-
volved regressing performance on time, and thus
the intercept indicated initial newcomer perfor-
mance (i.e., time 2 performance), and the parameter
estimate for the time factor reflected the extent to
which, on average, newcomer performance im-
proved. Results indicated that the average perfor-
mance intercept was 3.67, which closely matched
the mean value obtained for time 2 newcomer per-
formance (see Table 1). Supporting Hypothesis 1,
results indicated the rate of performance change
was positive (.06, p .05), suggesting that, on
average, newcomer performance improved by .06
points at each consecutive data collection time
(which was identical to the mean of the perfor-
mance improvement variable; see Table 1). The
time factor accounted for 26 percent of the within-
newcomer performance variance. I assessed a third
model using RCM, in which newcomer perfor-
mance intercepts and slopes were allowed to vary
across newcomers. A comparison of the fit of the
second model (in which the performance slopes
were set to be equal across newcomers) with the fit
TABLE 2
Growth Model Parameter Estimates of Predictors of Newcomer Performancea
Variable Estimate
Intercept 1.96
Time 0.06
Initial newcomer empowerment 0.27
Team expectations 1.00
Initial team performance 0.10
Initial newcomer empowerment time 0.03
Team expectations time 0.11
Initial team performance time 0.08
a
n 195 performance observations nested in 65 newcomers/teams.
Chen 109
of the third model yielded a log-likelihood ratio of
4.84 (p .09), indicating a marginally significant
level of individual differences in performance
slopes (that is, the extent of newcomer performance
improvement differed somewhat across newcomers).
Corroborating Hypothesis 1 and the RCM find-
ings, dependent sample t-tests indicated that new-
comer performance improved significantly from
time 2 (x 3.66, s.d. 0.61) to time 4 (x 3.78,
s.d. 0.66), t64 2.16, p .05, 2 .06, and from
time 2 to time 3 (x s 3.66 and 3.76; s.d.s 0.61
and 0.61, respectively; t 64) 2.04, p .05, 2
.07, but not from time 3 (x 3.76, s.d. 0.61) to
time 4 (x 3.78, s.d. 0.66), t 64 0.42, n.s., 2
.00). Thus, as hypothesized, average newcomer per-
formance progressed in a negative acceleration
trend over time: newcomers improved to a greater
extent early rather than later during socialization.
Predictors of Newcomer Performance
To test Hypotheses 2 4, I conducted RCM anal-
yses in which initial newcomer performance (that
is, the performance intercept) and newcomer per-
formance change (that is, the time-performance
slope) were treated as level 1 outcomes, and initial
newcomer empowerment, team expectations, and
initial team performance were examined as level 2
predictors of the newcomer performance intercept
and slope (see Bliese & Ployhart, 2002). In these
analyses, the direct effects of level 2 predictors on
the performance intercept capture their relation-
ships with initial newcomer performance, whereas
the cross-level interaction between the level 2 pre-
dictors and the level 1 time variable reflect the
relationships of predictors with newcomer perfor-
mance improvement.
As shown in Table 2, initial newcomer empow-
erment and team expectations positively and
uniquely predicted initial newcomer performance,
but initial team performance did not. The three
predictors collectively accounted for 65 percent of
s.e. df t p
0.69 126 2.84 .005
0.37 126 0.15 .882
0.12 61 2.30 .025
0.12 61 8.02 .000
0.06 61 1.54 .129
0.06 126 0.52 .604
0.07 126 1.64 .104
0.03 126 2.36 .020
110 Academy of Management Journal
the between-newcomer performance variance.
These results support Hypotheses 2a and 3, but not
Hypothesis 4a. In contrast, initial newcomer em-
powerment and team expectations did not predict
newcomer performance improvement, whereas ini-
tial team performance significantly and positively
predicted newcomer performance improvement.
As a set, the predictors explained 17 percent of the
between-newcomer variance in performance im-
provement (that is, 17 percent of the between-new-
comer variance in within-newcomer time-perfor-
mance slopes). These results support Hypothesis
4b, but not Hypothesis 2b. Using Aiken and Wests
(1991) procedures, I plotted the effect of initial
team performance on the newcomer performance
slope; results are shown in Figure 2. As predicted,
newcomers who joined teams with high perfor-
mance improved their performance, whereas those
who joined poorly performing teams did not.
Outcomes of Newcomer Performance
Although it is not possible to directly model bot-
tom-up effects (that is, level 1 predictors of level 2
outcomes) in RCM, it is possible to get insight into
such relationships using RCM analyses in which
FIGURE 2
Effect of Initial Team Performance on Newcomer Performance Improvement
February
each outcome is treated separately as a predictor of
initial performance and performance change or im-
provement. The effects of the outcomes on the per-
formance intercept capture the relationship be-
tween initial newcomer performance and the
outcome, whereas the outcome by time estimates
capture the relationships between performance im-
provement and the outcomes. Table 3 summarizes
the separate RCM analyses testing the outcomes of
initial newcomer performance and newcomer per-
formance improvement (Hypotheses 57). Support-
ing Hypotheses 5a and 7a, initial newcomer perfor-
mance was positively associated with subsequent
newcomer empowerment and subsequent team
performance. In line with Hypothesis 6a, initial
newcomer performance was marginally (p .07)
and negatively associated with newcomer turnover
intentions. In addition, Hypothesis 7b was sup-
ported, in that newcomer performance improve-
ment was positively associated with subsequent
team performance. However, Hypotheses 5b and 6b
were not supported, as newcomer performance im-
provement was not significantly associated with
subsequent newcomer empowerment or newcomer
turnover intentions.
2005 Chen 111

