See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/286458194

The Role of Time in Socialization Dynamics

Chapter · January 2012

DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199763672.013.0009

CITATIONS READS

19 1,577

1 author:

Blake E Ashforth
Arizona State University
149 PUBLICATIONS   32,988 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Work-life events theory View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Blake E Ashforth on 11 December 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 OXFORD LIBRARY OF PSYCHOLOGY

Editor in Chief PETER E. NATHAN

AreaEditorSTEVE W. J. KOZLOWSKI

The Oxford Handbook

of Organizational
Socialization

Edited by
Connie R. Wanberg

OXFORD
UNIVERSITY PRESS
 CHAPTER

The Role of Time in Socialization

9 Dynamics

.
.
··...
Abstract
·~ Although socialization is explicitly about preparing newcomers for the future, time plays only a
:-"' ;
·1~
:·
. backstage role in most models and studies. To help move time to the front stage, six issues are
discussed. First, the distinction between clock time and event time suggests that learning and
% ('.
·.·
~ adjustment are "IUmpy" in that they are often prompted by a series of events. Second, the rate of
I
learning and adjustment are strongly influenced by temporally oriented individual differences, the
·~ difficulty of tra·nsitioning from one's former role to one's current role, and various features of
!\
·'.'I<
],j
the work context. Third, the rate is also strongly influenced by socialization processes enacted by
~· the organization (socialization tactics) and newcomers (proactivity). Fourth, time lags, the duration of
effects, the relative stability of learning and adjustment, and evolving newcomer needs are considered.
M
.:&
{
Fifth, the increasing need for "swift socialization" is recognized, along with how organizations
i are addressing this need. Finally, prescriptions are offered for when and how often to measure
socialization dynamics.
Key Words: learning, adjustment, time, events, role transitions, socialization tactics, proactivity,
swift socialization

Introduction · George and Jones (2000) wrote, "the role of

Socialization is explicitly about the future as medi-
ated by the present. The very purpose of socialization,
·after all, is to prepare the newcomer for an effective
role{s) in the organization. From the newcomer's
point of view, onboarding activities are explicidy
about learning to become a functioning member, and
this encourages him or her to think prospectively-
to wonder what might be, to anticipate change, and
to hope for betterment. This prospective thinking in
_curn provides che motivation to endure trials of the
present-whether from being stretched, digesting
minutia, undergoing hazing, being tested, or other
hurdles involved in "learning che ropes." Similarly,
from the organization's point of view, onboarding
activities repr~sent an investment in the newcomer, an
implicit belief that the longer-term returns will more
than compensate for the short-term costs. 1
time must be explicitly incorporated into a theory
(and not, just treated as a boundary condition) if
a theory is to provide an ontologically accurate
description of a phenomenon" (p. 658). This is par-
cicularly true of socialization, given its inherently
dyriamic nature. And yet time tends to play only a
backstage role in most socialization research, abso-
lucely essential to the process of socialization but
largely unheralded (Klein & Heuser, 2008). The
purpose of this chapter, then, is to more explicitly
consider the role of time in socialization dynamics
so that it might better assume the front-stage role
that it truly warrants. The discussion is organized
under six headings: (1) clock time vs. event time;
(2) rate of socialization: factors affecting the diffi-
culty of learning and adjustment; (3) rate of social-
ization: processes that facilitate or inhibit learning

