Workplace Interpersonal Factors Affecting Newcomers’

Socialization
Norihiko TAKEUCHI
Tokyo University of Science

Tomokazu TAKEUCHI
Tokyo Fuji University

Tokio TAKEUCHI
Aichi University of Education

Abstract:
Based on the social exchange theory, this study hypothesized that the quality of leader-
member and team-member exchange relationships (LMX and TMX, respectively) would
mediate the relationships between organizational socialization tactics and newcomers’
adjustments. An empirical analysis using the longitudinal survey data with samples of 137
newcomers collected at the first and the second years of their organizational entry has
provided evidence that both LMX and TMX take on mediating roles in these relationships,
providing support for our hypotheses. Findings have contributed to the extant socialization
literatures by clarifying the importance of newcomers’ social exchanges with both their
supervisors and coworkers that carry the links between the socialization tactics used by firms
and organizational adjustments experienced by newcomers. Limitations and the directions of
future research were also discussed.

Key words:
Organizational socialization tactics; leader-member exchange (LMX); team-member
exchange (TMX); newcomers’ organizational adjustments, longitudinal analysis

Introduction
Recently, there has been a growing importance in career development studies as to how
newly hired employees (hereafter referred to as “newcomers”) develop their early
organizational careers within the new organization they join (Cooper-Thomas & Anderson,
2002; Haueter, Macan, & Winter, 2003; Saks, Uggerslev, & Fassina, 2007). Career
development theorists (Schein, 1978; Super, 1957) assert that when people enter into the
new organization, they first face the issue of organizational socialization. The term,
organizational socialization, is defined as “the process by which newcomers make the
transition from being organizational outsiders to being insiders” (Bauer, Bodner, Erdogan,
Truxillo, & Tucker, 2007: p. 707). As such, one of the important challenges for newcomers,
after their organizational entry, is to adjust themselves to their organization and to become
organizational insiders.
Prior socialization studies have reported both theoretical insights and empirical findings
as to what factors promote/impede newcomers’ organizational adjustments (Bauer, Morrison,
& Callister, 1998). Most of these studies tend to limit these factors to the aspects of
“organization” (e.g., organizational socialization tactics) and/or “individual” (e.g., proactive
behavior), as illustrated by the meta analysis done by Bauer et al. (2007). However, very few
studies have focused on “workplace” (or “interpersonal”) factors that may influence the
newcomers’ adjustment processes, despite the fact that the socialization occurs through
interpersonal relationships at the workplace of an organization.

1
 In the light of the workplace or interpersonal factors pertaining to the newcomers’
organizational adjustments, the extent to which individual newcomers are able to make high
quality exchange relationships with their immediate supervisors and colleagues would
constitute an important determining factor of newcomers’ adjustments. Specifically, as role
theory suggests, newcomers’ vertical social exchange relationships with their supervisors
and their horizontal exchange relationships with their coworkers together would play a
significant role in promoting the newcomers’ role-acquisition processes within the new firm
(Graen, Orris, & Johnson, 1973; Katz, 1980), and thus the newcomers’ successful
socialization in the firm is expected to hinge on the extent to which they can make the quality
leader-member exchange (LMX) and team-member exchange (TMX) relationships in their
worksite.
Another line of socialization studies has attempted exclusively to document the
effectiveness of the organizational socialization tactics — a firm’s organizational practices
aiming to promote newcomers’ adjustments to the organization (Ashforth & Saks, 1996;
Jones, 1986). In past years, studies of this sort sought to establish the direct and
straightforward relationship between the tactics used by firms and the organizational
adjustments experienced by newcomers. Recent studies, however, have tended to assume
the existence of some “mediating” or “intervening” factors in the tactics–adjustment
relationship (Ashforth, Sluss, & Saks, 2007; Cooper-Thomas & Anderson, 2002; Gruman,
Saks, & Zweig, 2006; Takeuchi & Takeuchi, 2009).
Based on the aforementioned backgrounds, this study attempts to build and test the
unique mediating model that embeds the role of newcomers’ social exchange relationships
with their immediate supervisors and coworkers into the simple chain of the organizational
socialization tactics-newcomers’ adjustment links. Specifically, we first develop, from a social
exchange theory perspective, the hypothesized model where both LMX and TMX
relationships the newcomers make with their supervisors and coworkers, respectively, will
mediate the expected positive relationship between an organization’s socialization tactics
and newcomers’ adjustments. We will then test the model empirically, using our longitudinal
dataset collected from 137 newcomers at two different time points: namely, the first and the
second years of the newcomers’ organizational entry.