TABLE 3
Growth Model Parameter Estimates of Outcomes of Newcomer Performancea
Analysis/Variable Estimate s.e. df t p

Subsequent newcomer empowerment

Intercept 2.04 0.66 128 3.09 .002
Time 0.34 0.25 128 1.34 .183
Newcomer empowerment 0.39 0.16 63 2.49 .015
Newcomer empowerment time 0.07 0.06 128 1.11 .268

Newcomer turnover intentions

Intercept 4.04 0.21 128 19.43 .000
Time 0.01 0.08 128 0.11 .913
Turnover intentions 0.17 0.09 63 1.88 .065
Turnover intentions time 0.02 0.03 128 0.68 .496

Subsequent team performance

Intercept 2.23 0.35 128 6.43 .000
Time 0.24 0.14 128 1.70 .092
Team performance 0.36 0.08 63 4.27 .000
Team performance time 0.07 0.03 128 2.16 .033

a
n 195 performance observations nested in 65 newcomers/teams.

Hypotheses 57 were also tested using more con-
servative hierarchical regression analyses that con-
trolled for the three predictors of newcomer perfor-
mance. In these analyses, the three predictors of
newcomer performance were entered at a first step,
followed by initial newcomer performance at a sec-
ond step and the direct newcomer performance
improvement variable at a final step. The perfor-
mance improvement variable was entered last, be-
cause it suggests a more complex explanation for
the effects of newcomer performance. I conducted a
separate regression analysis for each outcome. Ta-
ble 4 reports the results of these hierarchical regres-
sion analyses, which were highly consistent with
the RCM results. Specifically, supporting Hypoth-
eses 5a, 6a, and 7a, initial newcomer performance
positively predicted subsequent newcomer em-
powerment, negatively predicted newcomer turn-
over intentions, and positively predicted subse-
quent team performance, even when I controlled
for initial newcomer empowerment, team expecta-
tions, and initial team performance. In addition,
newcomer performance improvement uniquely
and positively predicted subsequent team perfor-
mance, supporting Hypothesis 7b. However, Hy-
potheses 5b and 6b were again not supported, given
that newcomer performance improvement did not
significantly predict subsequent newcomer em-
powerment or newcomer turnover intentions.
DISCUSSION
This study is one of the first to model newcomer
performance longitudinally and to examine multi-
level antecedents and outcomes of newcomer ad-
aptation in teams. Extending Chen and Klimoski
(2003), this study provides several theoretical and
practical contributions, and results suggest several
interesting and important avenues for future re-
search.
Theoretical Contributions
Extending Chen and Klimoski (2003), and con-
sistently with dynamic theories of job performance
(e.g., Keil & Cortina, 2001; Murphy, 1989), new-
comer performance was found to be malleable dur-
ing an early transitional period, when employees
were required to adapt existing skills to meet new
work demands. However, performance became
more stable later on, after newcomers had adapted
better and transitioned into a maintenance work
period. Moreover, the findings that performance
improved between times 2 and 3 but not between
times 3 and 4 confirmed the qualitative interview
results reported by Chen and Klimoski, according
to which newcomers in project teams are expected
to get up to speed within about two months.
Importantly, this socialization period is much
shorter than that captured in most previous social-
ization studies (typically 12 to 18 months following
entry; e.g., Bauer et al. [1998]). However, the rate of
newcomer adaptation may depend on newcomer
type (job changers versus new workforce entrants,
for example) and the particular work environment
(for instance, short-term project teams versus long-
term manufacturing teams).
112 Academy of Management Journal February

TABLE 4
Regression Analyses of Outcomes of Newcomer Performancea

Step and Variable s.e R2 R2 F

Subsequent newcomer empowerment

1. Initial newcomer empowerment, time 2 .67* 0.10
Team expectations .02 0.11
Initial team performance, time 1 .14 0.05 .47 .47 18.01*
2. Initial newcomer performance, time 2 .28* 0.10 .51 .04 4.36*
3. Newcomer performance improvementb .09 0.53 .53 .01 0.86

Newcomer turnover intentions

1. Newcomer empowerment, time 2 .21 0.23
Team expectations .06 0.26
Initial team performance, time 1 .22 0.13 .09 .09 2.02
2. Initial newcomer performance, time 2 .45* 0.24 .18 .09 6.28*
3. Newcomer performance improvementb .06 1.22 .18 .00 0.20

Subsequent team performance

1. Newcomer empowerment, time 2 .07 0.17
Team expectations .26 0.18
Initial team performance, time 1 .59* 0.09 .48 .48 18.56*
2. Initial newcomer performance, time 2 .39* 0.16 .55 .07 9.22*
3. Newcomer performance improvementb .26* 0.82 .60 .06 8.61*

a
n 65.
b
The performance improvement variable reflects the empirical Bayes estimates relating time to performance, obtained separately in
RCM for each newcomer.

p .10
* p .05
Two-tailed tests.