161

and adjustment; (4) learning and adjustment over
time; (5) swift socialization; and (6) putting it all
together: wheri and how often to measure? My cen-
tral contentions are that socialization research can
be enriched considerably by making temporal con-
siderations explicit in theoretical models and empir-
ical studies, and that to understand the role of time
in socialization-particularly the rate and duration
of learning and adjustment-one must understand
the role of formative events.
Before beginning, a word about the outcomes
of socialization: learning, proximal adjustment, and
distal adjustment. Given that socialization entails
acquiring knowledge about and settling into one's
work context, learning and adjustment are criti-
cal outcomes of socialization (Cooper-Thomas &
Anderson, 2005; Fisher, 1986; Klein & Heuser,
2008; Ostroff & Kozlowski, 1992; Saks & Ashfotth,
1997). Various typologies of "socialization content"
suggest that learning encompasses the newcomer's
job (i.e., bundle of tasks), role (i.e., broader expec-
tations associated with organizational member-
ship), social domain (i.e., interpersonal and group
dynamics), and organizational context (e.g., history,
culture, politics; see Ashforrh, Sluss, & Harrison's,
2007a review; cf Klein & Heuser, 2008).
Following various scholars, I define proximal new-
comer adjustment as including role clarity, task mas-
tery, and social integration (Adkins, 1995; Bauer,
Bodner, Etdogan, Truxillo, & Tucker, 2007; Bauer &
Erdogan, 2012; Chan & Schmitt, 2000; Feldman,
1981; Kammeyer-Mueller & Wanberg, 2003),2 as
well as role crafting (Ashforth, Myers, & Sluss, 2012).
While the first three are well known, role crafting is
the extent to which one innovates or modifies role-
related expectations, ranging from minor tweaks to
major changes (Sluss, van Dick, & Thompson, 201 O;
Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001; cf. Van Maanen &
Schein, 1979). Very similar concepts include role
innovation, role change, role development, role mak-
ing, and role negotiation (Ashforth, 2001). As the
environment becomes increasingly complex and
dynamic, role crafting is becoming more common
and expected (Evans & Davis, 2005), although the
amount of role crafting desired varies widely across
contexts. Studies suggest that newcomers may
engage in role crafting soon after entry, particularly
if they have power and relevant prior experience
(Ashford &Taylor, 1990).
Proximal adjustment in turn predicts more distal
forms of adjustment, including performance and
work-related attitudes such as job satisfaction and
organizational commitment (Bauer et al., 2007;
THE ROLE OF TIME IN SOCIALIZATION DYNAMICS
see also Saks et al., 2007). However, I will generJi~c
restrict the focus to learning and proximal adjUsJ~
ment (henceforth, "adjustment") because they .,g
most directly affected by socialization processes. 3k
Clock Time versus Event Time
Ancona, Okhuysen, and Perlow (2001; see also;·
Anderson-Gough, Grey, & Robson, 2001) distinc'
guish between "clock time" and "event time."31he~
former views rime as linear, "such that the units [ofi.
time] are homogeneous, uniform, regular, precise;:
deterministic" (Ancona et al., 2001, p. 514). Clocb '.
time is the default assumption of most socialization:·I''
research. That is, the typical longitudinal studywill:f '
administer questionnaires at certain intervals on the·;.~,4
implicit assumption that change in the dependent;.I
variables has occurred at a more or less steady pace.i:I
For example, task mastery would be expected to be:~I
less at Time I (TI) than at T2, and less at T2 than'\§~
at T3. It's as if the work context is thought to have)I;
exerted a steady and relentless influence on the new-·.i~
comer, much like a straight piece of wood is gradu- ·'.fi{
ally shaped into a violin body by the steady and ·.·.
relentless pressure of a press. While this assumption .:_·:
of gradual change is typically workable for cumula- .
rive variables, such as learning and proximal adjust-
ment (e.g., Chan &Schmitt, 2000; Cooper-Thomas
& Anderson, 2005)-although all these variables
are susceptible to disruption-it is more problem-
atic for c;listal adjustment variables that are subject
to fluctuations (as argued later under "Learning and
Adjustment Over Time"), such as job satisfaction
and organizational commitment. Under the head-
ing, "Putting it All Together: When and How Often
to Measure?," I will discuss how repeated measures
surveys can be used to more effectively capture clock
time (as well as event time).
In contrast to clock time, event time refers to
the use of discrete episodes to frame the passage of
time. Learning and adjustment are "lumpy" in the
sense that they are typically driven by episodes that
precipitate new experiences, reflection, and per-
haps reinterpretation of previous episodes (Ashforrh
et al., 2007a). For example, being invited to lunch
by one's new coworkers, being entrusted with confi-
dential information, and being treated with compas-
sion during times of stress are events that facilitate
and signal social integration (Feldman, 1977). Event
time is the use of an episode "as a reference point for
things that happen before and after" (Ancona et aL,
200 l, p. 515). Concepts like surprises (Louis, 1980),
turning points (Bullis & Bach, 1989), and critical
incidents (Gundry, 1993) speak to the dramatic and
more as ripples in a more or less seamless expanse
· uous learning and adjustment that can 4
disconun , .
· the wake of an event. Its important to note (cf. Zaheer, Albert, & Zaheer, 1999).
occur in b . . b" . Conversely, occasional surveys tend to become
ch events need not e ma1or in an o 1ecuve
cha< SU ing invited to lunch may be an ostens1"bly less useful for capturing event time as the following
sense. Be increase: (1) the number of major (i.e., potentially
ture on the part of coworkers, but nonethe-
0 all F S . "disruptive") events, (2) the unpredictabiliry of the
veys an outsized lesson to an anxious new-
less con . " nature and sequencing of both minor and major
'" Rentsch (1990) put ct, small events [can]
comer. ro> events, and (3) the unpredictability of the effects
ry big messages" (p. 678).
of the events. Indeed, given the vagaries of event-
car Relatedly, Tesluk and Jacobs (1998) distinguish
driven socialization, the associations between vari-
berween the breadth and depth of work experiences.
ables may be quire erratic over the short term. For
High breadth experiences introduce the newcomer
example, Vancouver, Tamanini, and Yoder (2010)
. de variety of tasks, challenges, and role set
roa Wl . argue that, although there is generally an inverse
members (e.g., colleagues, customers); novelty ts
relationship between learning (knowledge) and
the watchword. High depth experiences empha-
information seeking (i.e., rhe less one knows, the
. repetition of a limited variety of tasks and/
size more one seeks), "disturbances" in socialization may
or increased complexity within a given task area;
cause the intensity of information seeking and/or
consistency is the watchword. The greater the stan-
the degree of learning to fluctuate wildly such that
dardization of one's job, the more likely that social-
the association is greatly attenuated or even reversed
ization events will entail depth rather than breadth.
during a given time frame. The authors conclude:
Accordingly, Tesluk and Jacobs conclude that
"findings from longitudinal research that arbitrarily
quantitative indicators of work experience (i.e.,
cut into the stream of processes might be difficult to
amount, time) predict job performance on stan-
dardfzed tasks more so than on nonstandardized interpret" (p. 773).
In short, the greater the number and unpredict-
tasks. Because of the eclecticism that characterizes
ability of evencs (and their consequences), the greater
broad work experiences, it is likely that newcomers
the utility of event time compared to clock time.
will initially feel little progress in the conventional
Event time can be captured especially well by richer
sense of task mastery ("Jack of all trades, master
methods that are poised not at 30,000 feet but much
of none"). However, as the experiences and their
closer to the ground. Participation, observations,
derived lessons mount, newcomers are likely to
interviews, and diaries-as well as the experience
form relacively dense cognitive schema that facili-
sampling mentioned in Endnote 4-are parcicularly
cate lateral connections among seemingly disparate
helpful for providing thick descriptions of events and
events, ultimately leading to a sense of versatility
at least their short-term consequences. Indeed, the
and perhaps adaptability. Goodwin and Ziegler
literature on occupational and professional social-
(1998), for instance, report that the breadch of
ization includes many excdlent ethnographies that
one's work experiences (albeit across jobs), but not
illu~inate the importance of major and seemingly
one's years of experience, was positively associated
minor events alike (e.g., Halferty, 1991; Hill, 1992;
with the number of unique responses provided for
Ibarra, 1999; Pratt, 2000; Schleef, 2006).
a company-specific problem-solving task.
Event Time and Socialization Research Event Sequencing
The notion of event time raises the provocative
What does the notion of event time mean for
issue of what sequence of particular events is most
socialization research? A typical longitudinal scudy
likely to facilitate learning and adjustment (e.g.,
will implicitly capture the changes that result from an
Morrison & Hock, 1986; Tesluk & Jacobs, 1998).
accumulation of broad and deep experiences whose
Although there are certain logical sequences, such
short-term effects can be predicted. That is, although
as beginning with an organizational orientation
no one may know precisely when a newcomer will
and ending with a rite of passage such as a "gradua-
encounter a particular episode·or learn a particular
tion" ceremony, there remains an untold number of
lesson, the lag between the survey snapshots will
possible sequences given the number of major and
captufe the (short-cerm) predictable effects of what-
minor events that potentially constitute the social-
ever episodes have occurred in the interim. Much
ization process and the unpredictability of many of
like a topographical snapshot from 30,000 feet, the
them. Let me offer some initial observations as a
"lumpiness" of the terrai.~-the particularized events
chat punctuate one's time on the job--will appear spur to further research.
ASHFORTH
 EARLY EVENTS
Early events tend to exert a disproportionate
impact "since they influence how later experiences
will be interpreted" (Katz, 1980, p. 99) and the
knowledge gained opens the doors to certain oppor-
tunities while shutting the doors to ochers. First, the
less familiar newcomers are with the setting, and the
less prior experience they have co fill in the gaps,
the more meaning they will read into any particular
event. Srohl (1986) found that messages (from insid-
ers) received during the first 2 months of work were
generally said by newcomers to be rhe most memo-
rable. Imagine chat a supervisor offers five pointed
comments on a newcomer's performance during her
first month, four of which are very positive and one
very negative. The earlier the negative remark falls
in the sequence, the greater its likely impact on her
self-confidence precisely because she has experienced
fewer positive remarks co help offset the criticism.
Second, given individuals' proclivity to seek con-
firmation-rather than disconfirmation-of their
initial impressions (Ashforth & Humphrey, 1995),
the meaning newcomers extract from early events
can ultimately prove self-fulfilling. A newcol!ler
who interprets the aloofness of a senior coworker
as a personal rebuke may behave rudely toward the
coworker and thereby provoke personal rebukes.
Third, and relatedly, research on first impressions
indicates that observers (in this case, peers, manag-
ers, and mentors) are similarly prone co seek confir-
mation rather than disconfirmation of their initial
impressions of a newcomer and to act on the basis
of those impressions, thereby triggering a self-ful-
filling prophecy (Harris & Garris, 2008). Chappell
and Lanza-Kaduce (2010) describe how a police
academy recruit was defined as the class "screw-up"
(p. 198) and conrinually treated harshly by instruc-
tors. The authors concluded: "Once a recruit earned
a negacive reputation, it was nearly impossible to
change chat reputation" (p. 198). Fourth, cer-
tain events-notably, the provision of moderately
challenging initial work assignments, constructive
feedback, and adequate resources-tend to foster
newcomers' abilities, self-efficacy, and credibility,
thereby increasing the likelihood of further positive
evenrs (Hall, 1976; c£ Lindsley, Brass, & Thomas,
1995). The upshot is a success spiral where initial
experiences of success increase the likelihood of later
experiences of success (Ashforth, 2001; Howard &
Bray, 1988; Qureshi & Fang, 2011). Conversely,
unchallenging assignments (as when newcomers are
required to "pay their dues") or overly challenging
assignments, nonconstructive feedback or a lack of
THE ROLE OF TIME IN SOCIALIZATION DYNAMICS
feedback, and inadequate resources may trigger a
failure spiral. Finally, the specific learning, adjUst-
menc, and credentials gained by exposure to certain
events makes newcomers eligible for certain other
events, thus channeling socialization. For instance
research on careers as "tournaments" indicates ch~
winnowing effect chat not realizing certain bench-
mark events (e.g., being promoted within one year)
has on individuals' future opportunities (Cooper,
Graham, & Dyke, 1993).
STORIES
Shipp and Jansen (2011) argue char "individuals
tend to understand temporal phenomena in terms
of srories (McAdams, 1993), because stories help
individuals generate and sustain meaning (Gabriel,
2000), and make sense of their experiences through
integrated and sequenced accounts" (p. 77). Indeed,
Van Maanen (1977) likens a newcomer entering an
·organization to an actor entering a new stage in the
sense char he muse construct a dramacurgical reading
of the set, plot, characters, and his own role-and
play char role in front of an audience. Continuing
the dramaturgical metaphor, it seems likely chat new-
comers construct stories partially based on familiar
archetypes char suggest certain ploclines and charac-
ters such as the respectful apprentice, the ascendant
wunderkind, and the short-timer who regards the
job as a stepping stone to something better. And,-as
pare of the socialization process itself, the organiza-
tion is likely to provide institutionalized narratives
that explain and legitimate the process.
Stories, like experience itself, are lumpy in the
sense chat they coalesce around seemingly key
events (or sets of related small events). Ibarra and
Barbulescu (2010) refer co emplotment, "rhe pro-
cess by which narratives link temporal events by
directing chem toward a conclusion" (p. 141).
Because socialization pertains to helping the new-