Literature Review and Hypothesis

Organizational Socialization Tactics and Newcomers’ Social Exchange Relationship

Earlier work on socialization tactics (Van Maanen and Schein, 1979) conceptualized
multiple forms of such tactics, and identified six tactics dimensions firms can utilize to assist
the adjustment of their newcomers. More recent studies (Jones, 1986; Gruman et al., 2006)
integrate the multiple tactics dimensions into a single form, and suggest that an
organization’s socialization tactics can be conceptualized as having “institutionalized” versus
“individualized” aspects. While institutionalized socialization tactics reflect a more structured
and formalized socialization process, individualized socialization tactics mirror an absence of
structure such that newcomers are socialized more by default than design (Ashforth, Saks, &
Lee, 1997). Many studies demonstrate that the more the institutionalized socialization tactics
are used in the company, the greater the level of newcomers’ adjustments becomes (e.g.,
Bauer et al., 2007).
Both LMX and TMX are typified by the social exchange relationships within the
workplace, providing the framework for understanding workplace interactions. LMX refers to
the dyadic, vertical exchange relationship between a subordinate and his or her immediate
leader (Graen, 1976; Gerstner & Day, 1997; Liden, Sparrowe, & Wayne, 1997; Sparrowe &
Liden, 1997), while TMX emphasizes the dyadic, horizontal relationship between a focal
employee and his or her coworker (Seers, 1989).
Social exchange theory (Blau, 1964) and the idea of reciprocity norm (Gouldner, 1960)
together serves as a useful framework for elucidating the links between organizational

2
socialization tactics and both LMX and TMX quality. When newcomers join a firm that
implements the institutionalized organizational socialization tactics for its new organizational
members, they will receive, from the firm, more social support within the workplace than they
will do from the firm that does not implement such tactics, through the implementation of
formal training and the acquisition of information necessary for their organizational
adjustments as well as their career advancement within the organization. Such training and
information for newcomers form an employer’s “signals” or “messages” that they are much
expected and invested from the current organization, especially on a long-term basis. These
signals and messages transmitted from the employer will then make newcomers interpret
that they are not economically but socially exchanged, and thus, in return, newcomers tend
to make socially-oriented, trust-based relationships with the firm.
Importantly, these messages are transmitted not directly from the employer to
newcomers, but indirectly via immediate supervisors and coworkers surrounding newcomers
in the workplace. For instance, the institutionalized socialization tactics promote existing
organizational members, including newcomers’ supervisors and coworkers, to become a role
model for newcomers as well as to support them both technically and socially. These
communication mechanisms in the organization may make both supervisors and coworkers
seen as extension of an organization (or an employer) with which newcomers are likely to
make social exchange relationships. Therefore, we develop the following:

Hypothesis 1: Institutionalized socialization tactics will be positively related to the

newcomers’ LMX quality with their immediate supervisors (H1a) and to the TMX
quality with their coworkers (H1b).

Newcomers’ Social Exchange Relationship and Organizational Adjustments

LMX and TMX literature asserts that the quality of an employee’s social exchange
relationships with their supervisors and coworkers is assumed to form his or her positive
work attitudes. When an employee has a high-quality LMX with immediate supervisor, the
interpersonal relationship between the two will come to be trust- and affect-based. The
supervisors will, then, see their exchange subordinate not as a mere “hired hand”, but as a
“trusted assistant”. In return for these treatments, therefore, high exchange subordinates are
likely to meet expectations or requirements from the supervisor, and thus perform better in
the workplace (Kamdar & Van Dyne, 2007).
In a similar vein, the high-quality TMX may represent the existence of mutual trust
between a focal employee and his or her exchange coworker, which motivates the employee
to meet the exchange coworker’s expectations and/or requirements on the job, resulting in
the formation of positive work attitudes (Liden, Wayne, & Sparrow, 2000). Empirically,
organizational commitment and job satisfaction was found to positively correlate with the
LMX quality (e.g., Golden & Veiga, 2008) as well as the TMX quality (e.g., Liden et al., 2000).
Studies in the past, however, tested and explored these positive correlations between
LMX or TMX and work attitudes only for employees in general especially at one point in time,
which does not capture the newcomers’ adjustment via LMX and TMX. In this study, we
extend the past literature that explains the LMX/TMX-work attitude links to the newcomers’
adjustment contexts, and examine the extent to which the newly hired employees are
“adjusted” through the workplace interactions over a certain period in time.
As adjustment outcomes, we consider the organizational and occupational aspects of
newcomers’ adjustments. We use organizational commitment, person-organization (P-O) fit,
and turnover intentions for the organizational aspect of adjustments, and achievement
motivation and person-vocation (P-V) fit for the occupational aspect. We, therefore, assume
that the newcomers will increase the level of these organizational and occupational aspects
of adjustment outcomes after their organizational entry, especially when they make the high-

3
quality LMX and TMX relationships during their adjustment processes. Thus, we can
advance the following:

Hypothesis 2: The newcomers’ LMX quality with their immediate supervisors (H2a) and the
TMX quality with their coworkers (H2b) will increase newcomers’ organizational
adjustments from the first to the second years of their organizational entry. Specifically,
both LMX and TMX quality will be positively related to organizational commitment,
person-organization fit, achievement motivation and person-vocation fit, and negatively
to turnover intentions at the second year, after controlling for these adjustment
outcomes at the first year.

Socialization Tactics, Social Exchange Relationship, and Adjustments

On the basis of Hypotheses 1, 2a, and 2b, we expect that both LMX and TMX quality
newcomers have with their immediate supervisor and coworker will mediate the relationships
between institutionalized socialization tactics and newcomers’ adjustment outcomes. In
particular, prior work on newcomers’ socialization (e.g., Ashforth & Saks, 1996; Cable &
Parsons, 2001, Jones, 1986) have found a direct positive influence of institutionalized
socialization tactics used by firms on the adjustment outcomes as perceived by newcomers.
Integrating these prior findings with our hypotheses about the expected positive effects of
institutionalized socialization tactics on the newcomers’ LMX and TMX quality as well as the
predicted positive effects of their LMX and TMX quality on the adjustment outcomes, we
would expect both newcomers’ LMX and TMX quality to take on a mediating role of
socialization tactics-adjustment outcomes links through which it functions as a linking-pin
between the organization’s tactics and its new members’ adjustments, including such
adjustment outcomes as organizational commitment, P-O fit, turnover intentions,
achievement motivation, and P-V fit. Thus, we can make the following hypotheses:

Hypothesis 3: The newcomers’ LMX quality with their immediate supervisors (H2a) and the
TMX quality with their coworkers (H2b) will mediate the relationship between the
institutionalized socialization tactics and the newcomers’ organizational adjustments
from the first to the second years of their organizational entry.

Figure 1 depicts the analytical framework of the present study.

Organizational Social
Organizational
Control variables socialization exchange
adjustment outcomes
tactics relationship

- Age
- Sex H1a LMX quality H2a
- Company size - Organizational commitment (T2)

- Industry type Institutionalized H3a - P-O fit (T2)

- Organizational commitment (T1) socialization - Turnover intention (T2)
- P-O fit (T1) tactics - Achivement motivation (T2)
- Turnover intention (T1) - P-V fit (T2)
- Achivement motivation (T1) H1b TMX quality H2b
- P-V fit (T1)
H3b

 Figure 1. Analytical framework of the present study

4
Methodology

Sampling Procedure
For the purpose of testing the sets of hypotheses stated above, we attempted to collect
individual employee data using a questionnaire survey method. In particular, to capture the
longitudinal influence on newcomers’ adjustments, we administered two waves of a survey to
the same subjects in our sample at two different points in time.
The first wave of the survey was carried out in early April, 2006 (Time 1: T1), with 304
Japanese participants at 57 private corporations in Japan. The participants were all fresh
graduates who joined the companies at the beginning of April, 2006. In Japan, there is a
consistent practice among firms that almost all new recruits are hired to start work in April.
We visited these companies, who agreed to cooperate with our research, and we distributed
questionnaires directly to the participants from each firm. We asked the respondents to fill in
all the survey questions immediately, and then collected the questionnaires after they had
been completed. As a consequence, we were able to collect responses from all 304
participants, and all the responses were also found to be usable. Thus, the response rate we
achieved for this Time 1 survey was 100%.
One year after the Time 1 survey, we carried out the second wave of the survey in April,
2007 (Time 2: T2). We contacted HR managers of all the participating companies, recieving
permission to conduct this wave of the survey for all those who had participated at Time 1.
HR managers at 11 corporations gave us negative responses, and therefore we targeted 207
participants in 46 corpotrations that agreed to conduct the second wave of our survey.
Questionnaires and stamped addressed envelopes were then sent directly to each individual
participant, the contact address of whcih was recieved from the HR managers in each
coroporation. As a consequence, 171 participants returned the questionnaires at Time 2,
which respesents a 82.6% response rate. Omitting several questionnaire sets that prevent us
from matching them with those at the first wave due to the lack of key information for data
matching (n = 5) as well as the alredy exit employees (n = 29) made us identify the 137
usable data that have complete information, and thus the usable response rate we achieved
at the second wave was 66.2%.
The average age of the participants, as of their organiational entry, was 19.9 years with
a standard deviation of 2.2 years. The gender composition of our participants was 61.3%
male and 38.7% female. In terms of their educational background, 51.8% of the participants
achieved their highest level of education at high school, 14.6% at vocational school, and
4.4% at junior college, and 29.2% were university undergraduates or graduates.

Measurement Instruments
Organizational socialization tactics. An organizational socialization tactics scale was
included in the Time 2 survey questionnaire. It was measured with 30 items develped by
Jones (1986). For these measurement items, a five-point Likert-type response format,
ranging from 5 (= agree) to 1 (= disagree), was used to gauge the extent to which
newcomers percieve their firms to use the institutionalized socialization tactics. Following the
convention in the past studies (e.g., Gruman et al., 2006), we averaged the scores of all the
items to form a single measure of the institutionalized socialization tactics.
Leader-member exchange (LMX) and team-member exchange (TMX). These two
measurements were set in the Time 2 questionnaire. We assessed the quality of LMX by
using the 12-item LMX-Multidimensional (LMX-MDM) scale developed by Liden and Maslyn
(1998). Although just four dimensions of the LMX-MDM can be used (affect, professional
respect, loyalty, and contribution), Liden and Maslyn (1998) found support for a higher order
factor that allows for a composite of all items to be used as a measure of global LMX. A five-
point Likert-type answer format was used (1 = “strongly disagree,” 7 = “strongly agree”).
Sample items are, “My supervisor is a lot of fun to work with,’ ‘I do not mind working hard for

5
my supervisor, ” “My supervisor defends my work actions to a superior, even without
complete knowledge of the issue in question,” and “I respect my supervisor’s knowledge of
and competence in the job.” The Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was .93. To measure the TMX
quality, we revised the above LMX-MDM scale by changing the subect of each sentence
from “my supervisor” to “my coworker.” A five-point Likert-type answer format was used (1 =
“strongly disagree,” 7 = “strongly agree”). The Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was .94.
Adjustment outcomes. Measuremet instruments pertaining to the newcomers’
adjustment outcomes are included in both Time 1 and Time 2 questionnaires. First, we used
a six-item measure of the Meyer and Allen’s (1993) affective organizational commitment
scale to gauge the extent to which newcomers are emotionally attached to the organization
they join. Second, P-O fit was measured with three items adopted from Cable and Jude
(1996). Third, turnover intensions were tapped into by using two items taken from Yamamoto
(2000), who tested its validation in samples of Japanese employees. Fourth, achievement
motivation was measured with three items that are developed and validated by Yamamoto
(2000) (sample item: “I am willing to actively acquire new knowledge and obtain new skills”).
Fifth, we gauged P-V fit by revising the four items taken from Lauver and Kristof-Brown
(2001). Their original itmes aim to measure the person-job fit, and thus we change, in the
measuremnet items, the wording of “job” into “occupation” to capture the extent to which
newcomers perceive themselves to fit in well with the occupation they choose. The
coefficient alphas for these five adjustment outcome measures were found to exceed .70 for
both Time 1 and Time 2 survey data.
Control variables. We controlled for the following background variables when running a
hierarchical regression analysis to test our hypotheses: (1) age, (2) gender (1 = “male” and 0
= “female”), (3) company size (1 = “300 or more employees” and 0 = “less than 300
employees”), and (4) industry type (1 = “manufacturing” and 0 = “non-manufacturing”). In
case of running a regression to predict each of the newcomers’ adjustment outcomes at
Time 2, we controlled for the same adjustment outcome variable as measured at Time 1, in
order to capture the cross-lagged effects of the socialization tactics and the LMX and TMX
quality on the newcomers’ adjustments over one year.

Results
Table 1 shows the results of hierarchical multiple regressions for predicting the
newcomers’ LMX and TMX quality that are used to test Hypotheses 1a and 1b of the study,
while Table 2 displays the regression results on the newcomers’ adjustment outcomes, on
which we examine Hypotheses 2a, 2b, 3a, and 3b. First, as can be seen in Models 1 and 2 of
Table 1, institutionalized socialization tactics is significantly and positively related to
newcomers’ LMX quality (β = .29, p < .001) and TMX quality (β = .37, p < .001). This
indicates that institutionalized socialization tactics directly influences both LMX and TMX
quality as perceived by newcomers, providing support for Hypotheses 1a and 1b of the study.
Second, the results of Models 3b, 4b, 5b, 6b, and 7b in Table 2 show that newcomers’
LMX quality is significantly and positively related to the Time 2 adjustment outcomes of
organizational commitment (β = .21, p < .01), P-O fit (β = .24, p < .01), and achievement
motivation (β = .21, p < .01), after controlling for the respective Time 1 adjustment measures.
At the same time, their TMX quality was found to be significantly and positively associated
with organizational commitment (β = .18, p < .05), achievement motivation (β = .22, p < .01),
and P-V fit (β = .28, p < .001) all as measured at Time 2 with the effects of the same
adjustment variables at Time 1 being partialled out. Although several adjustment outcomes
were found not significantly influenced by the LMX and TMX quality (e.g., turnover intentions),
the general tendency was that the higher the quality of newcomers’ LMX with immediate
supervisors and TMX with coworkers is, the greater the level of organizational adjustments
the newcomers show over one year after their organizational entry. These findings give
partial support to our Hypotheses 2a and 2b that assumed that the LMX and TMX quality

6
 Table 1. Results of a hierarchical regression analysis on would have the cross-lagged positive
the newcomers' LMX and TMX quality effects on the newcomers’
organizational adjustments over one
Model 1 Model 2
year.
Variables LMX quality TMX quality
Third, to test a hypothesized
beta (SE) p beta (SE) p mediation effect of the LMX and TMX
Step 1: Control variables quality on the relationship between
Age .32 (.03) *** .16 (.03) *** the institutionalized socialization
Sex .10 (.13) -.07 (.13) tactics and newcomers’ adjustment
Company size .07 (.13) -.02 (.13) outcomes as predicted in
Industry .04 (.15) -.08 (.15) Hypotheses 3a and 3b, we follow
R 1
2
.08 ** .03 Barron and Kenny’s (1986)
Step 2: Organizatinal procedure of testing a mediation
socialization tactics effect. According to them, the direct
Institutionalized effects of an independent variable
.29 (.16) *** .37 (.16) *** (institutionalized socialization tactics
socialization tactics
R 2
2
.16 *** .16 *** in our case) on dependent ones
2
∆R (1-2) .08 *** .13 *** (organizational commitment (T2), P-
O fit (T2), turnover intentions (T2),
2 2
Note: R 1and R 2 denote the adjusted R squares generated by the first- and achievement motivation (T2), and P-
second-step regressions, respectively.
V fit (T2), in our case) should be
2 2 2
∆R (1-2) = R 2 - R 1 . insignificant or substantially smaller
** p < .01, *** p < .001. when mediator variables (LMX and
TMX in our case) are added to the independent variable (institutionalized socialization
tactics) already entered into the regression equations. As shown in Models 3a, 4a, 5a, 6a,
and 7a of Table 2, the direct effect of the institutionalized socialization tactics on all the
adjustment outcome measures were found to be statistically significant, which satisfy the first
condition of the Barron and Kenny’s procedure. In addition, these direct significant effects
were found to be statistically insignificant when we the two mediator variables (LMX and
TMX) were put into each regression equation (from β = .25, p < .01 to β = .13, p > .05 for the
tactics effect on commitment; from β = .35, p < .001 to β = .08, p > .10 for the tactics effect
on P-O fit; from β = -.18, p < .05 to β = -.12, p > .05 for the tactics effect on turnover
intentions; β = .18, p < .05 to β = .04, p > .05 for the tactics effect on motivation; and β = .21,
p < .01 to β = .14, p > .05 for the tactics effect on P-V fit). As we found from the earlier
hypotheses testing of our Hypotheses 2a and 2b, LMX was found to have direct positive
effects on organizational commitment, P-O fit, and achievement motivation at Time 2,
whereas TMX had the direct positive effects on organizational commitment, achievement
motivation, and P-V fit.
To further test the indirect effects that P-O fit and P-J fit might have on the relationships
between PIED and employee work attitudes, we conducted the Sobel test following Preacher
and Hayes’s (2004) procedure for verifying a simple mediation. The results show significant
indirect effects of the LMX quality on the tactics–organizational commitment link (zsobel = 2.17,
p < .05), on the tactics–P-O fit link (zsobel = 2.13, p < .05), and on the tactics–achievement
motivation link (zsobel = 2.28, p < .05). TMX had the significant indirect effects on tactics–
organizational commitment link (zsobel = 2.06, p < .05), on the tactics– achievement motivation
link (zsobel = 2.47, p < .05), and on the tactics–P-V fit link (zsobel = 2.73, p < .01).
Putting these findings together, the LMX quality fully mediates the relationships between
institutionalized socialization tactics to organizational commitment, P-O fit, and achievement
motivation, whereas the TMX quality fully mediates the relationships between
institutionalized socialization tactics to organizational commitment, achievement motivation,
and P-V fit. These findings provide partial support for Hypotheses 3a and 3b of the study.

7
 Table 2. Results of a hierarchical regression analysis on newcomers' adjustment outcomes

Model 3a Model 3b Model 4a Model 4b Model 5a Model 5b Model 6a Model 6b Model 7a Model 7b

Variables Organizational commitment (Time 2) P-O fit (Time 2) Turnover intentions (Time 2) Achievement motivation (Time 2) P-V fit (Time 2)

beta (SE) p beta (SE) p beta (SE) p beta (SE) p beta (SE) p beta (SE) p beta (SE) p beta (SE) p beta (SE) p beta (SE) p
Step 1: Control variables
Age .30 (.03) *** .21 (.03) * .16 (.03) .06 (.03) -.25 (.04) * -.22 (.05) * .15 (.03) † .06 (.03) .05 (.03) .03 (.03)
Sex -.15 (.12) † -.16 (.11) * -.09 (.11) -.11 (.11) .09 (.18) .08 (.18) .08 (.14) .09 (.13) -.06 (.11) -.03 (.11)
Company size .05 (.12) .04 (.11) .08 (.11) .06 (.11) -.03 (.18) -.04 (.18) .06 (.13) .05 (.13) .05 (.11) .06 (.11)
Industry .00 (.14) .01 (.13) -.05 (.13) -.05 (.13) -.08 (.22) -.10 (.22) -.01 (.16) .00 (.15) -.14 (.13) -.11 (.13)
Organizational commitment (T .34 (.08) *** .31 (.08) ***
P-O fit (T1) .11 (.09) .14 (.09)
Turnover intention (T1) .32 (.09) *** .30 (.09) ***
Achievement motivation (T1) .50 (.09) *** .44 (.09) ***
P-V fit (T1) .38 (.08) *** .37 (.08) **
2
R 1 .24 *** .24 *** .03 .03 .14 *** .14 *** .33 *** .33 *** .20 *** .20 ***
Step 2: Organizatinal

8
socialization tactics
Institutionalized socialization
.26 (.15) *** .14 (.15) † .25 (.14) ** .13 (.15) -.18 (.22) * -.12 (.25) .18 (.17) * .04 (.17) .21 (.14) ** .14 (.15) †
tactics
2
R 2 .30 *** .30 *** .09 ** .09 ** .16 *** .16 *** .36 *** .36 *** .24 *** .24 ***
2
∆R (1-2) .06 *** .05 ** .03 * .03 * .04 **
Step 3: Workplace social
exchange relationships
LMX quality .21 (.08) ** .24 (.08) ** .00 (.13) .21 (.09) ** -.09 (.08)
TMX quality .18 (.08) * .12 (.08) -.15 (.13) † .22 (.09) ** .28 (.08) ***
2
R 3 .36 *** .14 *** .17 *** .44 *** .29 ***
∆R 2 (2-3) .06 *** .05 ** .01 .08 *** .06 **
2 2 2
Note: R 1 , R 2 , and R 3 denote the adjusted R squares generated by the first-, second-, and third-step regressions, respectively.
∆R 2 (1-2) = R 2 2 - R 2 1 . ∆R 2 (2-3) = R 2 3 - R 2 2 .
† p < .10, * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001.
Discussion
Drawing on a social exchange theory, this study has built and tested a mediating model
where the quality of newcomers’ LMX and TMX relationships would mediate the relationships
between the institutionalized socialization tactics and newcomers’ organizational adjustments.
Our empirical analysis using the longitudinal survey data with samples of 137 newcomers
collected at the first and the second years of their organizational entry has provided evidence
that both LMX and TMX take on mediating roles in these relationships, providing basic
support for our hypotheses.
Although prior work on newcomers’ socialization (e.g., Katz, 1980) suggested that
workplace social interactions might play a significant role in facilitating newcomers’
socialization processes, much less research had been conducted on demonstrating the
importance of social exchange relationships in the process by which newcomers adjust
themselves to the organizations they join, especially by using the concept of LMX and TMX
in the newcomers’ socialization context. Most of the previous socialization studies have
tended to focus on the direct effects of socialization tactics on the adjustments or on the
mediating effects of leaning content (e.g., Ashforth et al., 2007) and proactive behavior (e.g.,
Gruman et al., 2006) on the tactics–adjustment links. It is expected that future studies would
benefit from the present findings that clarifies the mediating role newcomers’ LMX and TMX
in the workplace play between socialization tactics and their organizational adjustments,
especially when the studies attempt to theorize on the newcomers’ adjustment processes
through a firm’s investment in the acquired human capitals.

Literature
Ashforth, B. E., & Saks, A. M. (1996) “Socialization tactics: Longitudinal effects on newcomer
adjustment,” Academy of Management Journal, 39, pp. 149-178.
Ashforth, B. E., Sluss, D. M., & Saks, A. M. (2007) “Socialization tactics, proactive behavior,
and newcomer learning: Integrating socialization models,” Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 70, pp. 447-462.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986) “The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social
psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations,” Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 51, pp. 1173-1182.
Bauer, T. N., Bodner, T., Erdogan, B., Truxillo, D. M., & Tucker, J. S. (2007) “Newcomer
adjustment during organizational socialization: a meta-analytic review of antecedents,
outcomes, and methods,” Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, pp. 707-721.
Bauer, T. N., Morrison, E. W., & Callister, R. R. (1998) “Organizational socialization: A review
and directions for future research,” In G. R. Ferris & K. M. Rowland (Eds.), Research in
personnel and human resources management (Vol. 16, pp. 149-214). Greenwich, CT:
JAI Press.
Blau, P. (1964) Exchange and power in social life. New York: Wiley.
Cable, D. M., & Judge, T. A. (1996) “Person-organization fit, job choice decisions, and
organizational entry,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 67, pp.
294-311.
Cable, D. M., & Parsons, C. K. (2001) “Socialization tactics and person-organization fit,”
Personnel Psychology, 54, pp. 1-23.
Cooper-Thomas, H. D., & Anderson, N. (2002) “Newcomer adjustment: The relationship
between organizational socialization tactics, information acquisition and attitudes,”
Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 75, pp. 423-437.
Eisenberger, R., Stinglhamber, F., Vandenberghe, C., Sucharski, I. L., & Rhoades, L. (2002)
“Perceived supervisor support: Contributions to perceived organizational support and
employee retention,” Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, pp. 565-573.
Golden, T. D., & Veiga, J. F. (2008) “The impact of superior-subordinate relationships on the
commitment, job satisfaction, and performance of virtual workers,” The Leadership
Quarterly, 19, pp. 77-88.

9
Gouldner, A. W. (1960) “The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement,” American
Sociological Review, 25, pp. 161-178.
Graen, G., Orris, J. B., & Johnson, T. (1973) “Role assimilation processes in a complex
organization,” Journal of Vocational Behavior, 3, pp. 395-420.
Graen, G. B. & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995) “Development of leader-member exchange (LMX) theory
of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-level multi-domain perspective,” The
Leadership Quarterly, 6, pp. 219-247.
Gruman, J. A., Saks, A. M., & Zweig, D. I. (2006) “Organizational socialization tactics and
newcomer proactive behaviors: An integrative study,” Journal of Vocational Behavior,
69, pp. 90-104.
Haueter, J. A., Macan, T. H., & Winter, J. (2003) “Measurement of newcomer socialization:
Construct validation of a multidimensional scale,” Journal of Vocational Behavior, 63,
pp. 20-39.
Jones, G. R. (1986) “Socialization tactics, self-efficacy, and newcomers’ adjustments to
organizations,” Academy of Management Journal, 29, pp. 262-279.
Kamdar, D., & Van Dyne, L. (2007) “The joint effects of personality and workplace social
exchange relationships in predicting task performance and citizenship performance,”
Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, pp. 1286-1298.
Katz, R. (1980) “Time and work: Toward an integrative perspective,” In B. M. Staw & L. L.
Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 2, pp. 81-128). Greenwich,
CT: JAI Press.
Lauver, K. J., & Kristof-Brown, A. (2001) “Distinguishing between employees’ perceptions of
person-job and person-organization fit,” Journal of Vocational Behavior, 59, pp. 454-
470.
Liden, R. C., & Maslyn, J. M. (1998) “Multidimensionality of leader-member exchange: An
empirical assessment through scale development,” Journal of Management, 24, pp. 43-
72.
Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., & Sparrowe, R. T. (2000) “An examination of the mediating role of
psychological empowerment on the relations between the job, interpersonal relationships,
and work outcomes,” Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, pp. 407-416.
Meyer, J. P., Allen, N. J., & Smith, C. (1993) “Commitment to organizations and occupations:
Extension and test of a three-component conceptualization,” Journal of Applied
Psychology, 78, pp. 538-551.
Saks, A. M., Uggerslev, K. L., & Fassina, N. E. (2007) “Socialization tactics and newcomer
adjustment: A meta-analytic review and test of a model,” Journal of Vocational Behavior,
70, pp. 413-446.
Schein, E. H. (1978) Career Dynamics: Matching individual and organizational needs.
Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Seers, A. (1989) “Team–member exchange quality: A new construct for role-making
research,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 43, pp. 118-135.
Super, D. E. (1957). The psychology of careers. New York: Harper & Row.
Takeuchi, N., & Takeuchi, T. (forthcoming) “A longitudinal investigation on the factors
affecting newcomers’ adjustment: Evidence from Japanese organizations,” International
Journal of Human Resource Management.
Van Maanen, J., & Schein, E. H. (1979) “Toward a theory of organizational socialization,” In
B. M. Staw (Ed.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 1, pp. 209-264). Greenwich.
CT: JAI Press.
Yamamoto, H. (2000). A study of promotion: From the career plateau perspective.
Tokyo: Souseisha (in Japanese).

10
 Appendix. Mean, standard deviation, alpha coefficient, and corelation coefficient among variables used in the present study.
Variables Mean (SD) alpha 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
1 Age 19.88 (2.24) − 1.00
2 Sex .61 (.49) − .22 * 1.00
3 Company size .61 (.49) − -.17 * .23 ** 1.00
4 Industry .72 (.45) − -.49 *** -.22 ** -.06 1.00
5 Organizational commitment (T1 3.32 (.69) .83 .10 .10 .02 -.07 1.00
6 Person-organization fit (T1) 3.40 (.60) .81 .21 * .19 * .17 † -.09 .58 *** 1.00
7 Turnover intensions (T1) 2.01 (.99) .83 -.04 .01 -.04 -.12 -.22 * -.28 *** 1.00
8 Achievement motivation (T1) 3.97 (.69) .73 .25 ** .22 * .03 -.14 † .32 *** .33 *** -.11 1.00
9 Person-vocation fit (T1) 3.44 (.66) .75 .22 * .16 † .14 -.23 ** .50 *** .59 *** -.41 *** .44 *** 1.00

11
10 Institutionalized tactic 3.15 (.37) .80 .01 -.06 -.05 -.07 .22 ** .14 -.10 .06 .16 † 1.00
11 LMX quality 3.48 (.74) .93 .31 *** .16 † .02 -.17 † .21 * .03 -.09 .19 * .21 * .28 ** 1.00
12 TMX quality 3.48 (.73) .94 .19 * -.04 -.08 -.16 † .16 † .09 -.11 .25 ** .16 † .38 *** .30 *** 1.00
13 Organizational commitment (T2 2.72 (.73) .81 .29 *** -.06 -.05 -.16 † .42 *** .24 ** -.19 * .18 * .35 *** .34 *** .41 *** .39 *** 1.00
14 Person-organization fit (T2) 2.95 (.62) .79 .17 * -.02 .04 -.14 .35 *** .18 * -.15 † .08 .29 *** .27 ** .33 *** .27 ** .58 *** 1.00
15 Turnover intensions (T2) 2.78 (1.05) .81 -.19 * .06 .03 -.01 -.22 * -.24 ** .36 *** .01 -.30 *** -.21 * -.15 † -.26 ** -.47 *** -.54 *** 1.00
16 Achievement motivation (T2) 3.85 (.89) .82 .28 *** .23 ** .06 -.19 * .23 ** .17 * -.16 † .57 *** .34 *** .20 * .41 *** .41 *** .34 *** .19 * -.16 † 1.00
17 Person-vocation fit (T2) 3.10 (.68) .71 .17 * .04 .07 -.25 ** .30 *** .23 ** -.19 * .20 * .45 *** .28 *** .14 .38 *** .53 *** .59 *** -.46 *** .39 *** 1.00
† p < .10, * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001.