Another novel contribution of this study to the
socialization literature was the identification of
unique predictors of initial newcomer performance
and newcomer performance improvement, which
provided evidence for the distinctness of these two
performance functions. Qualifying Chen and Kli-
moskis (2003) findings, initial newcomer empow-
erment and team expectations predicted initial per-
formance, but not performance improvement. In
contrast, initial team performance predicted perfor-
mance improvement, but not initial performance.
These findings suggest that, although team perfor-
mance enables and/or drives newcomer adaptation,
the benefits associated with joining more effective
teams may not be realized early in socialization. In
contrast, motivational processes (captured by new-
comer empowerment) and team expectations are
more likely to impact initial levels of performance.
Although more research is needed to strengthen
these inferences, these results suggest that theoret-
ical models of performance should not be based on
an assumption that the predictors accounting for
initial levels of performance also influence perfor-
mance change (Ployhart & Hakel, 1998).
Furthermore, in line with Anderson and Thomas
(1996), this study also showed that newcomer ad-
aptation in teams is predicted by individual and
contextual factors and that newcomer adaptation in
turn also predicts individual and contextual out-
comes. Specifically, initial newcomer empower-
ment motivated higher initial newcomer perfor-
mance, and initial newcomer performance
positively predicted subsequent newcomer em-
powerment. In addition, team performance related
to newcomer performance improvement, and new-
comer initial performance and performance im-
provement uniquely and positively contributed to
subsequent team performance. Moreover, results
suggested that a newcomers early performance af-
fects his or her motivation to remain with an organ-
ization (turnover intentions), implying that highly
effective newcomers are likely to remain with the
organization (cf. Griffeth et al., 2000). Thus, these
results extend previous socialization theory and
research by enhancing understanding of how man-
agers can best integrate newcomers into teams and
by demonstrating that effective management of
newcomer performance can have a nontrivial im-
pact on the newcomer, the work team, and the
organization.
Finally, contributing more generally to the hu-
man resource management literature, this study is
2005
one of the first to show that individual performance
can positively impact performance at higher levels
of analysis (in this case, team performance), even
though the performance of only one individual per
team (a newcomer) was considered in this study.
This is important, as most human resource manage-
ment theories (for instance, staffing theories) rely
on the assumption that enhancing individual per-
formance will promote better group and organiza-
tional performance, yet this assumption has rarely
been tested (Ployhart & Schneider, 2002; Schneider
et al., 2000). Moreover, this study showed that both
individual motivation (empowerment) and contex-
tual factors (team expectations and team perfor-
mance) predicted individual performance. Thus,
considering both top-down and bottom-up effects
can greatly enhance understanding of how perfor-
mance can be facilitated across levels.
Practical Implications
The findings suggest that strategies directed at
enhancing initial newcomer performance may not
necessarily facilitate newcomer performance im-
provement, and vice versa. To facilitate early new-
comer performance, managers should, when possi-
ble, empower newcomers with challenging work
and boost team expectations of newcomers (for in-
stance, by informing a team about the newcomers
competence and potential; Eden [1990]). However,
such strategies may not help newcomers improve
their performance more quickly. The finding that
newcomers who joined more effective teams were
more likely to improve their performance suggests
that managers could facilitate newcomer perfor-
mance improvement by establishing high produc-
tivity norms in their teams (by setting challenging
goals, for example) and providing newcomers with
sufficient social support and material resources.
For instance, assigning productive team members
as mentors can help motivate and enable newcom-
ers to improve their performance quicker. How-
ever, more empirical research is needed to better
support these recommendations.
This study also suggests that managers have to
integrate newcomers, particularly those in fast-
paced environments such as high-tech firms, much
more quickly than most previous models of new-
comer socialization have suggested (cf. Bauer et al.,
1998). Further, this study suggests that empower-
ing newcomers plays a major role not only in boost-
ing newcomer performance, but also in improving
newcomer retention (Katz, 1997). Indeed, newcom-
ers who did not feel empowered as early as 42 days
following entry performed worse initially and later
indicated greater willingness to quit their jobs. Fur-
Chen 113
thermore, subsequent newcomer empowerment re-
lated even more strongly to turnover intentions.
Thus, managers should quickly and continuously
empower newcomers through such practices as in-
volving them in key decision processes, enhancing
their self-efficacy, and establishing mutual trust be-
tween them and their teams (Kirkman & Rosen,
1999). Managers who fail to empower newcomers
quickly and continuously stand the risk of not fully
maximizing the potential of their newcomers, los-
ing newcomers quickly to other companies, and
incurring replacement costs.
Limitations and Future Research
Even though data were collected at multiple
times and from multiple sources, it is not possible
to completely eliminate common method variance
as a possible alternative explanation for some of the
findings. In particular, common method variance
could have inflated the correlations among team
expectations, team performance, and newcomer
performance (r .47.71). Future research should
replicate the results using newcomer and team per-
formance obtained from different sources. Addi-
tionally, the observational nature of this study pre-
cludes strong causality inferences. Experimental
research (particularly field experimentation) is
needed to strengthen the causal links tested here.
That said, the longitudinal nature of this study
helped increase its internal validity.
Moreover, the performance trajectory detected in
this study was likely affected by the time intervals
chosen. It is possible that different performance
trajectories, as well as different predictors and out-
comes of these trajectories, would have been de-
tected had different time intervals been chosen.
However, the time intervals I used were based on
interviews (see Chen & Klimoski, 2003), and the
finding that newcomer performance improved sig-
nificantly until about two months following entry
and began tapering off following that supported the
choice of time intervals. Finally, only one or two
teammates were sampled from each team, which
likely resulted in lower ICC(2) values, or less reli-
able differences between teams average ratings of
team expectations and newcomer performance (cf.
Bliese, 2000). However, sampling fewer members
in each team enabled sampling more teams and
only minimally interrupting the teams work. Also,
the results would have been stronger if higher
ICC(2) values had been obtained (Bliese, 2000).
Future research should examine the generaliz-
ability of the present findings beyond the present
context. First, researchers should examine the rate
at which different types of newcomers (e.g., contin-
114 Academy of Management Journal
gent versus permanent employees) improve their
performance during socialization. Research should
also examine whether results obtained in this study
generalize to socialization experiences in different
teams and industries. It is possible, for instance,
that the rate of newcomer performance improve-
ment is much quicker in high-tech project teams
than in service or sales teams in the automobile
industry (cf. Ployhart & Hakel, 1998). Also, given
that knowledge workers in high-technology indus-
tries are particularly motivated by challenging
work assignments that allow them to develop new
knowledge and skills, the relationships among
newcomer empowerment, newcomer performance,
and turnover might be stronger in this context than
it is in contexts in which employees may be less
motivated to develop their knowledge and skills
(for instance, the fast-food business or production
industries).
Studies should also examine whether different
factors affect and are affected by newcomer perfor-
mance in different teams or by a focus on different
types of newcomers. Additionally, it would be
valuable to examine changes in newcomer perfor-
mance using different measures (for instance, ob-
jective measures or ratings obtained from different
sources, such as customers). Scholarship would
also benefit from studies focusing on process-ori-
ented predictors and outcomes of individual-in-
team performance. For instance, it is possible that
team performance affects newcomer performance
improvement through productivity norms or
through the personnel and material resources avail-
able to newcomers and that certain team processes
(e.g., improved team coordination) explain the ef-
fect of newcomer performance on subsequent team
performance. In addition, researchers could extend
previous research by examining whether changes
in such variables as newcomer empowerment or
team performance account for variance in new-
comer performance improvement over and above
initial levels of newcomer empowerment and team
performance (cf. Chan & Schmitt, 2000). Finally,
the present research focused on the performance of
only one newcomer per team; it would be interest-
ing to test whether the impact of multiple newcom-
ers per team on team effectiveness may be even
greater, and whether the impact of an individuals
performance on team effectiveness differs when the
individual is a newcomer versus an old-timer. Such
research is likely to expand the nomological net-
work of job performance and help guide better
practices for staffing and managing individuals
working in teams.
February
Conclusion
Anderson and Thomas contended this: The
proximal work group provides the immediate work
and socio-cultural environment within which the
new recruit must learn to accomplish job tasks and
responsibilities; and moreover, it is the proximal
group which is likely to be most influenced by the
arrival of a new staff member (1996: 423). In line
with their assertion, this study supported the no-
tion that teams have important contextual influ-
ences on newcomer adaptation, but that, in turn,
newcomer adaptation also has a nontrivial impact
on teams and even on organizations. In particular,
effective management of newcomers in high-tech
project teams can pay high dividends, as newcom-
ers who perform better and feel more empowered
are more likely to stay with organizations and to
promote better team performance.
REFERENCES
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. 1991. Multiple regression:
Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury
Park, CA: Sage.
Anderson, N., & Thomas, H. D. C. 1996. Work group
socialization. In M. A. West (Ed.), Handbook of
work group psychology: 423 450. Chichester, En-
gland: Wiley.
Bandura, A. 1997. Self-efficacy: The exercise of control.
New York: Freeman.
Bauer, T. N., Morrison, E. W., & Callister, R. R. 1998.
Organizational socialization: A review and direc-
tions for future research. In G. R. Ferris (Ed.), Re-
search in personnel and human resources man-
agement, vol. 16: 149 214. Greenwich, CT: JAI
Press.
Bliese, P. D. 2000. Within-group agreement, non-inde-
pendence, and reliability: Implications for data ag-
gregation and analyses. In K. J. Klein & S. W. J.
Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and
methods in organizations: Foundations, exten-
sions, and new directions: 349 381. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Bliese, P. D., & Ployhart, R. E. 2002. Growth modeling
using random coefficient models: Model building,
testing, and illustrations. Organizational Research
Methods, 5: 362387.
Campion, M. A., Papper, E. M., & Medsker, G. J. 1996.
Relations between work team characteristics and ef-
fectiveness: A replication and extension. Personnel
Psychology, 49: 429 452.
Chan, D. 2000. Understanding adaptation to change in
the work environment: Integrating individual differ-
ence and learning perspectives. In G. R. Ferris (Ed.),
Research in personnel and human resource man-
agement, vol. 18: 1 42. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
2005
Chan, D., & Schmitt, N. 2000. Interindividual differences
in intraindividual changes in proactivity during or-
ganizational entry: A latent growth modeling ap-
proach to understanding newcomer adaptation.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 85: 190 21.
Chen, G., & Klimoski, R. J. 2003. The impact of expecta-
tions on newcomer performance in teams as medi-
ated by work characteristics, social exchanges, and
empowerment. Academy of Management Journal,
46: 591 607.
DeMarco, T. 1996. Human capital, unmasked. New York
Times, April 14: F13.
DeNisi, A. S. 2000. Performance appraisal and perfor-
mance management: A multilevel analysis. In K. J.
Klein & S. W. J. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory,
research, and methods in organizations: Founda-
tions, extensions, and new directions: 121156. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
DeNisi, A. S., & Williams, K. J. 1988. Cognitive ap-
proaches to performance appraisal. In G. R. Ferris &
K. M. Rowland (Eds.), Research in personnel and
human resources management, vol. 6: 109 155.
Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Eden, D. 1990. Pygmalion in management: Productivity
as a self-fulfilling prophecy. Lexington, MA: Lex-
ington Books.
Edwards, J. R. 2001. Multidimensional constructs in or-
ganizational behavior research: An integrative ana-
lytical framework. Organizational Research Meth-
ods, 4: 144 192.
Feldman, D. C. 2002. Stability in the midst of change: A
developmental perspective on the study of careers.
In D. C. Feldman (Ed.), Work careers: A develop-
mental perspective: 326. San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass.
Griffeth, R. W., Hom, P. W., & Gaertner, S. 2000. A meta-
analysis of antecedents and correlates of employee
turnover: Update, moderator tests, and research im-
plications for the next millennium. Journal of Man-
agement, 26: 463 488.
Hackman, J. R. 1992. Group influences on individuals in
organizations. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough
(Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational
psychology, vol. 3: 199 267. Palo Alto, CA: Consult-
ing Psychologists Press.
Hall, D. T. 1996. Protean careers of the 21st century.
Academy of Management Executive, 10(4): 8 16.
Hofmann, D. A., Jacobs, R., & Baratta, J. E. 1993. Dynamic
criteria and the measurement of change. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 78: 194 204.
James, L. R., Demaree, R. G., & Wolf, G. 1984. Estimating
within-group interrater reliability with and without
response bias. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69:
8598.
Katz, R. 1997. The human side of managing technolog-
Chen 115
ical innovation: A collection of readings. New
York: Oxford University Press.
Keil, C. T., & Cortina, J. M. 2001. Degradation of validity
over time: A test and extension of Ackermans
model. Psychological Bulletin, 127: 673 697.
Kelloway, E. K., Gottlieb, B. H., & Barham, L. 1999. The
source, nature, and direction of work and family
conflict: A longitudinal investigation. Journal of Oc-
cupational Health Psychology, 4: 337346.
Kirkman, B. L., & Rosen, B. 1999. Beyond self-manage-
ment: Antecedents and consequences of team em-
powerment. Academy of Management Journal, 42:
58 74.
Klimoski, R. J., & Zukin, L. B. 1999. Selection and staffing
for team effectiveness. In E. Sundstrom & Associates
(Eds.), Supporting work team effectiveness: Best
management practices for fostering high perfor-
mance: 6391. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Bell, B. S. 2003. Work groups and
teams in organizations. In W. C. Borman, D. R. Ilgen,
& R. J. Klimoski (Eds.), Comprehensive handbook of
psychology, vol. 12Industrial and organizational
psychology: 333375. New York: Wiley.
Kozlowski, S. W. J, & Klein, K. J. 2000. A multilevel
approach to theory and research in organizations:
Contextual, temporal, and emergent processes. In
K. J. Klein & S. W. J. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel
theory, research, and methods in organizations:
Foundations, extensions, and new directions: 390.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., & Sparrow, R. T. 2000. An
examination of the mediating role of psychological
empowerment on the relations between the job, in-
terpersonal relationships, and work outcomes. Jour-
nal of Applied Psychology, 85: 407 416.
Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., & Stilwell, D. 1993. A longitu-
dinal study on the early development of leader-
member exchanges. Journal of Applied Psychology,
78: 662 674.
Murphy, K. R. 1989. Is the relationship between cogni-
tive ability and job performance stable over time?
Human Performance, 2: 183200.
Ostroff, C., & Kozlowski, S. W. J. 1992. Organizational
socialization as learning process: The role of infor-
mation acquisition. Personnel Psychology, 45: 849
874.
Pinheiro, J. C., & Bates, D. M. 2000. Mixed-effects mod-
els in S and S-PLUS. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Ployhart, R. E., & Hakel, M. D. 1998. The substantive
nature of performance variability: Predicting interin-
dividual differences in intraindividual performance.
Personnel Psychology, 51: 859 901.
Ployhart, R. E., & Schneider, B. 2002. A multilevel per-
spective on personnel selection: Implications for se-
lection system design, assessment, and construct
validation. In F. J. Dansereau & F. Yammarino (Eds.),
116 Academy of Management Journal
Research in multi-level issues: The many faces of
multi-level issues, vol. 1: 95140. Oxford, England:
Elsevier Science.
Schneider, B. 1987. The people make the place. Person-
nel Psychology, 40: 437 453.
Schneider, B., Smith, D. B., & Sipe, W. P. 2000. Personnel
selection psychology: Multilevel considerations. In
K. J. Klein & S. W. J. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel
theory, research, and methods in organizations:
Foundations, extensions, and new directions: 91
120. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Spreitzer, G. M. 1995. Psychological empowerment in
the workplace: Dimensions, measurement, and vali-
dation. Academy of Management Journal, 38:
14421465.
Thomas, K. W., & Velthouse, B. A. 1990. Cognitive ele-
ments of empowerment: An interpretive model of
intrinsic task motivation. Academy of Management
Review, 15: 666 681.
Welbourne, T. M., Johnson, D. E., & Erez, A. 1998. The
February
role-based performance scale: Validity analysis of a
theory-based measure. Academy of Management
Journal, 41: 540 555.
Zaccaro, S. J., & Marks, M. A. 1999. The roles of leaders
in high-performance teams. In E. Sundstrom & As-
sociates (Eds.), Supporting work team effective-
ness: Best management practices for fostering high
performance: 95125. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Gilad Chen (gilad.chen@tamu.edu) is an assistant profes-
sor of management at the Mays Business School, Texas
A&M University. He received his Ph.D. in industrial-
organizational psychology from George Mason Univer-
sity. His research focuses on work motivation and on
teams and leadership, with particular interests in mod-
eling motivation and performance in work team contexts
and examining multilevel organizational phenomena.