comer become a functioning organizational mem-
ber and perhaps realizing a desired self, stories are
typically oriented to these anticipated endpoints
(e.g., enduring tedious training as a means to becom-
ing an excellenr lawyer). However, Shipp and Jansen
(2011) observe chat narrators often begin their sto-
ries "in the middle," in the sense that they retrospec-
tively construct the past co help make sense of the
present and give direction to the future. Similarly,
newcomers make sense of socialization experiences
in an ongoing way such chat "the" meaning of rhe
past may be reconstructed as the present unfolds
and the contours of the future cake shape, leading
ro an evolving (and perhaps dramatically changing)
SW ry
line (Van Maanen, 1977). fu such, stories can
rovide both a sense of continuicy (by reconstruct-
~ the past co march che demands of the present and
r.~re) and the poremial for change (by rewriring
the story as warranted by new events and the emerg-
ing sense of self; Ibarra & Barbulescu, 2010). 5
Although constructed and reconstructed, It ts
important co note chat stories are not typically expe-
rienced as exercises in writing fiction. Indeed, Ibarra
and Barbulescu (2010) define successful stories as
chose char are not only "deemed valid by their target
audience" but "generate feelings of authenticity" in
the narrator (p. 136). That said, stories may be con-
structed and expressed quite self-consciously, and
highlight aspirational and idealized features, because
major transitions evoke strong needs for sensemak-
ing ·(regarding the dynamics of the situation and the
trajectory of the self) and self-presentation (Ibarra
&Barbulescu, 2010; McAdams, 1999).
In sum, to fully understand the role of time in
socialization dynamics it is necessary to understand
rhe nature, flow, and impact of events. The mean-
ing that newcomers derive from early events and the
stories they construct and reconstruct are particu-
larly likely co affect the trajectory of learning and
adjustment.
Rate of Socialization: Factors Affecting the
Difficulty of Learning and Adjustment
The race of socialization refers to the speed ac
which newcomer learning and adjustment occur
(cf. Reichers, 1987). In terms of Figure 9.1, the
rate is indicated by the slope of.each of the curves.
For exposition purposes, it is assumed that learning
and adjustment are strongly correlated (although,
in practice, learning is likely to foreshadow adjust-
ment; see Ashforth et al.'s 2007a review). Trajectory
A appears to be the modal curve for cumulative
- - - -
Knowledge c
Acquired
=d
Adjustment A
B
Figure 9.1 Cwnulative Learning and AdjustinentTrajectories.
outcomes, such as learning, role clarity, and task
mastery, where prior learning and adjustment pro-
vide a baseline for future learning and adjustment
(e.g., proficiency with a technology; Ashforch et al.,
2007a), and a certain critical mass of experience is
needed before the learning and adjustment begin
to crystallize (at which point the slope increases).
The other trajectories shown will be discussed lacer.
All else equal, a relatively rapid rate of learning and
adjustment is preferred by both newcomers (to shed
the unwanted "newbie" label) and the organization
(to maximize efficiency; Ashforth er al., 2007a;
Reichers, 1987).
Assuming chat a given newcomer has a certain
amount of learning and adjusting to accomplish in a
given time (as indicated in Figure 9.1 by the dotted
"maximum" line),6 the rate of socialization is deter-
mined by: (I) how difficult learning and adjuscmenr
are for the newcomer in a particular context; and
(2) the socialization processes enacted by the orga-
nization and newcomer to facilitate rhac learning
and adjustment. This section discusses individual
differences and situational factors chat affect the dif-
ficulty of learning and adjustment. The subsequent
section discusses the socialization processes enacted
by the organization (i.e., socialization tactics) and
newcomer (i.e., proactivity).
Individual Differences
Socialization is inherently interactionist in the
sense char: (I) newcomers select and are selected
into a particular situation; (2) newcomers actively
interpret the situation; (3) newcomers typically have
some discretion, coupled with idiosyncratic needs
and wanes, such they may ace on and change the
situation; (4) the situation rends co affect different
newcomers in different ways (e.g., one individual
may be inspired by a group chant whereas another
Maximum
- - - - -- - - --
Time
ASH FORTH
may be repulsed); and (5) newcomers choose or
are chosen co stay or exit, thus reinforcing person-
organization fit (Bauer et al., 2007; Frese, 1982;
Schneider, 1983). The result is dynamic interaction-
ism (Hattrup & Jackson, 1996), where persons and
situations reciprocally and continuously "shape"
each other over time (Ashforth et al., 2007a). It is
important, then, co consider how individual differ-
ences may affect learning and adjustment, and thus
the rate of socialization.
A myriad of individual differences have been
proposed co affect a newcomer's learning and
adjustment, from openness to experience (Wanberg
& Kammeyer-Mueller, 2000) to conscientiousness
(Colquitt & Simmering, 1998), and from self-
efficacy (Saks, 1995) to desire for control (Ashford
& Black, 1996). Here, I consider four major indi-
vidual differences that are inherently temporal in
the sense chat they speak to one's past, present, and
furure.7 First, one's prior experiences, particularly
work-related, are likely to facilitate learning and
adjustment to the extent the experiences are rele-
vant and transferable to the new serting8 and the lag
between prior and current experiences is relatively
short (Beyer & Hannah, 2002; Carr, Pearson, Vest,
& Boyar, 2006; Gibson & Papa, 2000; Morrison
& Brantner, 1992; Pinder & Schroeder, 1987).
For exan1ple, Carr et al. (2006) found that prior
occupational experience was associated with lower
voluntary turnover, and chis association was medi-
ated by pre-entry person-job fir and pre-entry
value congruence with the organization. Beyer and
Hannah (2002) found that newcomers with longer
and more diverse work experience had more diverse
latent identities with which to find a connection to
their new roles. In short, prior experience gives one
a knowledge and skill base for anticipating fit with
the new setting; subsequently making sense of one's
experiences, and presumably engaging in proactiviry
(defined below), each of which facilitates learning
and adjustment. Indeed, the concept of anticipa-
tory socialization (Feldman, 1976; Kramer, 2010;
Merton, 1957) speaks co the cumulative impact of
pre-entry experiences on one's fit with the new orga-
nization and role.
However, there are glimmers in the literature of
experience actually impeding learning and adjust-
ment (Adkins, 1995; Anakwe & Greenhaus, 2000;
Korte, 2009), although the reasons remain unclear.
Likely candidates include attitudinal issues (e.g.,
hubris, false confidence), demographic differences
with other employees (e.g., background, age),
prior learning that does not fit the current setting
THE ROLE OF TIME IN SOCIALIZATION DYNAMICS
(e.g., discrepant values, "bad habits"), and leaving
prior jobs for reasons that also impair current learn-
ing and adjustment (e.g., poor social skills).
A second major temporally oriented individual
difference variable is temporal focus, "rhe allocation
of attention to rhe past, present, and future" (Shipp,
Edwards, & Lambert, 2009, p. 2; cf. temporal ori-
entation, Bluedorn & Denhardr, 1988; time per-
spective, Waller et al., 2001). Individuals can shift
their attention among these time periods, although
attention rends to be somewhat positively correlated
across rhe three (e.g., individuals who think about
the past are also somewhat inclined to think about
the future). However, Shipp et al. found that past-
focused individuals tend to score higher on neuroti-
cism, negative affectivity, and an external locus of
control; experience less optimism and life satisfac-
tion; and are inclined to contrast the past with rhe
present such that they see their current job char-
acteristics less positively and have higher intentions
to quit. Conversely, current-focused and future-
focused individuals experience more optimism,
positive affectiviry, extraversion, conscientiousness,
and life satisfaction; have a higher internal locus
of control; and are more inclined to take risks.
Also, current-focused individuals view the present
more positively, and future-focused individuals are
inclined to assimilate rhe (rosy) future with the pres-
ent such that they see their current job characteris-
tics more positively and have higher job satisfaction
and organizational commitment. These findings
suggest provocative implications for socialization.
In particular, given their greater positive affectiv-
ity, optimism, extraversiOn, and conscientiousness,
current-focused and future-focused individuals
are likely more willing to embrace and meet the
challenges of socialization; indeed, future-focused
individuals may be especially willing to invest in
rigorous training and endure self-sacrifice in the
present because of a forward-thinking goal orien-
tation. Although past-focused individuals may be
generally more resistant to socialization, Shipp et al.
speculate chat such individuals may be more atten-
tive to feedback (since it is inherently retrospective),
which would facilitate learning. Indeed, Shipp et al.
argue that "individuals who are atemporal (i.e., a
weak focus on rhe past, present, or future) may be
the least motivated given their lack of focus on any
time period" (p. 18).
Third, Dweck (1986) divides achievement moti-
vation into learning goals, "in which individuals
seek to increase their competence, to understand
or master something new," and performance goals,
"in which individuals seek to gain favorable judg-
ments of their competence or avoid negative judg-
ments" (p. 1040). A performance goal orientation
is associated with perceiving challenging casks as
risky because of the possibility of failure, thereby
discouraging individuals from choosing such tasks
and persisting in the face of obstacles. In contrast, a
learning goal orientation is inherently more furure-
oriented; it's associated with perceiving challenges
as opportunities to learn, thereby encouraging
individuals to cackle challenging tasks, seek devel-
opmental experiences, be receptive to feedback,
and ro try new approaches in the face of obstacles
(e.g., VandeWalle, Ganesan, Challagalla, & Brown,
2000). Thus, Dragoni, Tesluk, Russell, and Oh
(2009) found that junior managers with a greater
learning goal orientation were more likely to be in
developmental assignments and experience a stron-
ger association between such assignments and actual
managerial competencies. Ir appears, then, that a
learning goal orientation would be positively associ-
ated with the rate of socialization. Further, Niiya,
Crocker, and Bartmess (2004) found that a learn-
ing goal orientation can be primed (e.g., a manager
couching a newcomer's failure as an important
learning experience rather than as a test of her abil-
ity) such chat one becomes bercer able to cope with
failure. This indicates chat the orientation is ame-
nable to social influence-including socialization
processes-and can therefore be considered a form
of adjustment in its own right.
Finally, Cardon (2002) discusses the role of antic-
ipated organizational tenure, and Taormina (1997)
discusses the role of.future prospects, in socialization
dynamics. Anticipated tenure "reflects the psycho-
logical perceptions newco1ners have concerning
how long they will be affiliated with their new orga-
nization" (Cardon, 2002, p. 4), and future prospects
is "the extent ro which an employee anticipates hav-
ing a rewarding career within his or her employing
organization" (Taormina, 1997, p. 40). In this age
ofboundaryless careers (Sullivan, 1999), many fac-
tors may reduce one's anticipated tenure, includ-
ing structural barriers to long-term tenure (e.g.,
contingent work, lack of job security, glass ceiling
effects), negative reactions to the job and organiza-
tion (e.g., reality shock, unmet expectations, psy-
chological contract violations, poor person-job and
person-organization fit, lack of growth, poor com-
pensation), ineffective socialization itself (i.e., poor
learning and adjustment), external market condi-
tions (i.e., availability and desirability of alternative
employment), viewing one's current role as merely
a stopgap pos1non or a stepping stone to other
external opportunities, and various personal reasons
(e.g., continuing education, family responsibilities,
dual career concerns). Importantly, all else equal,
organizations are 1nore willing to invest resources
in the socialization process if they anticipate rea-
sonably lengthy newcomer tenure (Cardon, 2002).
For example, Cardon (2002) notes how contingent
workers rend to receive relatively casual socializa-
tion (Bauer, Morrison, & Callister, 1998). Similarly,
because socialization entails a certain amount of
organization-specific learning chat may nor be read-
ily generalizable to other organizations, as well as
adjustment co particularized individuals (e.g., to
Suzanne and Fred, one's coworkers), a newcomer
is more likely to be motivated to learn and adjust
rhe longer is her anticipated tenure. Thus, research
suggests chat anticipated tenure/future prospects is
positively associated with learning about the organi-
.
zation, social integration, job satisfaction, and orga- '
/,,
nizational commitment (Cardon, 2002; Song &
Chathoth, 201 O; Taormina, 2004). Cardon (2002)
did not find a significant association between antici-
pated tenure and cask mastery, likely because even
newcomers with low anticipated tenure are required
co perform their roles adequately. It's also worth
noting char anticipated tenure is likely quite sus-
ceptible to change as a function of the _socialization
process; thus researchers should consider assessing it
ac multiple rime points.
To summarize: relevant, transferable, and recent
prior experiences; a current and future oriented
temporal focus; a learning goal orientation; and
relatively high anticipated organizational tenure are
each, generally, likely to facilicare newcomer learn-
ing and adjustment.
Situational Factors: Role Transitions
As with individual differences, a variecy of situ-
ational factors have been proposed to affect the rare
of newcomer learning and adjustment. We partition
these factors into two sets: (1) the role transition;
and (2) the context of work.
Role transition refers to che process through
which individuals psychologically (and if rel-
evant, physically) exit one role and enter another
(Ashforth, 2001; Burr, 1972). For our purposes, the
exited role refers to the position one formerly held,
whereas the entered role refers to the position one
is being socialized to occupy. Both the exited and
entered roles are inevitably associated with cercain
context-driven expectations (e.g., one employer
may prize innovativeness whereas another prizes
ASHFORTH
conformity). The nature of the prior role, its con-
text, and the exit process may strongly affect entry
into the new role and context (Ashforth. 2001;
Boswell, Shipp, Payne, & Culbertson, 2009; Louis,
1980). Ashforth (2001) argues that role transitions
tend to be more difficult-thereby complicating
learning and adjustment in the new role-when
the transitions are:
• Ofhigh magnitude. The greater the number
and extent of core and peripheral features that
change between the roles, the more the newcomer
has to learn and adjust. Ibarra (2003) discusses
transitions of such high magnitude chat the
individua.Is essentially "reinvented" themselves,
such as one transition from literature professor to
stockbroker.
• Socially undesirable. The more chat others
(whether specific individuals, such as one's friends
and family, or the generalized "ocher" of society)
regard the change as negative, the more socially
undesirable the transition. Although the individual
may or may not regard a transition such as a
demotion as undesirable, having to cope with the
derogation of ochers can undermine the motivation
to learn and adjust.
• Involuntary. An involuntary transition, such
as a promotion in an up-or-out consulting firm,
occurs when the individual has little real choice
regarding the transition. Indeed, co forestall
the corrosive effects of involuntariness on one's
motivation to learn and adjust, organizations often
use subtle techniques to create at least an illusion
of choice (e.g., providing undesirable alternatives)
along with a mix of inducements to encourage
acceptance (Lewicki, 1981).
• Unpredictable. An unpredictable transition
occurs when one is unable "co anticipate the
date of role exit, the onset and duration of the
role entry period, and the nature of the events
surrounding the exit and entry" (Ashforth, 2001,
p. 99). For instance, Mansfield (1972) discusses
the anxiety felt by new recruits who were subjected
to a series of training rotations without knowing
when and where they would be permanently
placed. Unpredictability makes uncertain what and
how to learn.
• Individual rather than collective. An individual
exiting and entering alone, as in an overseas
transfer, has fewer opportunities to engage in
social learning about the meaning and nature of
the transition and to garner social support for
mitigating the anxiety of the transition.
168 THE ROLE OF TIME IN SOCIALIZATION DYNAMICS
• Ofshort duration. Transition duration refers
to the length of time between when one seriously
contemplates leaving one role and when one is
expected to be a functioning occupant in the next
role. A short duration, as when one seizes on a
desirable job opening, undermines one's ability to
prepare for and psychologically come to grips with
the change.
• Irreversible. An irreversible transition exists
when one cannot exit the new role and resume the
old role almost as if one had never entered the new
role at all; chat is, one cannot undo the transition
and/or is "marked" by the transition, such as in the
adoption of a "public and affectively charged role"
(e.g., politician, entertainer; Ashforth, 2001,
p. 104). The pressure to adapt to the irreversible
role may overtax the individual.
The socialization processes discussed later under
the heading, "Rate of Socialization: Processes that
Facilitate or Inhibit Learning and Adjustment," can
largely mitigate difficult role transitions. For now,
recalling our discussion of events, the literature on
rites ofpassage indicates that role exit, psychological
movement, and role entry are each facilitated by
ritualized markers of the process (Ashforth, 2001;
van Gennep, 1960). Rites of separation, such as a
farewell parry (e.g., Jacobson, 1996), facilitate psy-
chological and social disengagement by publicly
marking the termination of role occupancy. Rites
of transition, such as an organizational orientation
and training, facilitate the psychological journey
between roles by signaling that one is assuming a
new station. And rites of incorporation, such as
the successful completion of a probationary period
(e.g., Rollag, 2007; Scott & Myers, 2005), signify
that the individual has become a legitimate role
occupant, thereby facilitating psychological and
social acceptance of the change in status. Generally,
a succession of ritual markers of development and
integration-from the momento'us (e.g.. pass-
ing a final examination; Anderson-Gough er al.,
2001) to the momentary (e.g., sharing an inside
joke)-signify progress to newcomers and veterans
alike and help create a certain social-psychological
momentum.
Situational Factors: Context of Work
Another set of situational factors that affect the
rate of learning and adjustment among newcomers
involves the context of work. Given the absence of a
widely accepted theory of organizational context (cf.
Johns, 2006), Ashforth et al. (2007a; cf. Mowday
& Sutton, 1993) attempted to articulare how the
context may affect the socialization process. They
proposed the following mechanisms:
• Proximal {vs. distal) influence. In adjustment
research, proximal/distal refers to time; here, ic
refers to physical and psychological closeness.
Although socialization research typically focuses
on the relationship between a newcomer and
the organization, most socialization likely occurs
ac the local level-that is, through interactions
wirh one's peers, managers, and mentors during
the everyday enactment of one's role (Anderson
& Thomas, 1996; Ashforth & Rogers, 2012;
Bauer & Green, 1998; Jokisaari & Nurmi,
2009; Korte, 2009; Moreland & Levine, 2001;
Nelson & Quick, 1991; Slaughter & Zickar,
2006; cf. Kammeyer-Mueller & Wanberg, 2003).
& Katz (1985) put it, "Socialization is a social
process" (p. 129), particularly regarding tacit
knowledge. The wider organization comes to be
known and made salient through the ways that
it is enacted in rhe local context. And much of
the information that newcomers strive to learn
and find most useful is based locally, such as
rask behaviors and group norms (Ostroff &
Kozlowski, 1992). Indeed, most training tends to
occur informally on the job as newcomers look to
their more experienced colleagues for guidance,
feedback, and support (Chao, 1997; Garrick,
1998). Thus, the rate of learning and adjustment
are significantly enhanced by concerted attempts
to provide a nurturing local Co.ntext for the
newcomer.
• Simplifying (vs. complicating) conditions. The
terms simplifjing and complicating are not meant to
imply a value judgment, as there are valid reasons
for socialization to be relatively short and casual
(simple, as in the case of a fast food worker) or long
and formalized (complicated, as in che case of an
architect). Perhaps the most important condition
is job complexity, as hard-to-master knowledge,
skills, and abilities require a more protracted
and intense socialization process (although job
complexity may also enhance the motivation
to learn). For instance, Ashforch, Saks, and Lee
0998) found that newcomers' job complexity
Was positively associated with their organization's
use of institutionalized socialization tactics
(defined below); conversely, Hsiung and Hsieh
(2003) found that job standardization appeared
to facilitate the adjustment of new nurses. At the
~aero level, the more distinctive the organization's
identity. culture, structure, and practices, the more
the newcomer needs to learn and adapt. Indeed,
distinctive organizations often attempt to actively
divest newcomers of their incoming habits and
preconceptions so as to render them more amenable
to the organization's distinctive ways (Van Maanen
& Schein, 1979). A key simplifying condition,
particularly for distinctive organizations, is rigorous
recruiunent and selection, which improves the
initial person-organization fit (e.g., Anderson
& Ostroff, 1997; Chatman, 1991; Scholarios,
Lockyer, & Johnson, 2003).
• Facilitating {vs. inhibiting) conditions. If
simplifying/complicating conditions indicate the
amount of effort required to socialize newcomers,
facilitating (vs. inhibiting) conditions indicate ways
of expediting this effort. Ac the local level, role
ambiguity, unpredictable change, physical isolation
(e.g., telecom1nuting), conflicting perspectives
among socialization agents, demographic
dissimilarity, and a politicized workplace may
!·.
all retard the rate of newcorner learning and
adjustment (e.g., Adler & Shuval, 1978; DiSanza,
1995; Kammeyer-Mueller, Livingston, & Liao,
2011; Morrison & Brantner, 1992; Raghuram,
Garud, Wiesenfeld, & Gupta, 2001). 9 At the
macro level, facilitating conditions include a
climate for learning and learning transfer
(e.g., openness to inquiry, tolerance of mistakes,
constructive feedback), HRM practices that
encourage and reward learning and adjustment
(e.g., training, skill-based pay), and the provision
of adequate resources for socialization practices
(e.g., Chen, Tjosvold, Huang, & Xu, 2011;
Colquitt, LePine, & Noe, 2000; Noe, Tews,
& Dachner, 201 O; Salas & Von Glinow, 2008;
Sonnentag, Niessen, & Ohly, 2004). A particularly
intriguing inhibiting condition is the subjectivity
of "newcomer" and "veteran" labels; in rapidly
growing organizations with high turnover, a person
with only a few months tenure might be labeled
a veteran because of her relative seniority, even if
her learning and adjustment are woefully deficient
(Rollag, 2007; e.g., Haski-Leventhal & Barga!,
2008). Denied the safety of the newcomer label,
she may be forced to prematurely assume the
veteran role.
To conclude, the rate of learning and adjustment
are strongly affected by certain temporally oriented
individual differences, the difficulty of exiting from
the prior role and entering the current role, and var-
ious proximal (vs. distal), simplifying (vs. compli-
cating), and facilitating (vs. inhibiting) contextual
ASH FORTH
 factors. The socialization processes discussed next
may capitalize on these individual and situational
factors to further hasten the rate of learning and
adjustment.
Rate of Socialization: Processes that
Facilitate or Inhibit Learning and
Adjustment
The last section discussed individual differences
and situational factors that affect the difficulty of
learning and adjustment. The focus here is on how
learning and adjustment are facilitated/inhibited by
the socialization processes enacted by the organiza-
tion (i.e., socialization tactics) and by the newcomer
(i.e., proacrivity). For more extensive treatments of
socialization tactics and proactivity, see Ashforth
et al. (2007a), Bauer et al. (2007), Klein and Heuser
(2008), and Saks et al. (2007).
Socialization Tactics
Van Maanen and Schein's (1979) widely cited
socialization model includes six bipolar tactics: (I)
the collective {vs. individual) tactic involves having
newcomers share common developmental experi-
ences; (2) formal (vs. informal) entails separating
newcomers "From veterans, as in a training class;
(3) sequential {vs. random) involves a preset series
of developmental experiences; (4) fixed (vs. vari-
able) involves a preset timetable· for developmen-
tal experiences; (5) serial {vs. disjunctive) entails
learning directly from experienced individuals; and
(6) investiture {vs. divestiture) involves affirming
a newcomer's incoming identity and capabilities,
rather than "divesting them" in order to reconstruct
the newcomer. These rather abstract tactics pro-
vide an overarching framework for various specific
socialization practices, such as training, apprentice-
ship, and mentoring. The fixed (vs. variable) tactic
is particularly relevant to time: foreknowledge of a
fixed ending point helps one to frame the experience
of socialization and thereby calibrate one's rate of
progress and anticipate the end of"liminality"-the
unsettling "betwixt and between" period (Turner,
1969, p. 95; Ashforth, 2001; van Gennep, 1960;
cf prevailing temporal agenda, Blount & Janicik,
2001) where one is neither an outsider nor a true
insider.
Five of the tactics-collective, formal, sequential,
fixed, and serial-tend to covary (Ashforch, Saks,
& Lee, 1997), providing newcomers with relatively
structured practices designed to shape the nature and
sequence of experiences and the meaning derived
from those experiences. 10 Recalling our discussion
170 THE ROLE OF TIME IN SOCIALIZATION DYNAMICS
of the importance of early events, socialization pro-
cesses that are at least somewhat carefully structured
have been found to foster newcomer learning and
adjustment (e.g., Ashforch, Sluss, & Saks, 2007b;
Cooper-Thomas & Andetson, 2002; Morrison &
Hock, 1986; Riordan, Weatherly, Vandenberg, &
Self, 2001; Saks et al., 2007; Takeuchi &Takeuchi,
2009). Indeed, because these tactics encourage new-
comers to learn and enact "the organization way,"
Jones (1986) referred to them as institutionalized
socialization. (It's important co add that chis does
not necessarily translate into resistance to change: if
the organization advocated independence and cre-
ativity, then enacting the organization way would
imply role crafting.) Conversely, the opposite tac-
tics-individual, informal, random, variable, and
disjunctive-represent the absence of structure and
therefore compel newcomers to learn on their own.
Jones (1986) dubbed this approach individualized
socialization. Learning and adjustment are largely
determined by on-the-job events and can therefore
be quire haphazard and unpredictable. Hill (1992),
for instance, documents the often erratic learning
experiences of new frontline supervisors.
The structured events of institutionalized
socialization have five features, typically absent in
unstructured events, which facilitate learning and
adjustment. First, the developmental experiences are
designed co be cumulative, such chat the learning,
role clarity, cask mastery, and possibly social inte-
gration and role crafcing build in a logical progres-
sion. In contrast, more haphazard events essentially
randomize lessons and make cumulative learning
and adjustment more difficult. Indeed, newcom~
ers are forced to respond in real time, whether
they are prepared or not. Second, institutionalized
socialization includes "instructors," such as occu-
pational veterans and HR professionals,· who not
only provide constructive feedback but help new-
comers make sense of their experiences in a manner
consonant with organizational interests. Given the
inherent equivocality of meaning (Weick, 1995),
unstructured events may instead lead newcomers
to construct lessons about the role, organization,
and themselves that actually impair adjustment
(e.g., superstitious learning; Beck & Forscmeier,
2007). Third, as numerous scholars have remarked,
organizational entry is often a very stressful time
for newcomers (e.g., Karz, 1985; Nelson, 1987).
Structured events have an explicitly developmen-
tal focus chat may provide a sense of psychological
safety whereby newcomers feel less concerned about
making mistakes, avoiding risks, and appearing
competent (Harris, Simons, & Carden, 2004; Noe
ec al., 2010). Conversely, in individualized socializa-
tion, che stress of having to either "sink or swim"
undermines psychological safety (Ashforch er al.,
2012). Fourth, because the events are planned, the
rate of learning and adjust1nenc can be varied by
altering rhe pace or "tempo" (Zerubavel, 1976) of
the events. In contrast, unstructured events have an
uncontrolled-and likely uneven-tempo. Finally,
che presence of a designed sequence of cumulative
events symbolizes to newcomers that the organiza-
tion is concerned with their development and is will-
ing to invest resources in it (Ashforch et al., 2007b;
Riordan er al., 2001). In contrast, an absence of
structured practices may symbolize indifference.
However, two time-related provisos are in order.
First, learning and adjustmenc can be further facili-
tated by a judicious blend of structured and unstruc-
tured events, assuming newcomers have attained
sufficient grounding for interpreting and managing
the Ia.teer. For example, studies of neophyte fire-
fighters (Scott & Meyers, 2005) and police officers
(Harris et al., 2004) describe how individuals were
initially exposed to institutionalized socialization in
formal training academies, where they were care-
fully groomed in a broad array of organizationally
sanctioned perspectives and behaviors. The fire-
fighters and officers were then assigned to specific
fire stations and police departments, where they
received more individualized socialization to "fine
tune" the transfer of generic academy lessons to the
concrete realities of their local situation and per-
sonal capabilities.
Second, Ashforth and Saks (1996) found that
institutionalized socialization was more strongly
related to newcomer adjustment at 4 months than
at 10 months. The authors suggested that although
the newcomers may have initially welcomed the
structured learning environment that such socializa-
tion provides, as the newcomers became more com-
fortable in their new roles they may have started
to become indifferent to-or even resent-such
structure as intrusive and patronizing. Mitchell and
James (2001) define an "entropic period" (p. 539)
as occurring when the impact of X on Y (in chis
case, socialization tactics on adjustment) becomes
attenuated over time.
Newcomer Proactivi"ty
Newcomer proactivity is the sec of practices
through which individuals actively engage with
their work environment, primarily co make sense of
their role and environment, reduce uncertainty, and
possibly shape their role and environment (Crant,
2000; Grant & Ashford, 2008). Various typologies
have been proposed. These include: (1) behavioral
means of information and feedback seeking, includ-
ing observing, asking questions, scanning second-
ary sources (e.g., company website), subtly raising
issues (e.g., joking about a problematic topic), rela-
tionship building, participating in social events, and
experimenting (e.g., breaking rules to test limits);
and (2) cognitive means of self-regulation, includ-
ing positive framing (viewing events optimistically),
goal-setting, monitoring one's own behavior and
its causes, and psychological rehearsal (Ashford &
Black, 1996; Ashforrh et al., 2007a; Manz, 1983;
Miller &Jablin, 1991).
Behavioral and cognitive proactivity are comple-
mentary, and the greater their joint use the more
actively the newcomer probes and processes the
environment, thus facilitating learning and adjust-
ment. For example, Ashford and Black (1996)
found chat both relationship building and positive
framing predicted performance. Further, although
the structured learning represented by institutional-
ized socialization may somewhat obviate the need
for proacrivity (Gruman, Saks, & Zweig, 2006;
Kim, Cable, & Kim, 2005), the two are largely
complementary in chat the tactics legitimate the act
of learning and provide opportunities to ask ques-
tions, experiment, and so on (Ashforth et al., 2007a;
cf Griffin, Colella, & Goparaju, 2000). Moreover,
the relative psychological safety of the structured
setting reduces the social costs of asking questions,
experimenting, and so forth (Teboul, 1995). Thus,
positive associations and interactions have been
reported between institutionalized socialization and
proactivity (e.g., Ashforrh er al., 2007b; Gruman
er al., 2006; Kim er al., 2005).
In the discussion of temporally oriented indi-
vidual differences, it was argued that prior (transfer-
able) experience, a current or future temporal focus,
a learning goal orientation, and relatively lengthy
anticipated tenure each exert a positive main effecc
on the rate of learning and adjustment. I would
add here that these variables are likely to positively
interact with proactivity. First, the future orienta-
tion of temporal focus, learning goals, and antici-
pated tenure should each enhance the motivation to
utilize proactive behaviors and cognitions. Second,
the pre-existing knowledge basis fostered by prior
experiences should provide greater confidence for
engaging in proactivity.
Further, because proactivity is driven by the
dynamic interaction of the individual and situation,
ASH FORTH 171
 the frequency of each form of proactive behavior
and cognition is likely to vary over time. First-
as depicted by the three sample trajectories in
Figure 9.1-as learning approaches the asymp-
tote (dotted line), there is less need for proactiv-
ity (although proactivity aimed at role crafting
may well continue). However, the complicating
and inhibiting contextual conditions discussed
earlier-particularly job complexity and unpredict-
able change-may extend the time needed and thus
continue to motivate high proactivity. For example,
Morrison (1993b) found that the frequency with
which new accountants engaged in asking ques-
tions and monitoring (i.e., observing) was roughly
consistent over their first 6 months (although the
frequency of monitoring varied over time as a func-
tion of the specific information sought), whereas
Graen, Orris, and Johnson (1973) found that the
involvement of new clerical employees in "assimi-
lation" activities (e.g., "Going to others for help,"
p. 402) decreased somewhat over 16 weeks. Second,
as newcomers gain experience they are likely to shift
l the impact decays over time). Moreover, as our
their behaviors toward less socially costly forms of
proactivi.ty. They may, for instance, engage in less
I differ in whether they are one-time (e.g., providing
overt information and feedback seeking, to avoid
appearing naYve and insecure, but continue to qui-
edy observe (e.g., Ashford, Blatt, & VandeWalle,
2003; Jablin, 2000). Third, as Grant and Ashford
(2008) argue, learning and adjustment successes
and favorable interpersonal reactions are likely to
reinforce che tendency co engage in proactivity,
whereas failures and negative reactions are likely
to punish proactivity. Finally, initial success (fail-
ure) experiences are likely to affect a newcomer's
self-efficacy regarding proactivity, thereby encour-
aging (discouraging) future proactivity (Grant &
Ashford, 2008). The upshot is that research should
include repeated measures of proactive behavior
and cognition, and consider disaggregating molar
measures of proactivity into specific forms because
there may be high variance in the frequencies across
forms at given times.
In sum, institutionalized socialization and new-
comer proactivity are apt to exert positive main and
interactive effects on the rate of newcomer learning
and adjustment.
Leaming and Adjustment Over Time
This section considers three quite different issues
that affect the trajectory of learning and adjustment:
(1) time lags and duration of effects; (2) relatively
stability vs. instability of learning and adjustment;
and (3) stage models and newcomer needs.
172 THE ROLE OF TIME IN SOCIALIZATION DYNAMICS
Time Lags and Duration ofEffects
Mitchell and James (2001) concluded from a
review of management research that "most of our
research involves causal hypotheses and designs pre-
sumed to support causal inferences. Yet, very few
papers specifically address, from a theoretical per-
spective, the time elements involved in X causing
Y" (p. 532).11 This is certainly no less true of social-
ization research (Klein & Heuser, 2008). However,
although management research tends to assume
that the impact ofX on Y is instantaneous (Mitchell
& James, 20iJli), the common use of longitudinal
designs in socialization research suggests that social- .
ization scholars generally do not assume instanta-
neous effects.
It seems very likely that socialization processes
differ in: (1) the onset of their impact on learning
and adjustment (i.e., time lag); (2) the magnitude
of their impact over time (as discussed above under
rate); and (3) the duration of their effects (or, con-
versely, the extent to which-and rate at which-
discussion of events suggests, socialization "causes"
feedback only in the form of an annual performance
review), recurring (e.g., providing feedback after
each project), or constant (e.g., providing ongoing
feedback).
Regarding onset, the time lag between some
socialization p.tocesses and their effeccs is, actually,
often instantaneous-but only in a limited sense.
For example, a newcomer asking a question is likely
to receive an immediate response; however, this data
point represents only a grain of sand on a beach.
Thus, there is likely to be a discernible lag between
proactive behaviors and cognitions-and socializa-
tion tactics-and the kind of aggregatedlearningthac
is typically captured in "socialization content" mea-
sures (e.g., "I have learned how things 'really work'
on the inside of this organization," Chao, O'Leary-
Kelly, Wolf, Klein, & Gardner, 1994, p. 734) as well
as the molar adjustment that is typically captured in
measures of role clarity, task mastery, social integra-
tion, and role crafting (e.g., "I know exactly what is
expected of me," Rizzo, House, & Lirtzman, 1970,
p. 156). Indeed, recalling our discussions of events,
broad experiences, and complicating and inhibit-
ing conditions, it may take significant time for the
data points to. jell into something that is recogniz-
able to the newcomer as actionable knowledge. This
would ret_ard measurable learning/adjustment, as
depicted by trajectory B of Figure 9.1 (although
once the data begin to jell, learning/adjustment may
be rapid). Some events may even exercise a "sleeper
effect" where the true impact is not realized until
lacer. For instance, Bullis and Bach (1989) found
that although new graduate students who partici-
pated in social events such as pub runs did not see
such events as immediately promoting their organi-
zational identification, the events nonetheless pre-
dicted identification 8 months later.
Regarding duration (cf. George & Jones, 2000;
Mitchell & James, 2001), a few major socialization
events (whether a product of socialization tactics,
proactivity, or on-the-job learning), such as hazing
or the effusive praise of an important client, are likely
to have a long-lasting impact on learning/adjust-
ment. For example, Fortune publishes a colun1n,
"The Best Advice I Ever Got," where senior execu-
tives reminisce about seminal learning experiences.
Generally, though, as with the beach analogy, it is
the accretion of events conveying similar messages
around certain themes (e.g., growing task mascery)
that leads to long-la.Sting learning/adjustment {e.g.,
Hill, 1992). However, learning and adjustment can
decay if they are not "renewed" with some regular-
ity, particularly through ongoing role performance
{learning, role clarity, task mastery); engagement
with peers, managers, and others (social integra-
tion); and continuous improvement (learning, task
mastery, role crafting).
Relative Stability ve,rsus Instability of
Learning and Adjustment
Cooper-Thomas and Anderson (2006) write chat:
Research has shown that newco1ners adjust rapidly
over even short 4-week intervals in the early
post-entry period (Chan & Schmitt, 2000; Chen
& Klimoski, 2003; Major, Kozlowski, Chao, &
Gardner, 1995; Thomas &Anderson, 1998); that
early post-entry measures (e.g., attitudes) have
stronger or unique effects relative to measures taken
later on (Ashforth & Saks, 1996; Bauer & Green,
1994; Liden, Wayne, & Stilwell, 1993); and that
early measures of socialization are relatively stable
and are important in determining later outcomes
(Ostroff & Kozlowski, 1992; Morrison, 1993a, b).
(p. 118; see also reviews by Ashforth et al., 2007a;
Bauec et al., 1998; Saks & Ashfocrh, 1997; Tesluk &
Jacobs, 1998).
For example, Morrison (1993a) assessed the
adjustment of neophyte accountants 2 weeks after
they completed an orientation and training pro-
gram (Time 1) and 6 months afrer entry (Time 2).
Morrison found that Tl task mastery, role clarity,
and social integration were significanrly correlaced
with their T2 counterparts. The rapidity and sta-
bility of newco1ner learning and adjustment are a
testament to the power of early events (including
pre-entry events), and their resulting learning and
adjustment, to affect later learning and adjustment.
Ac the same rime, based on meta-analytic data
from Bauer et al. (2007), Bauer and Erdogan
(2011) plotted the mean levels of three adjustment
variables over time:
Mean self-efficacy increased over the first few months
posthire and then decreased steadily after about 3
months. Mean role clarity dropped in the first few
months but then generally increased after the 3rd
month. Mean social integration declined more slowly
over the first 6 months and then generally increased
past that point in time. (p. 59)
In short, these meta-analytic data suggest consider-
able instability in at least adjustment over the first
year. Can we reconcile evidence of stabilitywich evi-
dence of instability?
Earlier, I discussed learning accretion and suc-
cess spirals, where initial accomplishments pave the
way for future accomplishments. These dynamics
lead to a "nonlinear increasing trajectory" (Qureshi
& Fang, 2011, p. 213), such as the trajectories
depicted in Figure 9.1. These trajectories seem most
likely for learning, role clarity, and task mastery
insofar as these are cumulative variables, as noted,
where the attainment of a certain level becomes
the foundation for future progress. 12 fu long as the
tasks and role expectations do not change radically,
more learning and greater clarity and mastery can
be anticipated-although at some point diminish-
ing returns are apt to set in as one approaches the
asymptote for possible attainment. A newcomer
who begins with relatively high levels of learning,
clarity, and mastery (i.e., trajectory C in Figure 9.1)
may initially progress at a faster rate as synergies are
quickly realized. However, diminishing returns are
also likely to set in faster (suggesting the desirability
of chen enhancing her job complexity). Whether a
newcomer enters with low or high levels of learn-
ing and mastery, it remains that the initial levels
will strongly predict the later levels (e.g., Cooper-
lhomas & Anderson, 2005; Qureshi & Fang,
2011), thus accounting for the apparent stability of
learning and adjustment over time.
Conversely, various disturbances can cause learn-
ing and adjustment-especially the noncumulative,
distal attitudinal forms of adjustment-to fluc-
tuate (as depicted in Figure 9.2; e.g., Liu & Lee,
ASH FORTH 1 73

Maximum
- - - - - -
Knowledge
Acquired
and
Adjustment
Figure 9.2 A Fluctuating Learning and Adjustment Trajectory.
2008) or even be discontinuous (see Figure 9.3).
In particular, the honeymoon-hangover effect may
induce newcomers to have a somewhat naive and
rose-colored view of the organization (especially
if the individual lacks prior experience and the
organization oversells itself during recruitment;
Boswell, Boudreau, & Tichy, 2005; Boswell et al.,
2009). For example, research involving medical
students (Haas & Shaf!ir, 1984), volunteers for at-
risk youth (Haski-Leventhal & Barga!, 2008), and
college athletes (Adler & Adler, 1991) indicates a
loss of idealism over time (cf. Hicks, 2008). Even
rigorous realistic job previews and socialization pro-
grams cannot fully insulate a newcomer from the
inevitable reality shocks associated with the nuances
of any new position and organization (Boswell et
al., 2009; Kramer, 1974). Unpredictable changes
in role demands (e.g., new technology), contex-
tual factors (e.g., one's manager quits), or personal
circumstances (e.g., providing elder care) may also
disrupt a newcomer's learning and adjustment.
And, as suggested in our earlier discussion of failure
spirals, newcomers who are required to "pay their
- - - - - - - - -- - - --
Disruptive
Event# 1
Knowledge
Acquired
and
Adjustment
Figure 9.3 A Discontinuous Learning and Adjustment Trajectory.
174 THE ROLE OF TIME IN SOCIALIZATION DYNAMICS
- - -- - - --
Time
dues" or otherwise wait before engaging in their
expected duties are apt co atrophy, begin co ques-
tion their abilities, and lose their initial fire. Given
these potential disturbances it is not surprising chat
learning and adjustment often suffer setbacks in
rhe early months of entry, perhaps prompting turn-
over (e.g., Kammeyer-Mueller & Wanberg, 2003),
before regaining a roughly upward trajectory among
the remaining newcomers.
Methodologically, following the notion of beta
change, the standards a newcomer uses co gauge
"do I really understand my job?," "am I compe-
tent?," and so forth may evolve so that a "4" on
a 5-point response scale at one month is seen as
a "3" at six months (Golembiewski, Billingsley, &
Yeager, 1976). And the notion of gamma change
suggests chat the very meaning of a construct such
as task mastery may evolve from "error free perfor-
mance" co "creative performance" such chat it is
seen as an essentially different construct altogether
(Golembiewski et al., 1976; e.g., Vandenberg &
Self, 1993; cf. longitudinal validity, Ployhart &
Vandenberg, 2010). Moreover, periodic surveys are
Maximum
Disruptive
Event# 2
Time
susceptible co current events, as when a difficult
week causes a respondent to be Uncharacteristi-
cally negative about her learning and adjustment.
Indeed, Mitchell, Thompson, Peterson, and Cronk
(1997) found that the anticipation and recollec-
tion of meaningful life events tend to be more
positive than rhe actual experience of the events
themselves.
The upshot is that evidence of stability and insta-
bility can indeed coexist in newcomer learning and
adjustment trajectories. Ashforth et al. (2007a)
described this coexistence "as a classic case of 'the
glass is half-full' vs. 'the glass is half-empty'" (p. 47).
Stage Models and Newcomer Needs
Adding to the stability/instability conundrum,
various stage models of socialization indicate
generalizable phases of newcomer progress (e.g.,
Feldman, 1976; Porter, Lawler, & Hackman, 1975;
see reviews by Ashforth et al., 2007a; Fisher, 1986;
Kramer, 2010; Wanous, 1992). Collectively, these
models suggest roughly four major phases: antici-
pation (preparation prior ro entry), encounter
(confronting the reality upon entry), adjustment
(meshing with the new reality), and stabilization
(becoming and being a hona fide insider). However,
stage models have enjoyed only mixed empirical
support (Fisher, 1986; Wanous, 1992). The stages
may be fluid (e.g., where adjusrmenc ends and sta-
bilization begins is inherently fuzzy); the stages may
be truncated and even skipped (as when an experi-
enced newcomer adjusts rapidly); disruptive events
may force a newcomer to recycle through the stages;
behaviors and attitudes said co be uniquely associ-
ated with certain stages (e.g., role crafting with the
adjustment stage) may occur in other scages; and
individuals likely proceed through the stages at dif-
ferenc rates. Thar said, the stage models continue
to provide a rough heuristic for the challenges char
newcomers typically encounter and che activities
in which newcomers typically engage as socializa-
tion unfolds (Ashforth et al., 2007a; Fisher, 1986;
Kramer, 2010; Wanous, 1992).
Consistent with the logic of stage models are argu-
ments that the needs of newcomers rend to evolve
over time. Karz (1980), for instance, asserts that
newcomers' needs change around the third or fourth
month from "an initial emphasis on psychological
safety and identity to a concern for achievement
and accomplishment" (p. 89). Thar is, newcomers
need to gain a salutary sense of their place in the
organization and establish basic task competence
and reasonable social integration before they can
become truly receptive to the intrinsic motivators in
their work. Relatedly, research on newcomer learn-
ing indicates chat "knowledge in the job and pos-
sibly social domain is acquired more quickly than
knowledge in the organizational domain (Morrison,
1995; Ostroff & Kozlowski, 1992; Taormina, 1997;
cf. Cooper-Thomas & Anderson, 2005)" (Ashforth
et al., 2007a, p. 48), suggesting an initial newcomer
focus on the local context.
The notions of socialization stages and evolving
newcomer needs imply the possibility of threshold
effects as one fulfills a particular need and/or com-
pletes the challenges of a particular stage and prepares
for the next need and scage. That is, learning and
adjustment may involve not just changes in degree
(as implied by the relatively smooch upward trajec-
tories in Figure 9.1), but changes in kind-complete
with discontinuities and punctuated equilibria (as
depicted in rather extreme form in Figure 9.3). For
example, one could imagine how a neophyte IT
supervisor-perhaps prompted by a seminal event-
mighc one day "get it" that his job is no longer co be
a star troubleshooter bur a manager who builds the
troubleshooting capabilities of other IT personnel
(cf. Hill, 1992). Such a reorientation would open
the door to new learning and adjusq~.ent.
To conclude, the trajectory of learning and
adjustment can follow numerous paths (as hinted
in Figures 9.1-9.3), depending on the onset, mag-
nitude over time, and duration of the impact of
socialization processes, various forces for stability
and for instability, and the evolving challenges faced
by-and needs of-newcomers as they become
socialized.
Swift Socialization
As discussed in Endnote l, with che decline in
the average duration of individual-organization
relationships, socialization is becoming more about
meeting current job-related needs than longer-term
organizational and individual developmental needs.
Further, there is a real need to socialize individu-
als as quickly as possible in: (1) organizations with
rapid growth in 1nembership and/or rapid turnover
(Harrison & Carroll, 1991; Nifadkar, 2009; Rollag,
2004); (2) organizations char induct new members
in cohorts chat are relatively large compared to the
number of veterans (e.g., fraternities and sorori-
ties}; (3) temporary groups and organizations such
as consulting reams, film crews, and juries (Bechky,
2006; Meyerson, Weick, & Kramer, 1996); and
(4) concingenc work, where individuals are involved
with a series of organizations on specific assignments
ASH FORTH 175
 struccure provides a certain relational momentum and adjustment. The focus is on the future. Bue what
for limited periods (e.g., substitute teacher; Rogers, templates for emularion. Ibarra (1999) found rhar
that carries the participants toward their collective abouc those situations where one need only adjust to
2000). Additionally, in virtual teains (Ahuja & new investment bankers and management consul-
goal-even if they remain quasi-strangers. the demands of the moment or the very near future?
Galvin, 2003) and boundary spanning relarion- tants, despite their inexperience, were required to
Ir should be emphasized that, while these five Examples include one-time customers, employees
ships (e.g., with cliencs, members of other subunits; appear highly professional and competent in front
practices are likely to facilitate swift socialization, attending a workshop or off-sire event, a manager
Girrell, 2006), it is often difficult to utilize cradirional of their clients. The newcomers quickly emulated
chere are potentially major drawbacks to each of facing an unusual crisis, and an individual entering
socialization processes. The question thus becomes, their more senior colleagues, essentially playing
them. First, although rigorous recruitment and the office of a senior executive for the only time.
how can organizations under these and related cir- at their roles until they came to feel more natural
selection typically improve person-job and per- In many of these one-off situations, individuals
cumstances foster swift socialization, that is, the rapid and self-directed. Rewards and punishments may
son-arganization fit, there is inevitably some slip- typically draw on their stock of experiences, scripts,
onboarding of individuals (Nifadkar, 2009)? quickly shape behavior, enabling coordinated activ-
page between what an organization focuses on for and social learning (observation, instruction) in
At first blush, organizations are probably ity and providing the impetus for eventual changes
recruitment and selection purposes and the full similar situations (e.g., Solomon, Surprenant,
tempted to use individualized socialization because in deeper attributes such as values and beliefs.
range of capabilities char are actually needed. These Czepiel, & Gutman, 1985). Thus, socialization can
of its obvious expedience. However, as mentioned, Chappell and Lanza-Kaduce (2010) describe how,
slippages can dramatically influence adjustment. be achieved almost instantaneously by the judi-
because this practice is actually defined by the despite a police academy's avowed commitment to
For example, a newcomer with otherwise excel- cious arrangement of cues to prime participants'
absence of structured socialization, newcomers are community policing, instructors used rewards (e.g.,
lent job-related skills may be willing to behave far expectations (Kesebir, Uttal, & Gardner, 201 O; cf.
forced to rely solely on their own wits and tend to putting recruits with military experience in charge)
and punishments (e.g., doing push-ups for failing less ethically than the employer expeccs. Second, in Eisbach & Prarr, 2007). For example, in several
either "sink or swim.'' Ashforth et al. (2012) argue lab studies, Kay, Wheeler, Bargh, and Ross (2004)
that successful onboarding under such circum- to adhere to the chain of command) to instead rein- cruncating the socialization process, time compres-
sion may lead co certain lessons being only partially demonstrated how mere pictures of business suits,
stances tends to occur in spite of the practice rather force values and behaviors more characteristic of tra-
learned or skipped entirely. Given the importance boardroom tables, and the like primed a business
than because of it. ditional paramilitary policing. Further, communal
of early experiences to later adjustment, discussed frame such that subjects perceived an ambiguous
What, then, might structured swift socialization activities with apparently clear meaning may enable
earlier,- partial learning may ultimately impair the social relationship as more competitive and behaved
entail? First, as noted earlier, rigorous recruitment individuals to think of themselves as members of a
newcomer's ability to function in the organization. more competitively in an ambiguous interpersonal
and selection may be used to improve the initial fit functional collective. Lennox Terrian and Ashforth
More generally, in complex jobs and organizations, situation. Similarly, a corner office with expensive
between the newcomers and the position and orga- (2002) describe how police executives in a 6-week
long-term immersion is often required to truly furnishings may cue deference without the visitor
nization, thus reducing the need for intense social- full-time leadership training program engaged in
"soak up" the necessary tacit knowledge. Third, fully realizing it. Indeed, as Kesebir er al. (2010)
ization (e.g., Anderson & Ostroff, 1997; Scholarios ritualistic putdowns of their shared identities and
strong situations can seem overly coercive to new- note, "Once arranged, the environment may be a
er al., 2003). Second, given the need for swift of each other to help foster a sense of solidarity and
comers and thus backfire, leading to resistance and cost-effective socialization tool" (p. 100). In short,
socialization, newcomers and veterans alike may clarify normative boundaries. The authors argued
poor adjuscment. For instance, Yoder and Aniakudo the greater the ambiguity-which can be pervasive
be amenable to a certain degree of "time compres- that implicit societal rules about how to give and
(1996) describe how some African-American female in one-time encounters-the greater the noncon-
sion'' (Ashforth, 2001, p. 229; cf. Blount & Jaricik, receive putdowns enabled participants to avoid
offense and appreciate that the putdowns were "all firefighters viewed pranks associated with hazing as scious reliance on situational primes.
2001) whereby certain socialization processes are In sum, the need for swift and even instantaneous
telescoped or skipped. For instance, Meyerson et al. in good fun." outright harassment. Fourch, in papering over dif-
ferences, equivocal symbols and practices can fos- socialization is likely to become more acute as long-
(1996) describe the willingness of members of tem- Fourth, equivocal symbols and praccices may
ter an "illusion of unanimity'' Qanis, 1983), which term individual-organization relationships erode,
porary groups to forgo normal means of building be used to paper over differences among individu-
als and between individuals and the organization, can backfire if the illusion is ever put to the rest. It's suggesting the need for concerted research on the
trust, such as sharing experiences and engaging in
thereby enabling everyone to continue as a seem- disturbing to learn that one has badly misread the range and efficacy of rapid onboarding practices.
reciprocal disclosure, and extend "swift trust" to one
another "as ifrrustwere [already] in place" (p. 186). ingly consensual unit. Lennox Terrian and Ashforth views of others. Finall)r, role-based coordination can
(2002) further found that although participants prove problematic if role occupants need to adapt Putting it All Together: When and
Third, and perhaps most importantly, the organi-
in the leadership training program may have dis- to complex, dynamic, and ambiguous situations How Often to Measure?
zation may present a "strong situation'' to constrain
agreed about the meaning of particular putdowns, on the fly but lack the interpersonal familiarity and I argued that the greater the number and unpre-
and shape behavior and sensemaking such that
the experience of sharing a laugh-facilitated by goodwill rhar typically lubricates such adaptation dictabilicy of socialization events (and their out-
change is both accelerated and regulated (Meyer,
the implicit societal rules-fostered the appearance (Snook, 2000). Bechky (2006) discusses the often comes), the greater rhe utility of event time (and
Dalal, & Hermida, 2010). Examples are legion.
of consensus. Finally, Bechky's (2006) notion of ritualistic "effusive thanking, polite admonishing, thus rich qualitative methods chat provide thick
Divestiture may be used, as discussed, to encourage
role-based coordination suggests that individuals and role-oriented joking" (p. 11) that were needed descriptions) compared to clock time (and its
newcomers to forsake their incoming identities and
may quickly coalesce into a functioning unit if they on film sets in lieu of the social lubricant of famil- default reliance on periodic surveys)-with expe-
be remade in the image of the desired organizational
enter with certain role competencies and reasonably iarity and goodwill. Clearly, then, future research rience sampling providing a promising crossover
member (Van Maanen & Schein, 1979), and ini-
well-understood expectations of one another's roles. should assess the nature of the trade-offs inherent in of survey methods to assess event time. My focus
tiation rites may be used to test newcomers' will-
Bechky documents how members of newly formed swift socialization and the conditions under which in chis section is on enhancing the effectiveness of
ingness and ability to fit in (Ashforth & Boudwin,
ij!l periodic surveys for assessing both clock time and
2010). Bourassa and Ashforth (1998) describe how film crews rely on their pre-existing understanding such socialization remains the more desirable path
of the general role structure of film production, to newco1ner learning and adjustment. event time, because longitudinal survey research
new fishers on an Alaskan trawler were referred to as
instantiated on a particular film set through daily retains tremendous potential for enhancing our
"new guys" rather than by name, required to do busy-
shooting schedules and fleshed out by moment- Instantaneous Socialization understanding of socialization dynamics and such
work tasks, and were denied pillows and blankets
by-moment negotiations of actual roles and emer- Socialization is cypically discussed as a more or less research remains the method of choice for many
until they had earned the veterans' respect. Certain
gent issues. This extant and negotiated role-based complex undertaking to facilitate long-cerm learning socialization scholars.
individuals may serve as role models, providing
ASH FORTH 177
176 THE ROLE OF TIME IN SOCIALIZATION DYNAMICS
 In most organizational research, the mean orga-
nizational tenure of participants tends to be at least
a few years. This means that, barring some disrup-
tion, the participants have likely already adjusted to
the setting such rhat the relationships between typi-
cal independent {e.g., job design, leader-member
exchange) and dependent variables (e.g., job satis-
faction, organizational citizenship behaviors) have
more or less stabilized. Thus, longitudinal research
that shows that Time 1 independent variables pre-
dict Time 2 dependent variables is really capturing
this stable system of associations. However, the
fiction is that the variables at Tl caused the observed
associations with the variables at T2, when in fact
the associations had stabilized some time ago.
Conversely, in socializa.tion research, newcomer
adjustment is still very much in flux such that there
is as much instability as stability. What this means
is that researchers must be very careful about when
they measure variables and how often they do so.
Two reviews by Bauer and her colleagues (1998,
2007) indicate rhat studies of socialization most
frequently use 3-month measurement intervals
{i.e., entry, 3 months, 6 monrhs, 9 months, and 1
year). However, as numerous scholars have men-
tioned (e.g., Bauer et al., 1998; Saks & Ashforth,
1997), the literature provides few theoretically
grounded benchmarks for when and how often
certain processes and outcomes should be assessed.
I had intended to conclude with some fairly clear
methodological prescriptions but, upon reflection,
the best I can offer is that catch-all for most organi-
zational research: "It all depends.'' That is, the con-
texts for socialization and the individuals involved
are so diverse {as are the interactions bervveen the
two), the roles for which individuals are socialized
are so variable, the range of potential socialization
practices and formative events are so broad, the
dynamics of socialization processes are so rich and
complex (echoes of chaos theory comes to mind),
and the proximal and distal outcomes of socializa-
tion are so varied that scholars must think deeply
about the likely contingencies of socialization for
any given study. What is one's research question?
What kinds of contexts, roles, and individuals will
likely prove most revealing for that question? Is one
interested in specific socialization practices {e.g.,
orientation, mentoring), particular events {e.g.,
rites of passage), or more holistic and abstract con-
cepts (e.g., socialization tactics)? Is one interested
in relatively superficial change such as in behaviors,
suggesting relatively swift socialization, or in deeper
change such as in values and traits?
THE ROLE OF TIME IN SOCIALIZATION DYNAMICS
In the face of this complexity and dynamism,
let me at least offer some general temporal prescrip-
tions for survey research:
• Given the tremendous variety in socialization
dynamics across contexts, utilize a pilot study or
interviews with key informants in a given context of
interest to gain guidance regarding when and how
often to measure variables in that particular context.
• To truly capture the process of socialization,
demonstrate how A (if A is stable over time) or
change in A (if A is dynamic) predicts change in
B over some theoretically based time lag. This
requires measuring the change-oriented variables
at least at two-and preferably three or more
(Ployhart & Vandenberg, 2010)-points of time.
Methods such as latent growth modeling and
random coefficient modeling could then be used
to investigate between-individual variability in
within-individual change over time (Ployhart &
Vandenberg, 2010; Raudenbush, 2001; e.g., Chan
& Schmitt, 2000; Jokisaari & Nurmi, 2009).
Analogously, to assess change caused by foreseeable
discrete events, rake pre and post measures of B;
the post measure should balance the trade-off
between capturing the longer-term effects of the
events wirh the risk of other factors contaminating
the causal inference.
• Assess learning and adjustment as soon as
possible to establish baseline levels. As the notion
of anticipatory socialization indicates, even at the
pre-entry stage newcomers typically have some
understanding and degree of rapport with the
work and work context. After accounting for the
possibility of unstable measures due to beta or
gamma change (Vandenberg & Self, 1993), these
baseline levels can rhen allow the researcher to
model change in learning and adjustment over
time (Bauer et al., 1998).
• Most individual differences are viewed
as independent or moderating variables in
socialization models. In such cases, measure
individual differences as soon as possible, rhat is,
before they can be influenced or simply primed by
pre-entry and post-entry events. And, obviously,
if a researcher is predicting change in individual
differences such as values and beliefs, an early
baseline reading is required.
• If a researcher is relying on self-report measures
of socialization processes (as most do), allow
sufficient time for the newcomer to experience
and become reasonably knowledgeable about the
processes.
• Individual differences, contextual factors, and
socialization processes were discussed as factors
rhat are likely to affect the rate of learning and
adjustment. All else equal, the greater the ra:e the
sooner and more frequently the relevant vanables
should be assessed. In particular, for malleable
learning and adjustment variables {e.g., knowledge,
behavior), for jobs entailing low cornplexity and
narrow experiences, and for a host of simplifying
and facilitating condidons, shorter lags are
advisable. For the opposite circumstances
(e.g., broad experiences, complicating and
inhibiting conditions), longer lags may be
advisable; I say "may" because the rapidity with
which newcomers form initial impressions of-
and attitudes toward-their role and organization
suggest.s chat short lags may remain advisable at
least in the early socialization period.
• Relatedly, measure frequently during
the period in which change is anticipated
(Cooper-Thomas & Anderson, 2005; Ployhart
&Vandenberg, 2010), whether it be positive
(cumulative learning and adjustment, as in
Figure 9.1), negative (decay), or something more
complex (e.g., oscillations, as in Figure 9.2).
Frequent rneasurements also increase the chances
of isolating change caused by unforeseeable events.
Ac least three measurements are required to detect
curvilinear relationships, four for oscillations,
and "perhaps more for rhythms, spirals, and
cycles" (Mitchell &James, 2001, p. 538). If the
dependent variable is expected to stabilize (e.g.,
the trajectories in Figure 9.1 as chey approach the
asymptote) and chen possibly decay, n1easure it
during the stable period.
• Once learning and adjustment begin to
stabilize, the "default" time lags of 3 (or more)
months mentioned by Bauer et al. (1998, 2007)
seem serviceable for most socialization research.
However, the possibility of decay as well as
renewed learning and adjustment in the face of
disruptive events {as in Figure 9.3) remain very real
and argue against the use of long lags.
• Logically, proximal adjustment precedes distal
adjustment. However, although job satisfaction,
organizational commitment, performance, and so
on are characterized as distal outcomes, newcomers
are willing and able to form preliminary
impressions and engage in initial task execution
that, as noted, are likely to strongly predict later
.
impressions and execunon.
. These outcomes "'
are nonetheless distal in the sense chat they are
substantially mediated by proximal adjustment;
as individuals come to understand, master, and
shape their roles and become socially integrated,
they are more likely to score well on the indices of
distal adjustment. Hence, characterizing certain
outcomes as "distal" does not mean that they
should only be measured late in the socialization
process; indeed, as argued above, given the
importance of modeling change in adjustment,
they should be assessed early to obtain a baseline
reading.
Finally, a major issue to consider is negative
feedback loops where A at Time 1 positively influ-
ences B at Time 2, and B then negatively influences
A at Time 3 (Saks & Ashforth, 1997). Because the
intent of socialization processes is to help newcom-
ers become functioning insiders, such processes
should be responsive to the evolving developmental
needs of the newcomers. Thus, recursive relation-
ships are likely between socialization activities and
newcomers' learning and adjustment. For example,
socialization studies are often premised on newcom-
ers' attempts to reduce uncertainty (see reviews by
Bauer et al., 2007; Kramer, 2004; Saks & Ashforth,
1997). This suggests chat initial uncertainty (opera-
tionalized, say, by role ambiguity) will be positi.ve/y
associated with proactive behaviors. In turn, as the
proactive behaviors foster knowledge gains, proac-
tiviry will be negatively associated with uncertainty
(indeed, studies rend to report a negative association
between uncertainty and proactivity; Vancouver et
al., 2010). And, complicating the picture further,
rhe lag between initial uncertainty and proacriviry
is apt to be short (faced with ambiguity, the new-
comer may im1nediately start asking questions of
coworkers), whereas the lag between proacrivity
and significantly reduced uncertainty is apt to be
much longer (it takes time to develop a true sense
of familiarity; e.g., Feldman, 1977). As Vancouver
ec al. (2010) warn, "collecting single observations of
a rime-varying variable [like proactive behavior] in a
longitudinal study undercuts the value of the lon-
gitudinal design and can lead co spurious conclu-
sions" (p. 777).
In sum, because socialization is fundamentally
a dynamic process, where learning and adjustment
can be justifiably characterized as both stable and
unstable, it is imperative chat researchers use designs
chat capture meaningful change over time. And
what Ployhart and Vandenberg (2010) wrote of the
management literature generally is equally true of
the socialization literature specifically: "as theory
continues to become more refined, it will often be
ASH FORTH 179

necessary to hypothesize and test nonlinear and
discontinuous forms of change" (p. 117). Cross-
sectional designs, and longitudinal designs that do
not capture actual change, have served their purpose
in getting us to our current state of rich theorizing.
However, to progress further, more sophisticated
longitudinal designs are warranted.
Conclusion
At its core, socialization is about change over
time, and that change is often cued, paced, and
facilitated by a succession of formal and informal
events from which newcomers and their socializa-
tion agents extract meaning. The next generation
of socialization scholarship -can be significantly
enriched by more explicitly incorporating both
temporal considerations and formative events in our
evolving theoretical models and empirical studies.
Aclmowledgment
Author note: I am indebted to Kristie Rogers
-d
and Connie Wanberg for rbeir very helpful com-
ments on an earlier draft.
Notes
1. That said, as the duration of the modal relationship between
individuals and their organizations continues to decrease, both
individuals and organizations are less likely to take a long-run
view of their relationship and engage in career-oriented social-
ization. Accordingly, socialization becomes more oriented to
securing person-job fit (developing newcomers' competence
to fulfill immediate job demands) th:in person-organization or
person-career fit (developing newcomers' competence to fulfill
longer-term organizational and career demands). G6mez (2009),
for example, studied administrators overseeing teacher develop-
ment programs and found that the more administrators per-
ceived that their organization regarded time as scarce and took
a present-oriented rather than future-oriented view of time, the
less inclined the organizations were to utilize formally structured
socialization practices.
2. Although additional proximal adjustment variables have
been proposed in the socialization literature (e.g., Saks & Ash-
forth, 1997; Saks, Uggerslev, & Fassina, 2007), these three
appear to be emerging as the most popular.
3. Tesluk and Jacobs (1998; c£ Quiiiones, Ford, & Teachout,
1995) draw a similar distinction between work experience that
is quantitative (i.e., "amount," the number of times a task has
~een ~erfor,,med, and "length of time on the job") and qualitative
(1.e., type, the nature of experience).
4. Of course, the finer the temporal slices and the more
open-ended the questions, the closer to the gcound the snapshot
becomes. Experience sampling methods (e.g., Hektner, Schmidt,
& Csikszentmihalyi, 2007) provide a particularly promising way
of capturing the "lumpiness" of event time in the context of
repeated measures surveys.
5. Ibarra and Barbulescu (2010) note that where stories
involve a clear break fro'm the past (e.g., a banker becoming a
teacher), ti~e discontinuity-----the turning point-becomes a cen-
tral feature of the story. Even so, as a means of demonstrating
180 THE ROLE OF TIME IN SOCIALIZATION DYNAMICS
the narrator's personal agency (a desired feature of stories), the
narrator incorporates into the storyline how the "before" ani-
mated her choice of the "after."
6. Of course, for a given setting this amount will vary aci~
individuals and, in view of the dynamism of organizatiolls,
over time. Indeed, although the assumption of a fixed amount
is workable for exposition purposes, it's arguable whether the
amount of learning and adjusonenr is ever truly fixed. In inter-
viewing individuals in the course of several qualitative studies,
I o£en asked, "How long does it take someone in your line 0 f
work to become really good at what you do?" Many individuals
responded in terms of roughly half their current tenure; that is,
a 10-year electrical engineer might say "about 5 years," whereas a
20-year electrical engineer might say "about 10 years." This sug-
gests that individuals continue to discover depths and nuances in
their work such that they seldom feel as if they have truly mas-
tered all of its intricacies. Further, as Kristof-Brown and Jansen
{2007) wrote, "it is short-sighted to think that once socialized
the individual does not continue to grow and change" {p. 143).'
7. Several other particularly promising temporally oriented
individual differences include temporal enactments (flexibility, lin-
earity, pace, precision, scheduling, separation; Ballard & Seibold,
2003), time attitude (e.g., regret, nostalgia, worry, hope; Shipp
et al., 2009), and time urgency {hurriedness; e.g., Waller, Conte,
Gibson, & Carpenter, 2001).
8. Transferability is deceptively tricky because one may have
learned the "wrong" lessons (e.g., bad habits, superstitious learn-
ing) or the "right" lessons for the "wrong" situation, as when the
new organization prefers different approaches than other organi-
zations use. Lacer, I briefly note how divestiture may be used to
facilitate "unlearning."
9. Earlier, role clarity was identified as a form of proximal
adjustment. Here, I acknowledge a lack of clarity (role ambigu-
ity) as a contextual constraint on learning.
10. The sixth tactic, investiture, tends to covary with institu-
tionalized socialization (defined later) in most settings. As noted,
however, highly distinctive organizations (e.g., armies, trawl-
ers, medical schools, police forces) and industries are inclined
to couple divestiture with institutionalized socialization in order
to divest newcomers of their incoming identities before remak-
ing them in the organization's image (e.g., Bourassa & Ashforth,
1998; Conti, 2009; Hafferty, 1991).
11. Indeed, the authors go on to note: "Nonlinear relation-
ships over time are possible, as are cyclical and oscillating ones.
Change can be incremental or discontinuous. Cycles can spiral
up or down, and the intensity can change. Various relationships
can have rhythms or patterns over time" (p. 532). Although some
of these possibilities have been or will be touched on in this chap-
ter, most have not been broached in the socialization literature
and remain a provocative direction for future research.
12. Interestingly, Chan and Schmitt {2000) found a linear
trajectory for social integration {as well as for role clarity and
task mastery) over four I-month measurement periods for new
doctoral students. I suspect, however, that social integration is
more susceptible to shocks because of the vagaries of social inter-
action, the number of individuals wit..'1 whom a newcomer may
regularly interact, and the likelihood of turnover among those
individuals.
References
Adkins, C. L. {1995). Previous work experience and organiza-
tional socialization: A longitudinal examination. Academy of
Management Journal, 38, 839-862.
Ashforth, B. E., Saks, A. M., & Lee, R. T. (1998). Socialization
Adler, J., & Shuval, J. T. {1978). Cross pressures during social-
and newcomer adjustment: The role of organizational con-
ization for medicine. American Sociological R.eview, 43,
text. Human R.elatiom, 51, 897-926.
693-704. Ashforth, B. E., Sluss, D. M., & Harrison, S. H. {2007a).
Adler, P.A., & Adler, P. (1991). Backboards & blackboards: College
Socialization in organizational contexts. In G. P. Hodgkinson
athletes and role engulfment. New York: Columbia University
& J. K. Ford {Eds.), lnten1ational review of industrial and
Press. organizational psychology {Vol. 22, pp. 1-70). Chichester,
_Ahuja, M. K., & Galvin, J. E. {2003). Socialization in virtual
UK: Wiley.
groups. Journal ofManagement, 29, 161-185.
Ashforth, B. E., Sluss, D. M., & Saks, A. M. {2007b).
Anakwe, U. P., & Greenhaus, J. H. {2000). Prior work expe-
Socialization tactics, proactive behavior, and newcomer learn-
rience and socialization experiences of college graduates.
ing: Integrating socialization models. journal of Vocatiomtl
International Journal ofManpower, 21, 95-111.
Behavior, 70, 447-462.
Ancona, D. G., Okhuysen, G. A., & Perlow, L.A. (2001). Taking
Ballard, D. I., & Seibold, D. R. (2003). Communicating and
time to integrate temporal research. Academy ofManagement
organizing in time: A meso-level model of organizational
Review, 26, 512-529. temporality. Management Communication OJutrter/y, 16,
Anderson, N., & Ostroff, C. {1997). Selection as socialization. In
N. Anderson & P. Herriot {Eds.), International handbook of 380-415.
Bauer, T. N., Bodner, T., Erdogan, B., Truxillo, D. M., &
sekction and assessment (pp. 413-440). Chichester, UK: Wiley.
Tucker, J. S. {2007). Newcomer adjustment during organi-
Anderson, N., & Thomas, H. D. C. (1996). Work group social-
zational socialization: A meta-analytic review of antecedents,
ization. In M.A. West {Ed.), HaJ1dbook ofwork group psychol-
outcomes, and methods. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92,
ogy (pp. 423-450). Chichester, UK: Wiley.
707-721.
Anderson-Gough, F., Grey, C., & Robson, K. {2001). Tests
Bauer, T. N., & Erdogan, B. (2011). Organizational socialization:
of time: Organizational time-reckoning and the making
The effective onboarding of new employees. In S. Zedeck,
of accountants in two multi-national accounting firms.
H. Aguinis, W. Cascio, M. Gelfand, K. Leung, S. Parker, &
Accounting, Organizations and Society, 26, 99-122.
J. Zhou (Eds.), APA handbook ofindustrial and organizational
Ashford, S. J., & Black, J. S. (1996). Proacrivity during organiza-
tional entry: The role of desire for control. Journal ofApplied
psychoWgy (Vol. 3: Maintaining, expanding, and contracting
the organizatio11, pp. 51-64). Washington, DC: American
Psycho/,ogy, 81, 199-214.
Psychological Association.
Ashford, S. J., Blau, R., & VandeWalle, D. (2003). Reflections
Bauer, T. N., & Erdogan, B. (2012). Organizational socialization
on the looking glass: A review of research on feedback-seek-
outcomes; Now and into the future. In C. Wanberg {Ed.),
ing behavior in organizations. Journal of Management, 29,
The Oxford handbook of socialization. Oxford, UK: Oxford
773-799.
University Press.
Ashford, S. J., & Taylor, M. S. (1990). Adaptation to work tran-
Bauer, T. N., & Green, S. G. (1994). Effect of newcomer
sitions: An integrative approach. In G. R. Ferris & K. M.
involvement in work-related activities: A longitudinal study
Rowland (Eds.), Research in personnel and human resources
of socialization. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 79, 211-223.
management (Vol. 8, pp. 1-39). Greenwich, Cf: JAi Press.
Bauer, T. N., & Green, S. G. {1998). Testing the combined effects
Ashforth, B. E. (2001). Role transitions in organizational Life: An
of newcomer information seeking and manager behavior on
identity-based perspective. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
socialization. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 83, 72-83.
Ashforth, B. E., & Boudwin, K. M. (2010). Initiation rites. In
Bauer, T. N., Morrison, E. W., & Callister, R. R. (1998).
J. M. Levine & M. A. Hogg (Eds.), Encyclopedia of group
Organizational socialization: A review and directions for
processes & intergroup relations (Vol. 1, pp. 448-451). Los
future research. In G. R. Ferris (Ed.), &search in personnel
Angeles: Sage. and human reJOurces management {Vol. 16, pp. 149-214).
Ashforrh, B. E., & Humphrey, R: H. (1995). Labeling processes
Greenwich, Cf: JAi Press.
in the organization: Constructing the individual. In L. L.
Bechky, B. A. (2006). Gaffers, gofers, and grips: Role-based coor-
Cummings & B. M. Staw (Eds.), &search in organizational
dination in temporary organizations. Organization Science,
behavior (Vol. 17, pp. 413-461). Greenwich, CT: JAi Press.
17, 3-21.
Ashforth, B. E.,Myers, K. K., &Sluss, D. M. (2012). Socialization
Beck, J., & Forstmeier, W. {2007). Superstition and belief as
perspectives and positive organizational scholarship. In K. S.
inevitable by-products of an adaptive learning strategy.
Cameron & G. M. Spreitzer (Eds.), Ihe Oxford handbook
Human Nature, 18, 35-46.
ofpositive organizational scholarship {pp. 537-548). Oxford,
Beyer, J. M., & Hannah, D. R. (2002). Building on the past:
UK: Oxford University Press.
Enacting established personal identities in a new work set-
Ashforth, B. E., & Rogers, K. M. (2012). Is the employee-
ting. Organization Science, 13, 636-652.
organization relationship misspecified? The centrality of
Blount, S., & Janicik, G. A. (2001). When plans change:
tribes in experiencing the organization. In L. M. Shore, J.
Examining how people evaluate timing changes in work orga-
A.-M. Coyle-Shapiro, & L. E. Tetrick {Eds.), Ihe employee-
nizations. Academy ofManagement Review, 26, 566---585.
organization relationship: Applications far the 21st century {pp.
Bluedorn, A. C., & Denhardt, R. B. (1988). Time and organiza-
23-53). New York: Routledge.
tions.Journal ofMrmagement, 14, 299-320.
Ashforth, B. E., & Saks, A.M. (1996). Socialization tactics:
Boswell, W.R., Boudreau, J. W., & Tichy, J. (2005). The rela-
Longitudinal effects on newcomer adjustment. Academy of
tionship between employee job change and job satisfac-
Management Journal, 39, 149-178. ij!l
tion: The honeymoon-hangover effect. Journal of Applied
Ashforth, B. E., Saks, A. M., & Lee, R. T. (1997). On the
Psychology, 90, 882-892.
dimensionality of Jones' (1986) measures of organizational
Boswell, W.R., Shipp. A. J., Payne, S. C., & Culbertson, S.S.
socialization tactics. International journal of Selection and
{2009). Changes in newcomer job satisfaction over time:
Assessment, 5, 200-214.
ASH FORTH 181
 Examining the pattern of honeymoons and hangovers.
journal ofApplied Psychology, 94, 844-858.
Bourassa, L., & Ashforch, B. E. (1998). You are about to party
Defiant style: Socialization and identity onboard an Alaskan
fishing boat. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 27,
171-196.
Bullis, C., & Bach, B. W. (1989). Socialization turning points:
An examination of change in organizational identification,
'Western journal ofSpeech Communication, 53, 273-293.
Burr, W. R. {1972). Role transitions: A reformulation of theory.
journal ofMarriage and the Family, 34, 407-416.
Cardon, M. S. {2002). Hou1 long is forever? The role ofanticipated
tenure in organizational socialization. Paper presented ar the
annual meeting of the Academy of Management, Denver.
Carr, J. C., Pearson, A. W., Vest, M. J., & Boyar, S. L. {2006).
Prior occupational experience, anticipatory socialization, and
employee retention.Journal ofManagement, 32, 343-359.
Chan, D., & Schmitt, N. {2000). Interindividual differences in
intraindividual changes in proactivity during organizational
entry: A latent growth modeling approach to understand-
ing newcomer adaptation. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 85,
190-210.
Chao, G. T. {1997). Unstructured training and development:
The role of organizational socialization. In J. K. Ford, S. W.
J. Kozlowski, K. Kraiger, E. Salas, & M. S. Teachout (Eds.),
Improving training effectiveness in work organizations (pp.
129-151). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Chao, G. T., O'Leary-Kelly, A. M., Wolf, S., Klein, H.J .. &
Gardner, P. D. (1994). Organizational socialization; Its con-
tent and consequences. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79,
730-743.
Chappell, A. T., & Lanza-Kaduce, L. (2010). Police academy
socialization: Understanding the lessons learned in a para-
military-bureaucratic organization. journal of Contemporary
Ethnography, 39, 187-214.
Chaunan, J. A. (1991). Matching people and organizations:
Selection and socialization in public accounting firms.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 36, 459-484.
Chen, G., & Klimoski, R. J. {2003). The impact of expecta-
tions on newcomer performance in teams as mediated by
work characteristics, social exchanges, and empowerment.
Academy ofManagement Journal, 46, 591-607.
Chen, N. Y., Tjosvold, D., Huang, X., & Xu, D. (2011). New
manager socialization and conflict management in China:
Effects of relationship and open conflict values. Journal of
Applied Social Psychology, 41, 332-356.
Colquitt, J. A, LePine, J. A., & Noe, R. A. {2000). Toward an
integrative theory of training motivation: A meta-analytic
path analysis of 20 years of research. Journal of Applied
Prych,/ogy, 85, 678-707.
Colquitt, J. A., & Simmering, M. J. (1998). Conscientiousness,
goal orientation, and motivation to learn during the learning
process: A longitudinal study. Journal ofApplied Psychology,
83, 654-665.
Conti, N. (2009). A Visigoth system: Shame, honor, and police
socialization. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 38,
409-432.
Cooper, W. H., Graham, W. J., & Dyke, L. S. (1993).
Tournament players. In G. R Ferris {Ed.), Research in person-
nel and human resources management {Vol. 11, pp. 83-132).
Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Cooper-Thomas, H., &Anderson, N. (2002). Newcomer adjust-
ment: The relationship between organizational socialization
THE ROLE OF TIME IN SOCIALIZATION DYNAMICS
tactics, information acquisition and attitudes. Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 75, 423-437.
Cooper-Thomas, H. D., & .Anderson, N. (2005). Organizational
socialization: A field study into socialization success and
rate. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 13
116-128. >
Cooper-Thomas, H. D., &Anderson, N. (2006). Organizational
socialization: A new theoretical model and recommendations
for future research and HRNl: practices in organizations.
Journal ofManagerial Psychology, 21, 492-516.
Crant, J. M. (2000). Proactive behavior in organizations. Journal
ofManagement, 26, 435-462.
DiSanza, J. R. (1995). Bank teller organizational assimila-
tion in a system of contradictory practices. Management
Communication Quarterly, 9, 191-218.
Dragoni, L., Tesluk, P. E., Russell, J. E. A., & Oh, 1.-S. (2009).
Understanding managerial development: Integrating devel-
opmental assignments, learning orientation, and access to
developmental opportunities in predicting managerial com-
petencies. Academy ofManagement Journal, 52, 731-743.
Dweck, C. S. (1986). Motivational processes affecting learning.
American Psychologist, 41, 1040-1048.
Eisbach, K. D., & Pratt, M. G. (2007). The physical environ-
ment in organizations. In J. P. Walsh & A. P. Brief (Eds.),
The Academy of Management annals (Vol. 1, pp. 181-234).
New York: Routledge.
Evans, W. R., & Davis, W. 0. (2005). High-performance work
systems and organizational performance: The mediating
role of internal social srrucrures. Journal ofManagement, 31,
758-775.
Feldman, D. C. (1976). A contingency theory of socialization.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 21, 433--452.
Feldman, D. C. (1977). The role of initiation activities in social-
ization. Human Relatiom, 30, 977-990.
Feldman, D. C. (1981). The multiple socialization of organiza-
tion members. Academy ofManagement Review, 6, 309-318.
Fisher, C. D. (1986). Organizational socialization: An integrative
review. In K. M. Rowland & G. R. Ferris (Eds.), Research
in personnel and human resources management (Vol. 4,
pp. 101-145). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Frese, M. (1982). Occupational socialization and psychological
development: An underemphasized research perspective in
industrial psychology. Journal ofOccupational Psychology, 55,
209-224.
Gabriel, Y. (2000). Storytelling in organizatiom: Facts, fictions,
and fantasies. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Garrick, J. (1998). lnformai learning in the workplace: Unmasking
human resource development. London: Routledge.
George, J.M., & Jones, G. R. (2000). The role of time in theory
and theory building.Journal ofManagement, 26, 657-684.
Gibson, M. K., & Papa, M. J. (2000). The mud, the blood, and
the beer guys: Organizational osmosis in blue-collar work
groups. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 28,
68-88.
Ginell,J. H. {2006). Relational coordination: Coordinatingwork
through relationships of shared goals, shared knowledge and
mutual respect. In 0. Kyriakidou & M. F. Ozbilgin {Eds.),
Relational perspectives in organizational studies: A research
companion (pp. 74-94). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
Golembiewski, R. T., Billingsley, K., & Yeager, S. (1976).
Measuring change and persistence in human affairs: Types
of change generated by OD designs. journal of Applied
Behavioral Science, 12, 133-157.
G6rnez, L. F. (2009). Time to socialize: Organizational socialization
structures and temporality. Journal ofBusiness Communication,
46. 179-207.
Goodwin, V. L., & Ziegler, L. {1998). A test of relationships
in a model of organizational cognitive complexity. ]ounial of
Organizational Behavior, 19, 371-386.
Graen, G. B., Orris, J. B., & Johnson, T. W. (1973). Role
assimilation processes in a complex organization. ]oun1al of
Vocational Behavior, 3, 395-420.
Grant, A. M., & Ashford, S. J. (2008). The dynamics of proac-
tivity at work. In A P. Brief & B. M. Staw {Eds.), Resea1'ch
in organizational behavior (Vol. 28, pp. 3-34). Amsterdan1:
Elsevier.
Griffin, A. E. C., Colella, A., & Goparaju, S. (2000). Newcomer
and organizational socialization tactics: An interactionisc per-
spective. Human Resource Management Review, JO, 453-474.
Grwnan,J.A, Saks, AM., & Zweig, 0.1. (2006). Organizational
socialization tactics and newcomer proactive behaviors: An
integrative study. Journal efVocational Behavior, 69, 90-104.
Gundry, L. K. (1993). Fitting into technical organizations: The
socialization of newcomer engineers. IEEE Tramactions on
Engineering Management, 40, 335-345.
Haas, J., & Shaffir, W. (1984). The ~fate of idealism" revisited.
Urban Life, 13, 63-81.
Hafferty, F. W. (1991). Into the valley: Death and the wcialization
ofmedical students. New Haven, CT: -Yale University Press.
Hall, D. T. (1976). Careers in organizations. Pacific Palisades,
CA: Goodyear.
Harris, M. J., & Garris, C. P. {2008). You never get a second
chance to make a first impression: Behavioral consequences
of first ilnpressions. In N. Ambady &J. J, Skowronski {Eds.),
First impressions (pp. 147-168). New York: Guilford Press.
Harris, R., Simons, M., & Carden, P. (2004). Peripheral jour-
neys: Learning and acceptance of probationary constables.
Journal ofWorkplace Learning, 16, 205-218.
Harrison, J. R., & Carroll, G. R. (1991). Keeping the faith:
A model of cultural transn1ission in formal organizations.
Administrative ScieJtce Quarterly, 36, 552-582.
Haski-Leventhal, 0., & Barga!, D. (2008). The volunteer stages
and transitions model: Organizational socialization of volun-
teers. Human Relations, 61, 67-102.
Hattrup, K., & Jackson, S. E. (1996). Learning about individual
differences by taking situations seriously. In K. R. Murphy
(Ed.), Individual differences and behavior in organizations
{pp. 507-547). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Hektner, J. M., Schmidt, J. A., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (Eds.).
(2007). Experience sampling method: Measuring the quality of
everyday life. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hicks, A. M. {2008). Role fusion: The occupational socialization
of prison chaplains. Symbolic Interaction, 31, 400-42 L
Hill, L.A. (1992). Becoming a manager: Mastery ofa new identity.
Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Howard, A., & Bray, D. W. (1988). Managerial lives in h'ansition:
Advancing age and changing times. New York: Guilford Press.
Hsiung, T. L., & Hsieh, A. T. (2003). Newcomer socialization:
The role of job standardization. Public Personnel Management,
32, 579-589.
Ibarra, H. (1999). Provisional selves: Experimenting with image
and identity in professional adaptation.g!lAdministrative
Science Quarterly, 44, 764-791.
Ibarra, H. (2003). Working identity: Unconventional strategies
for reinventing your career. Boston: Harvard Business School
Press.
Ibarra, H., & Barbulescu, R. (2010). Identity as narrative:
Prevalence, effectiveness, and consequences of narrative
identity work in macro work role transitions. Academy of
Management Review, 35, 135-154.
Jablin, F. M. (2000). Organizational entry, assimilation, and dis-
engagement/exit. In F. M. Jablin & L. L. Putnam (Eds.), The
new handbook of organizational communication: Advances in
theory, research, and methods (pp. 732-818). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Jacobson, D. (1996). Celebrating good-bye: Functional com-
ponents in farewell parties for retiring employees in Israel.
Journal ofAging Studies, 10, 223-235,
Janis, I. L. (1983). Groupthink: Psychological studies ofpolicy deci-
sions and fiascos {2nd ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Johns, G. (2006). The essential impact of context on orga-
nizational behavior. Academy of Management Review, 31,
386-408.
Jokisaari, M., & Nurmi, J.-E. (2009). Change in newcom-
ers' supervisor support and socialization outcomes after
organizational entry. Academy of Management journal, 52,
527-544.
Jones, G. R. (1986). Socialization tactics, self-efficacy, and new-
comers' adjusrments to organizations. Academy ofManagement
Journal, 29, 262-279.
Kammeyer-Mueller, J. D., Llvingston, B. A., & Liao, H. (2011).
Perceived similarity, proactive adjustment, and organizational
socialization. journal of Vocational Behavior, 78, 225-236.
Kammeyer-Mueller,J. 0., &Wanberg, C. R (2003). Unwrapping
the organizational entry process: Disentangling multiple ante-
cedents and their pathways to adjustment.Journal ofApplied ·
Psychology, 88, 779-794.
Katz, R. (1980). Time and work: Toward an integrative perspec-
tive. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in
organizational behavior (Vol. 2, pp. 81-127). Greenwich,
CT: JAI Press.
Katz, R. (1985). Organizational stress and early socialization
experiences. In T. A Beehr & R. S. Bhagat (Eds.), Human
stress and cognition in organizations: An integrated perspective
{pp. 117-139). New York: Wiley.
Kay, A. C., Wheeler, S. C., Bargh, J. A., & Ross, L. {2004).
Material priming: The influence of mundane physical objects
on situational construal and competitive behavioral choice.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 95,
83-96.
Kesebir, S., Uttal, D. H., & Gardner, W. {2010). Socialization:
Insights from social cognition. Social and Personality
Psychology Compass, 4, 93-106.
Kim, T.-Y., Cable, 0. M., & Kim, S.-P. (2005). Socialization
tactics, employee proactivity, and person-organization fir.
journal ofApplied Psychology, 90, 232-241.
Klein, H.J., & Heuser, A. E. {2008). The learning of social-
ization content: A framework for researching orientating
practices. In J. J. Manocchio (Ed.), Research in personnel
and human resources management (Vol. 27, pp. 279-336).
Bradford, UK: Emerald.
Korte, R. F. (2009). How newcomers learn the social norms of
an organization: A case study of the socialization of newly
hired engineers. Human Resource Development Qua1'ter!y, 20,
285-306.
Kramer, M. (1974). Reality shock: Why nurses leave nursing.
St. Louis: C.V. Mosby.
Kramer, M. W. (2004). Managing uncertainty in organizational
communication. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbau1n.
ASHFORTH
 Kramer, M. W. (2010). Organizational socialization: Joining and
leaving organizations. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
Kristof-Btown, A. L., & Jansen, K. J. (2007). Issues of per-
son-organization fit. In C. Ostroff & T. A. Judge (Eds.),
Perspectives on organizational.fit (pp. 123-153). New York:
Erlbaum.
LennoxTerrion,J., &Ashforth, B. E. (2002). From "I" to "we":
The role of putdown humor and identity in the development
of a temporary group. Human Relations, 55, 55-88.
Lewicki, R. J. (1981). Organizational seduction: Building com-
mitment to organizations. Organizational Dynamics, 10(2),
5-21.
Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., & Stilwell, D. (1993).Alongitudinal
study of the early development of leader-member exchanges.
Journal ofApplied Psycho/.ogy, 78, 662-674.
Lindsley, D. H., Brass, D. J., & Thomas, J.B. (1995}. Efficacy-
performance spirals: A multilevel perspective. Academy of
Management Review, 20, 645-678.
Liu, C.-H., & Lee, 'H.-W. (2008}. A proposed model of
expatriates in multinational corporations. Cross Cultural
Management, 15, 176--193.
Louis, M. R. (1980). Surprise and sense making: What newcom-
ers experience in entering unfamiliar organizational settings.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 25, 226--251.
Major, D, A., Kozlowski, S. W. J., Chao, G. T., & Gardner,
P. D. {1995}. A longitudinal investigation of newcomer
expectations, early socialization outcomes, and the moder-
ating effects of role development factors. Journal ofApplied
Ay'hology, 80, 418-431.
Mansfield, R. (1972). The initiation of graduates in industry:
The resolution of identity-stress as a determinant of job sat-
isfaction in the early months at work. Human Relations, 25,
77--86.
Manz, C. C. (1983}. 1he art of se!f-leadership: Strategies for per-
sonal effectiveness in your life and work. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.
McAdams, D. P. {1993). 1he stories we live by: Personal myths and
the making ofthe self New York: Guilford Press.
McAdams, D. P. (1999). Personal narratives and the life story.
In L. A. Pervin & 0. P. John (Eds.}, Handbook ofpersonal-
ity: Theory and research (2nd ed., pp. 478-500}. New York:
Guilford Press.
Merton, R. K. (1957). Social theory and social structure (rev. ed.}.
Glencoe, IL: Free Press.
Meyer, R. D., Dalal, R. S., & Hermida, R. (2010). A review
and synthesis of situational strength in the organizational sci-
ences. Journal ofManagement, 36, 121-140.
Meyerson, D., Weick, K. E., & Kramer, R. M. {1996). Swift
trust and temporary groups. In R. M. Kramer & T. R Tyler
(Eds.), Trust in organizatiom: Frontiers oftheory and research
(pp. 166--195). Thou<and Ooh, CA, Sogo.
Miller, V. D., & Jablin, F. M._ {1991). Information seeking dur-
ing organizational entry: Influences, tactics, and a model of
the process. Academy ofManagement Review, 16, 92-120.
Mitchell, T. R., & James, L. R. {2001). Building better theory:
Time and the specification of when things happen. Academy
ofManagement Review, 26, 530-547.
Mitchell, T. R., Thompson, L., Peterson, E., & Cronk, R.
(1997}. Temporal adjustments in the evaluation of events:
The "rosy view." Journal ofExperimental Social Psychology, 33,
421-448.
Moreland, R. L., & