Journal of Workplace Learning

The role of insiders and organizational support in the learning process of

newcomers during organizational socialization
Cecilia Mornata, Iolanda Cassar,
Article information:
To cite this document:
Cecilia Mornata, Iolanda Cassar, (2018) "The role of insiders and organizational support in the
learning process of newcomers during organizational socialization", Journal of Workplace Learning,
Downloaded by The University of Texas at El Paso At 03:08 05 November 2018 (PT)

Vol. 30 Issue: 7, pp.562-575, https://doi.org/10.1108/JWL-06-2017-0045

Permanent link to this document:
https://doi.org/10.1108/JWL-06-2017-0045
Downloaded on: 05 November 2018, At: 03:08 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 46 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 26 times since 2018*

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-
srm:459066 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald
for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission
guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as
well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and
services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for
digital archive preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.


JWL
30,7
562
Received 9 June 2017
Revised 4 June 2018
Accepted 6 August 2018
Downloaded by The University of Texas at El Paso At 03:08 05 November 2018 (PT)
Journal of Workplace Learning
Vol. 30 No. 7, 2018
pp. 562-575
© Emerald Publishing Limited
1366-5626
DOI 10.1108/JWL-06-2017-0045
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/1366-5626.htm
The role of insiders and
organizational support in the
learning process of newcomers
during organizational socialization
Cecilia Mornata
Adult Education Department, Faculty of Psychology and Sciences of Education,
Geneva University, Geneva, Switzerland
Iolanda Cassar
HR Focus Point for a NGO in Geneva, Switzerland
Abstract
Purpose – This study aims to focus on newcomers’ learning strategies when they perceive organizational
socialization support to be lacking, and on interpersonal characteristics that insiders should possess to
support the newcomers’ proactive behaviors in this context.
Design/methodology/approach – Data were collected through 14 face-to-face, in-depth semi-structured
interviews and analyzed with a conventional content analysis method (Paillé and Mucchielli, 2013), involving
first a thematic analysis and afterward, a conceptual analysis using MaxQDA11©.
Findings – The authors’ analysis highlights that when newcomers perceive the formal organizational
socialization support as lacking, they regulate their proactive behaviors by seeking indirect guidance, and
more precisely, by engaging in informal interactions with insiders likely to help them socialize. These
interactions can have a cost in terms of self-image, so newcomers regulate their proactive behaviors by
looking for insiders perceived to be psychologically safe, even if they have to look for them in other
working contexts.
Practical implications – Considering the regulation process of newcomers’ proactive behaviors
according to their perceptions, human resources management should focus on those perceptions and develop
a blended learning approach including formal learning programs, as well as individualized support to
facilitate on-the-job learning and respond to personal needs. Special consideration should also be given to
interpersonal skills displayed by insiders.
Originality/value – The originality of the study is the use of a qualitative methodology focusing on
newcomers’ main learning strategy according to their perception of organizational socialization support and
the psychological safety climate. The limitations of the authors’ work are the size of the study population
and the fact that part of the interviewees were successfully socialized by reaching 15 months on their new post
at the point where the interviews were conducted.
Keywords Human resource development, Workplace learning
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
Organizational socialization is the process by which workers learn knowledge, skills and
behaviors to adjust to their new work environment (Feldman, 1976; Fisher, 1986). It is
commonly operationalized into two dimensions: organizational tactics and newcomers’
proactive behaviors, with learning being identified as a mediator between these two
dimensions and the adjustment outcomes (Ashforth et al., 2007b). Organizational tactics are
 defined as the effort organizations make to socialize newcomers, and proactive behaviors are The role of
defined as the means by which newcomers socialize themselves and to adapt to their new insiders and
working context (Ashforth et al., 2007b). A great number of quantitative studies focus on the
impact of organizational tactics, and the impact of the newcomers’ proactive behaviors and
organizational
interpersonal relationships with insiders (Ashforth et al., 2007a, 2007b; Bauer et al., 2007; support
Feldman, 1981; Morrison, 1993a, 2002; Cooper-Thomas, 2009; Saks and Ashforth, 1996; Saks
et al., 2011). However, qualitative studies focusing on newcomers’ perceptions of their own
socialization process, the difficulties they face, how they overcome them and finally socialize 563
themselves – or not – are quite rare (Cooper-Thomas et al., 2011).
According to these elements, this exploratory study aims to examine the newcomers’
socialization process from their own point of view. On the one hand, it will explore the
learning strategies they use to socialize, depending on their perception of the available
Downloaded by The University of Texas at El Paso At 03:08 05 November 2018 (PT)

organizational support. On the other hand, it will explore the newcomers’ perceptions of
their interpersonal relationships with insiders. Insiders can either support and guide the
newcomers or hinder and confuse them. Therefore, our study want to highlight which
interpersonal characteristics insiders should possess and display to help newcomers,
particularly when they are facing a lack of organizational support:

Q1. What are newcomers’ main learning strategies when they perceive organizational
socialization support as essentially lacking?
Many studies highlight that when organizations institutionalize their socialization tactics
(through collective formal training organized outside the workplace, according to a
structured plan, with insiders available to support newcomers learning and recognizing the
value of newcomers’ skills value), they better support newcomers’ social interactions with
insiders (supervisors, experienced peers, other newcomers. . .), and hence, their proactivity
behaviors and their socialization (Bauer et al., 2007; Cooper-Thomas, 2009; Ashforth et al.,
2007b; Jokisaari, 2013). For Cooper-Thomas (2009), the organization can support interactions
with insiders through:
 organizational systems providing support for the newcomers’ adjustment, such as
mentoring or buddying programs, and formally recognizing the insiders’ efforts;
 informal organizational culture, i.e. one which supports relationships between
insiders and newcomers; and
 physical layout which facilitates interactions between insiders and newcomers.

These aspects are particularly relevant to understand how the working context can support
learning by facilitating interpersonal interactions. These aspects have been studied from
another angle in workplace learning literature, through the concept of organizational
affordances (Billett, 2001; Billett, 2010). Billett (2001) identified two main organizational
affordances supporting workplace learning:
(1) Direct guidance, which is similar to the organizational system described by Cooper-
Thomas, where experienced workers contribute to novices’ learning through
tutoring, mentoring, coaching, supervision and collaborative activities.
(2) Indirect guidance, where social and physical environment enable the novices
observing, listening and interacting with co-workers, hence thinking, acting and
learning.

Therefore, learning can be supported through interpersonal interactions, as well as through

the organization’s environment and the working activity itself. Affordances need to be
 JWL present in the workplace and accessible to workers to effectively sustain workplace learning.
30,7 As far as socialization is considered as a learning process, those affordances should support
the learning aspect of organizational socialization too.
Thus, organizational support of newcomers’ socialization can occur through formal
classroom-based induction training organized outside the workplace, workplace direct
guidance and workplace indirect guidance. This study suggests that when newcomers
564 perceive organizational support of their socialization to be lacking, they either quit or they
modify their learning strategies to overcome the organizational lack and keep on learning.
Organizational socialization literature considers proactive behaviors to be the
individuals’ learning strategies, leading to socialization (Jones, 1983; Miller and Jablin, 1991).
Saks et al. (2011) list the most frequently studied: seeking information (Ashforth et al., 2007b;
Morrison, 1993a, 1993b), feedback-seeking (Ashford, 1986), general socialization (Wanberg
Downloaded by The University of Texas at El Paso At 03:08 05 November 2018 (PT)

and Kammeyer-Mueller, 2000), networking (Ashford and Black, 1996), relationship and
boss-relationship building (Ashford and Black, 1996) and job change negotiation (Ashford
and Black, 1996). In workplace learning studies, Eraut (2007b) identifies three types of early
career learning: learning processes near the workplace which are formally accredited and
organized by the organization for newcomers (supervision, coaching, mentoring,
shadowing, visiting other sites, conferences, short courses, preparing for a qualification and
independent study), working processes with learning as a by-product where learning does not
involve individual or organizational strategies as far as it is a side-effect of working
(participation in group processes, working alongside others, consultation, tackling
challenging tasks and roles, problem solving and experimenting, consolidating, extending
and refining skills and working with clients) and learning activities located within work and
learning processes (asking questions, requesting information, locating key resource persons,
listening and observing, reflecting, learning from mistakes, giving and receiving feedback
and using mediating artifacts), which occur in opportunistic episodes or within the first two
types. It is, therefore, interesting to explore which of these early career types of learning
newcomers will adopt according to their perception of the organizational support in place:

Q2. Which interpersonal skills should insiders display to support the newcomers’
proactive behaviors, when organizational support is perceived to be lacking?
Referring to a number of studies (Louis et al., 1983; Morrison, 1993a, 1993b; Nelson and
Quick, 1991), Cooper-Thomas (2009) highlighted that co-workers are the most readily
available and helpful resource during the socialization phase of newcomers, probably
because of their closer role (Louis, 1990).
To fulfill this important role, insiders have to display a number of interpersonal
characteristics. According to Edmondson (2003), approachability, expertise, being accepting
of mistakes and the willingness to involve newcomers into work activities are the
characteristics which are most likely to support the perception of a psychologically safe
environment and discourage social undermining behaviors (Duffy et al., 2002a).
Psychological safety is a belief shared among co-workers that neither colleagues nor
management are judging others, in terms of self-image when they take the risk of being
perceived as ignorant, incompetent, negative or disruptive. A psychologically safe context
makes it possible to engage in pro-learning behaviors, such as requesting feedback, sharing
mistakes and speaking up (Edmondson and Lei, 2014). Conversely, in a psychologically
unsafe context, colleagues and management are perceived to be displaying social
undermining behaviors “intended to hinder, over time, the ability to establish and maintain
positive interpersonal relationships, work-related success, and favorable reputation” (Duffy
et al., 2002b), all of which hampers learning. According to these elements, insiders who
 display social undermining behaviors are hindering positive interpersonal relationships, The role of
encouraging competition and will negatively influence the newcomers’ perceptions of a insiders and
psychologically safe environment, leading them to avoid proactive behaviors.
organizational
Research context and methodology support
We interviewed newcomers working in a department of an international humanitarian
organization based in Switzerland, employing 2,500 people all over the world, whose
purpose is to mobilize and coordinate humanitarian action in partnership with national and
565
international actors. Participants were chosen based on two criteria:
(1) The time spent at their new position, which had to be no more than 15 months.
(2) They had to represent three hierarchal levels: support functions, middle management,
Downloaded by The University of Texas at El Paso At 03:08 05 November 2018 (PT)

and senior management.

The 28 participants corresponding to these criteria among the 250 employees were contacted
by email, out of which 14 volunteered to participate. We conducted three exploratory
interviews with top management to better understand the organizational context and three
pilot interviews to improve the interview guidelines. Data were collected during 14 face-to-
face, in-depth and semi-structured interviews according to the interview guideline in Table I.
Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analyzed with a conventional content analysis
method (Paillé and Mucchielli, 2013) involving first a thematic analysis and afterward, a
conceptual analysis using MAXQDA11©. The categories presented in the Table II are based
on the literature and these exploratory interviews. Through an iterative process, the
analytical categories have gradually evolved into a more complex system.

Main questions – in-depth questions Main purposes

What was the most important thing that you had to learn
in your new position?
Can you tell us the steps you go through to learn it?
What were the challenges?
What were the facilitators?
How did you proceed if it was difficult for you to learn or
to obtain information? Why?
Did you refer to anyone? Who? Why?
Did you feel that your questions were welcomed? Why?
Who would you consider as key persons that played an
important role, positively or negatively, in your learning?
Was it a positive or negative role? Why?
Is there an event, person, situation that has significantly
contributed to your feeling as a part of your work group
or the organization? Why?
If you were now to repeat your integration experience
would you do things differently? What and why?
How does your new post differ from the previous one
about organizational integration? Why?
Having reached the end of our interview, do you have a
feeling that something important hasn’t been said that
you would like to add?
Perceived insiders characteristics
Perceived organizational socialization support
Newcomers’ learning strategies
Perceived organizational socialization support
Perceived insiders characteristics
Perceived organizational socialization support
Newcomers’ learning strategies
Perceived organizational socialization support
Perceived insiders characteristics
Perceived insiders characteristics
Perceived organizational socialization support
Perceived insiders characteristics
Perceived organizational socialization support
Newcomers’ learning strategies
Table I.
Perceived organizational socialization support
Semi-structured
interview guideline
based on concepts
 JWL Categories Sub-categories I Sub-categories II
30,7
Perceived Formal support Formal induction training
organizational support Social events for newcomers
(Mikkonen et al., 2017) Perceived Direct Guidance with Coaching (Wisker et al., 2013; Gallacher,
experienced co-workers (Billett, 1997)
2002) Mentoring (Wisker et al., 2013; Gallacher,
566 1997)
Tutoring (Wisker et al., 2013)
Information management
Perceived Indirect Guidance Introduction to counterparts
(Billett, 2002) Informal discussions during coffee or
lunch
Downloaded by The University of Texas at El Paso At 03:08 05 November 2018 (PT)

As references to listen to and to observe

Sharing knowledge (Unwin and Fuller,
2004)
Poor social support
(Chan, 2016)
Resources as:
Tools to do the job as operational IT
equipment
Lack of time (Mikkonen et al., 2017)
Workplace physical organization as
newcomers’ desk emplacement, . . .
(Billett, 2002)
Poor physical support (Chan, 2016)
Work activity (Billett, 2002)
Newcomers’ proactive Self-Management (Ashford and Self-talking
behaviors Black, 1996) Self-efficiency
Self-motivation
Asking questions
Requesting information (Miller
and Jablin, 1991; Ashforth et al.,
2007a; Eraut, 2007b)
Locating key resource persons
(Eraut, 2007b)
Listening and observing (Eraut,
2007b)
Reflecting (Eraut, 2007b)
Learning from mistakes,
(Ostroff and Kozlowski, 1992;
Eraut, 2007b)
Giving and receiving feedback
(Eraut, 2007b)
Using mediating artefacts
(Eraut, 2007b)
Perceived insiders’ Psychological safety Ask how to do something
characteristics (Edmondson, 2004) Speak up about mistakes
Table II. Ask for feed-back
Questioning
Analytical
Perceived supervisors’ behaviors Social undermining behaviors
categories. Approachability
Categories derived Expertise
from data are Being accepting of mistakes
in italic type The willingness to involve newcomer
 Results The role of
Newcomers’ learning strategies according to the perceived organizational support insiders and
Regarding our first research question, from the insights gained from our interviews, it seems
that newcomers’ learning strategies and their regulations depend on their perception of the
organizational
organizational socialization support. support
When formal induction and direct guidance are available but not accessible. In this first case,
formal induction training was perceived to be available. Nevertheless, poor accessibility in
terms of employees’ workload and available information allowed only a few of the 567
newcomers to attend it:
I remember that some people couldn’t attend all the courses because they had to work (N14§22).
Yes much better [if I had had the training earlier], because I was trying to find information, if I
Downloaded by The University of Texas at El Paso At 03:08 05 November 2018 (PT)

would have had it before I would have saved a lot of my time, and I would feel more comfortable
(N12§108).
I missed a formal training, and guidelines they don’t exist (N12§118).
I know that they do this briefing for new people [. . .] but they do it only twice a year so I missed it
and now it is not relevant anymore, and I couldn’t do it because I was traveling and when you
travel a lot it is more complicated to follow courses. [. . .]. I can’t take that time of my day – look at
my scheduled It is very difficult to take that time. I went through that too (online induction), I
found that less relevant than I had hoped (N1§35).
It would have been very useful to have a training more complete with supporting material
(N11§6).
Thus, newcomers perceived organizational socialization support as crucial, in terms of
having access to the required material, skills and knowledge for their new role. However, in
some cases, these resources were not available at all:
I didn’t sit down with my boss until two or three days after I started, which I thought was kind of
weird [the team] is not ready to integrate them [newcomers], they just want them to start but
forget that when someone starts you need actually to integrate that person! For two days I didn’t
have my computer, I didn’t have my email account, so I think a lot of those preparations the
organization should have prepared [. . .]. I think those first few days are quite important when
people start a job and I don’t think that people realize that (N14§34).
This lack made newcomers feel being left to their own devices and responsible for their own
learning process:
I think there is a lot that remains the responsibility of the staff [referring to newcomer] in terms of
linking up and reaching out and making certain links (N7§8).
The absence of formal induction made the learning experience more heavily dependent on
indirect guidance, and more precisely on team members, who would play an important role
from newcomers’ point of view, if they felt well welcomed:
It was a lot of attention [. . .] small things about welcoming you, making sure that your office is
settled, that you have whatever you need start, by team meetings when you are welcomed where
everybody would present what they are doing [. . .] so they took the time to explain to me, then
everybody was coming to me, asking me when do you want me to brief you and go for coffee, this
type of little attention [. . .] in terms of making sure that you have what you need physically for
your set up and in terms of knowledge (N6§48).
When indirect guidance is available and accessible. In this context, all the interviewed
newcomers actively sought interactions with experienced co-workers to access information.
 JWL Successful access to information was determined by their social abilities and sometimes
30,7 required the newcomer to get out of their comfort zone:
The question of adjusting was to figure out who the people were, and then to talk to them directly,
and I think that’s where your interpersonal skills stand out: either you have it or not (N8§10).

You step out [. . .] and you go and talk to people that you have not necessarily interacted with in
568 the past, so I am not a very social person it terms of my personality (N13§4).
For instance, administrative things that seem to quiet bother them maybe for few months is OK,
but after few months, it is true that before I asked I tried to search [. . .] if I don’t find it then I try
the Admin Assistant so I don’t think it is not welcomed, it is more about me being embarrassed to
ask about administrative things (N14 §14).
Downloaded by The University of Texas at El Paso At 03:08 05 November 2018 (PT)

In their quest for information, some interviewees showed a preference for approaching
members of the work group directly, to acquire accurate information faster:
Sometimes I received wrong answers to my questions, so what I did afterwards was to ask
another person, or not ask questions anymore, [. . .] if you don’t ask, you can still go and look in
the archives, or the documents where the rules are or on the intranet/internet (N11§14).
This strategy seems to involve a social cost that is evaluated in terms of self-image, for
instance, being perceived as disrupting colleagues’ work, which may push newcomers to
rely on themselves:
The issue is just you are taking up somebody else’s time because it is a very busy unit (N13§16).
Slowly I’m learning to what degree I should consult or shouldn’t and I can decide by myself
(N5§50).

When no organizational support seems available at the moment. Self-management is a

cognitive proactive behavior involving the ability to frame positively and consciously our
own experiences to increase self-confidence and self-efficacy. Self-management appeared to
facilitate the learning process when newcomers faced difficult moments:
Sometimes you have to keep telling yourself that it is not as easy so you don’t frustrate yourself.
So if you are aware of this transformation I think it makes it easier for you to adjust (N2§6-7).
This is even more true for newcomers in a difficult interpersonal working context where no
support was perceived to be available:
There were a few people who were quite difficult to work with professionally and those are relations
that you can’t manage, you just have to manage yourself how to deal with them (N14§24).
I believe a good manager will have to learn how to shield his or her personal feelings and
problems from the people they manage and work with (N2§18).
Newcomers contrasted their current work experience with their previous ones in terms of
the nature of work, competencies, team dynamics and the culture of the organization. As
such, they built their new role based on the lessons learnt from the past, and in doing so,
they learned how to adapt to the new situation:
I think my previous experience helped me a lot. I managed a lot of emotions and tried to reassure
people [. . .]. But also I managed teams before and I had training in leadership (N3§7).
I became the primary source of information to senior management; also, previous experience
helped a lot (N8§24).
 Insiders’ interpersonal characteristics perceived to be supportive by The role of
newcomers insiders and
Regarding our second research question, we also gained some insights into the interpersonal organizational
skills insiders should display to support the newcomers’ proactive behaviors, when
organizational support is lacking.
support

Psychological safety as a condition for learning. 569

Newcomers value psychological safety, the belief that they can take risks without being
judged, as a very important characteristic, clearly impacting their learning and their
self-image:
Downloaded by The University of Texas at El Paso At 03:08 05 November 2018 (PT)

My supervisor was a great coach by taking me through the issues and challenging me. I thought I
had increasing responsibilities each day and the opportunity to try new things, take risks, and I
felt I had her backing (N10§12).
There is space to be able to try things and I think in terms of learning that is very important.
There is an opportunity to fail (N9§18).
The way people felt about you doesn’t get forgotten [. . .] and I think those things are really important
and (the organization) is so small that it is quite critical to how you are perceived (N10§24).
According to our participants, the team members who engaged in learning interactions with
them demonstrated expertise, accommodating behaviors and availability:
He is really helpful and takes time to explain, he has experience and I always ask him
(N12§82).
People here are very friendly and I found them very approachable, so it is a very good
environment, a very healthy environment (N4§22).
Oppositely, when insiders were socially undermining or not available, newcomers perceived
their pro-learning behaviors to be hindered:
Sometimes I was treated like a child when I asked a question and showed that I didn’t know
the answer [. . .] when you receive such an answer you can’t go and ask questions again
(N11§26).
Sometimes when you ask a question, and you don’t understand (the answer), then going back to
this same person is a challenge (N13§26).
I used to work in an environment where it was quite easy to talk to your boss [. . .] instead (here)
[. . .]. I cannot go directly and say something. I need to ask the secretary if I could talk to the boss
(N12§17).
Thus, to preserve their self-image, newcomers searched for other sources of information and
moral support, building a network of different persons from inside and outside the
organization, who were giving them a sense of psychological safety.
So if it is about work, my supervisor and if it is for support [moral] there are colleagues inside and
outside the organization that I talk to just for advice (N3§20).
I had to ask different people, to reach one who was like that and I was like “you are my masters!”
(N12§43).
In case I am not sure of something and I see it is different from what I know, then I go to different
people depending on the case and ask for clarification (N4§16).
 JWL These elements seem to highlight that newcomers put in place a psychological safety
30,7 strategy to find “safety” when it was not available in the immediate context.

Psychological safety as a facilitator of team integration and social acceptance.

Newcomers sought integration into one or more specific networks to gain social acceptance
when the conditions allowed it – i.e. to share the same experience, issues, projects and interests.
570 Thus, being part of a number of informational networks lead to further social acceptance:
I used to refer to him regularly, even up to today, when I needed some clarification and it became
a friendship (N13§20).
On one hand, when a newcomer managed to gain his/her team’s social acceptance, it
resulted in a positive learning experience with supportive learning conditions such as
Downloaded by The University of Texas at El Paso At 03:08 05 November 2018 (PT)

cooperation, psychological safety and social acceptance:

You are sharing a problem together; you are tackling something together, help each other out,
trying to brainstorm to come up with new ideas [. . .] that really makes you feel that you are part
of something bigger than you, and you are not just left up to your own devices (N13§63).
On the other hand, the absence of social acceptance was likely to affect newcomers’
psychological safety insofar as it affected self-image:
There was training, and everyone went but me, so I asked myself “what am I doing here” [. . .]. So
those situations made me feel that maybe I wasn’t up for the level of work, it makes you question
yourself! Although I know that I am doing a good job (N11§20).
In essence, newcomers revealed that a context perceived as psychologically safe reduced the
risks related to self-image, thus enabling proactive learning behaviors. This context requires
insiders who are experienced, available, accommodating, happy to share information,
accepting of mistakes and willing to involve newcomers in the work activities.
Furthermore, when these characteristics were not displayed by insiders from their close
working context, newcomers strove for an informational social network enhancing
psychological safety and supporting proactive behaviors, by locating key resource people,
asking questions and by seeking and giving feedback. Both psychological safety and
proactive behaviors may increase social acceptance.

Discussion and perspectives

The aim of our study was to highlight the following:
 the newcomers’ main learning strategies; and
 the insiders’ interpersonal characteristics, which work to support the newcomers’
proactive behaviors to help them overcome a perceived lack of organizational
socialization support.

Regulation as the newcomers’ main learning strategy

A number of theories (Ashforth et al., 2007b; Bauer et al., 2007; Morrison, 1995) suggest that
when organizations institutionalize their socialization effort, and offer a structured,
accredited and formal induction training, this will positively impact on proactive behaviors
by generating an increase in social interactions between newcomers and insiders. Our study
shows that newcomers perceive this kind of support as an important means of accessing
information, allowing them to adjust to their new role. However, it also shows that when this
formal support is perceived as lacking because it is unavailable, inaccessible or not
 considered useful, newcomers regulate their proactive behaviors by seeking indirect The role of
guidance, and more precisely, by engaging in informal interactions with insiders likely to insiders and
help them socialize. This choice can have a cost in terms of self-image if newcomers do not
have social competences facilitating interactions or if the context is not perceived as
organizational
psychologically safe enough. Newcomers facing those difficulties regulate their proactive support
behaviors by looking for insiders perceived to be psychologically safe, even if they have to
look outside of their own teams. These results do not reflect organizational theories that
focus on the impact of the organizational effort (tactics). Instead, our study focuses on 571
newcomers’ perception of this effort. Our results highlight that even when the organization
support is not institutionalized and formalized, newcomers employ proactive behaviors
increasing their social interactions with other co-workers.
According to these elements, we can answer our first question: What are newcomers’
Downloaded by The University of Texas at El Paso At 03:08 05 November 2018 (PT)

main learning strategies when they perceive organizational socialization support as essentially
lacking? - by the following working hypothesis:

H1. Newcomers’ main learning strategy is to regulate their proactive behaviors, to

interact with insiders, according to their perception of organizational socialization
support and the psychological safety climate.
According to this, on a research level, we should be looking at the regulation process of
proactive behaviors according to the perception of the organizational support and its
psychological safety climate, instead of focusing on the type of proactive behaviors
newcomers mobilize according to the kind of support the organization offers. In other words,
how do newcomers regulate their proactive behaviors? Why do they perceive a particular
type of organizational support as lacking, while other newcomers do not? Our study being
exploratory, there is a need to examine this hypothesis in a longitudinal qualitative study,
by collecting qualitative data at different points in time of the socialization process, and
from a larger population. This would make it possible to study socialization processes,
resulting in organizational integration or not. It would, therefore, be useful to also examine
the socialization process of newcomers who couldn’t regulate their proactive behaviors and
weren’t able to integrate their organization. In fact, the limitations of our work are the size of
our population and the fact that part of the interviewees were successfully socialized by
reaching 15 months on their new post at the point where the interviews were conducted.

Psychological safety as “a sine qua non” condition for learning

Our findings highlight the fact that proactive behaviors require the presence of and
interaction with insiders, which is in line with findings in organizational socialization
literature (Edmondson, 2004; Brown and Lieigh, 1996; May et al., 2004), and workplace
learning theories (Billett, 2004, 2000, 2001, 2010; Eraut, 2007a). Our main finding relates to
the degree to which the quality of the relationships with insiders, which can be marked by
either psychological safety or social undermining, had consequences on pro-learning
behaviors – a finding which reflects Edmondson’s (Edmondson and Lei, 2014) and Carmeli’s
research (Carmeli et al., 2012) – as well as on the overall learning experience, whether in
positive or negative ways. As already mentioned, when newcomers did not perceive the
context to be sufficiently safe, in terms of risks to their self-image, to ask questions, they set
up a network of alternative insiders, both within and outside of their team, to secure access
to information in a psychologically safer context. As said, this shows that newcomers
developed strategies to compensate for a threatening context without this having a direct
impact on their work quality, which means that to a certain extent they can cope with an
absence of psychological safety insofar as they can find it by other means. According to
 JWL these elements, we can answer our second question: Which interpersonal skills should
30,7 insiders display to support the newcomers’ proactive behaviors, when organizational support
is perceived to be lacking? - with the following working hypothesis:

H2. Insiders should display characteristics which support newcomers’ perception of

psychological safety. If they do not present those characteristics, newcomers will
have to look for them in other working contexts.
572
This hypothesis implies, on a theoretical level, that psychological safety is not only a team
belief but also (and above all?) an individual one with individual implications. This means
that individual members of a work team can perceive psychological safety differently
according to individual factors and react accordingly as an individual, for example, by
Downloaded by The University of Texas at El Paso At 03:08 05 November 2018 (PT)

looking for co-workers displaying psychological safety characteristics, outside of their team.
These findings are still to be fully understood by further research. Up to what point, for
example, can newcomers make up for the absence of psychological safety by seeking
membership of safer networks granting a better self-image? Which are the important factors
in this process? We suggest that individual characteristics, such as self-efficacy, for
instance, are important here, as Mornata and Bourgeois (2014) have already shown in a
different context. The authors argue that employees who have strong self-efficacy will be in
a better position to tolerate an undermining environment because they will be able to find
psychological safety by other means (“I know I’m good at my job so undermining remarks
do not affect me”), or by finding psychological safety with positively inclined colleagues.
This means that, on the one hand, a psychologically threatening context does not
necessarily have to be devastating and can be positively moderated with the help of
individual strategies. However, on the other hand, this implies that it can be negatively
moderated too. A person who has a low self-efficacy or a low self-esteem will likely be
particularly sensitive to external remarks, even if those are not formulated on a self-image
level. In other words, someone who is particularly vulnerable on a self-image level will likely
perceive questioning about a skill or an activity by a manager or a colleague as threatening
on a self-image level, even if the questioning is essentially focused on knowledge, skills or
activity – what Johnson and Johnson (2002) refers to as the “epistemic level”.

How to better guide newcomers’ socialization

In conclusion, despite the modest sample of our exploratory study, we suggest that human
resources management should focus on newcomers’ perceptions about organizational
socialization support and their own needs, to provide them with the right resources at the
right moment. An interesting further line of action would be the development of a blended
learning approach which would include formal learning programs focusing on procedures,
rules and regulations of the organization, as well as individualized support to facilitate on-
the-job learning and respond to more personal needs, which could be provided by the team
surrounding the newcomer and in line with defined learning objectives.
Special consideration should be given to the interpersonal skills of newcomers, as they
can either facilitate or hinder their socialization. This is conditioned not only by the
newcomers’ interactions with insiders but also by the skills that the newcomers need to have
prior to integrating the organization. Being able to identify the key resource persons
requires to be able to analyze the context as quickly as possible, and being able to request
information requires good social skills (Carmeli, 2007). Listening and observing require the
ability to select and retain core information about activities, and self-management requires
to have effective self-regulation behaviors (Zimmerman and Schunk, 2004) which is, in turn,
impacted by self-efficacy (Schunk and Ertmer, 2000). All these proactive behaviors,
 therefore, cannot be taken for granted and newcomers who do not master these appropriate The role of
behaviors but are skilled nonetheless should benefit from specific attention on this point. insiders and
Special consideration should be given also to the interpersonal skills of insiders, as they
are the ones who assist the new recruits. It is important to support them to ensure the
organizational
smooth integration of the newcomers. While organizations support newcomers, they also support
get feedback from them on their performance as organizations. The feedback from
newcomers can then lead to new ideas and the improvement of work, and when the
newcomers are productive the team performance should be enhanced. As newcomers are
573
integrated into the organization and become insiders, they would go on to, in turn, be the
facilitators assisting with the induction of future newcomers, thereby perpetuating the
organization’s culture. To summarize, an organizational context which encourages learning
Downloaded by The University of Texas at El Paso At 03:08 05 November 2018 (PT)

and socialization would be a context that provides newcomers with the required time and
conditions to be able to socialize, by promoting a culture that is supportive of learning and
information sharing, and where psychological safety predominates.

References
Ashford, S.J. (1986), “Feedback-seeking in individual adaptation: a resource perspective”, Academy of
Management Journal, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 465-487.
Ashford, S.J. and Black, J.S. (1996), “Proactivity during organizational entry: the role of desire for
control”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 81 No. 2, p. 199.
Ashforth, B.E., Sluss, D.M. and Harrison, S.H. (2007a), “Socialization in organizational contexts”,
International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 22, p. 1.
Ashforth, B.E., Sluss, D.M. and Saks, A.M. (2007b), “Socialization tactics, proactive behavior, and
newcomer learning: Integrating socialization models”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 70
No. 3, pp. 447-462.
Bauer, T.N., Bodner, T., Erdogan, B., Truxillo, D.M. and Tucker, J.S. (2007), “Newcomer adjustment
during organizational socialization: a meta-analytic review of antecedents, outcomes, and
methods”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 92 No. 3, p. 707.
Billett, S. (2000), “Guided learning at work”, Journal of Workplace Learning, Vol. 12 No. 7, pp. 272-285.
Billett, S. (2001), “Learning through work: workplace affordances and individual engagement”, Journal
of Workplace Learning, Vol. 13 No. 5, pp. 209-214.
Billett, S. (2002), “Toward a workplace pedagogy: Guidance, participation, and engagement”, Adult
Education Quarterly, Vol. 53 No. 1, pp. 27-43.
Billett, S. (2004), “Workplace participatory practices: conceptualising workplaces as learning
environments”, Journal of Workplace Learning, Vol. 16 No. 6, pp. 312-324.
Billett, S. (2010), “Learning through practice”, in Billett, S. (Ed.), Learning through Practice, Springer,
New York, NY.
Brown, S.P. and Lieigh, T.W. (1996), “A new look at psychological climate and its relationship to job
involvement, effort, and performance”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 81 No. 4.
Carmeli, A. (2007), “Social Capital, psychological safety and learning behaviours from failure in
organisations”, Long Range Planning, Vol. 40 No. 1, pp. 30-44.
Carmeli, A., Tishler, A. and Edmondson, A.C. (2012), “CEO relational leadership and strategic decision
quality in top management teams: the role of team trust and learning from failure”, Strategic
Organization, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 31-54.
Chan, S. (2016), “Belonging to a workplace: first-year apprentices’ perspectives on factors determining
engagement and continuation through apprenticeship”, International Journal for Educational
and Vocational Guidance, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 9-27.
 JWL Cooper-Thomas, H. (2009), “The role of newcomer-insider relationships during organizational
socialization”, in Morrison, R.L. and Wright, S.L. (Eds), Friends and Enemies in Organizations,
30,7 Palgrave Macmillan, London.
Cooper-Thomas, H., Anderson, N. and Cash, M. (2011), “Investigating organizational socialization: a
fresh look at newcomer adjustment strategies”, Personnel Review, Vol. 41 No. 1, pp. 41-55.
Duffy, M., Ganster, D. and Pagon, M. (2002a), “Social undermining in the workplace”, The Academy of
Management Journal, Vol. 45 No. 2, pp. 331-351.
574
Duffy, M.K., Ganster, D.C. and Pagon, M. (2002b), “Social undermining in the workplace”, Academy of
Management Journal, Vol. 45 No. 2, pp. 331-351.
Edmondson, A. (2003), “Managing the risk of learning: psychological safety in work teams”, in West,
M., Tjosvold, D. and Smith, K. (Eds), International Handbook of Organizational Teamwork and
Cooperative Working, John Wiley and Sons, London.
Downloaded by The University of Texas at El Paso At 03:08 05 November 2018 (PT)

Edmondson, A. (2004), “Learning in organizations: a group-Level lens”, Trust and Distrust in

Organizations: Dilemmas and Approaches, Russell Sage Foundation, New York, NY, p. 239.
Edmondson, A. and Lei, Z. (2014), “Psychological safety: the history, renaissance, and future of an
interpersonal construct”, Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational
Behavior, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 23-43.
Eraut, M. (2007a), “Learning form other people in the workplace”, Oxford Review of Education, Vol. 33
No. 4, pp. 403-422.
Eraut, M. (2007b), “Learning from other people in the workplace”, Oxford Review of Education, Vol. 33
No. 4, pp. 403-322.
Feldman, D.C. (1976), “A practical program for employee socialization”, Organizational Dynamics,
Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 64-80.
Feldman, D.C. (1981), “The multiple socialization of organization members”, Academy of Management
Review, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 309-318.
Fisher, S. (1986), “Studying socialization and learning about oneself in the classroom”, Clinical Sociology
Review, Vol. 4 No. 1, p. 15.
Gallacher, K. (1997), “Supervision, mentoring and coaching”, Reforming Personnel in Early
Intervention, Vol. 51, pp. 191-214.
Johnson, D.W. and Johnson, R.T. (2002), “Cooperative learning and social interdependence theory”, in
Scott, T.R., Heath, L., Edwards, J., Posavac, E.J., Bryant, F.B., Suarez-Balcazar, Y., Henderson-
King, E. and Myers, J. (Eds), Theory and Research on Small Groups, Springer, Boston, MA.
Jokisaari, M. (2013), “The role of leader-member and social network relations in newcomers’ role
performance”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 82 No. 2, pp. 96-104.
Jones, G.R. (1986), “Socialization tactics, self-efficacy, and newcomers’ adjustments to organizations”,
Academy of Management journal, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 262-279.
Louis, M.R. (1990), “Acculturation in the workplace: Newcomers as lay ethnographers”, Organization
climate and culture.
Louis, M.R., Posner, B.Z. and Powell, G.N. (1983), “The availability and helpfulness of socialization
practices”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 36 No. 4, pp. 857-866.
May, D.R., Gilson, R.L. and Harter, L.M. (2004), “The psychological conditions of meaningfulness,
safety and availability and the engagement of the human spirit at work”, Journal of Occupational
and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 77 No. 1, pp. 11-37.
Mikkonen, S., Pylväs, L., Rintala, H., Nokelainen, P. and Postareff, L. (2017), “Guiding workplace
learning in vocational education and training: a literature review”, Empirical Research in
Vocational Education and Training, Vol. 9 No. 1, p. 9.
Miller, V.D. and Jablin, F.M. (1991), “Information seeking during organizational entry: influences,
tactics, and a model of the process”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 92-120.
 Mornata, C. and Bourgeois, E. (2014), “Management-related and activity-related factors of The role of
psychological safety”, Earli SIG 14 Conference - European Association for Research on learning,
Special interest Group on Learning and Professional Development, Oslo. insiders and
Morrison, E.W. (1993a), “Longitudinal study of the effects of information seeking on newcomer organizational
socialization”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 78 No. 2, pp. 173-183. support
Morrison, E.W. (1993b), “Newcomer information seeking: exploring types, modes, sources, and
outcomes”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 36 No. 3, pp. 557-589.
Morrison, E.W. (1995), “Information usefulness and acquisition during organizational encounter”,
575
Management Communication Quarterly, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 131-155.
Morrison, E.W. (2002), “Newcomers’ relationship: the role of social network ties during socialization”,
Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 45 No. 6, pp. 1149-1160.
Nelson, D.L. and Quick, J.C. (1991), “Social support and newcomer adjustment in organizations:
Downloaded by The University of Texas at El Paso At 03:08 05 November 2018 (PT)

Attachment theory at work?”, Journal of organizational behavior, Vol. 12 No. 6, pp. 543-554.
Ostroff, C. and Kozlowski, S. (1992), “Organizational socialization as a learning process: the role of
information acquisition”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 45 No. 4, pp. 849-874.
Paillé, P. and Mucchielli, A. (2013), L’analyse Qualitative en Sciences Humaines et Sociales, Armand
Colin, Paris.
Saks, A.M. and Ashforth, B.E. (1996), “Proactive socialization and behavioral self-management”,
Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 48 No. 3, pp. 301-323.
Saks, A.M., Gruman, J.A. and Cooper-Thomas, H. (2011), “The neglected role of proactive behavior and
outcomes in newcomer socialization”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 79 No. 1, pp. 36-46.
Schunk, D.H. and Ertmer, P.A. (2000), “Self-regulation and academic learning: Self-efficacy enhancing
interventions”, in Boekaerts, M., Pintrich, P.R. and Zeidner, M. (Eds), Handbook of Self-
Regulation, Academic Press, San Diego, CA.
Unwin, L. and Fuller, A. (2004), “Expansive learning environments: integrating organizational and
personal development”, in Rainbird, H., Fuller, A. and Munro, A. (Eds), Workplace Learning in
Context, Routledge, London.
Wanberg, C.R. and Kammeyer-Mueller, J.D. (2000), “Predictors and outcomes of proactivity in the
socialization process”, The Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 85 No. 3, p. 373.
Wisker, G., Exley, K., Antoniou, M. and Ridley, P. (2013), Working One-to-One with Students:
supervising, Coaching, Mentoring, and Personal Tutoring, Routledge, London.
Zimmerman, B.J. and Schunk, D.H. (2004), “Self-regulating intellectual processes and outcomes: a social
cognitive perspective”, Motivation, Emotion, and Cognition: Integrative Perspectives on
Intellectual Functioning and Development, Routledge, London, pp. 323-349.

Corresponding author
Cecilia Mornata can be contacted at: cecilia.mornata@unige.ch

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com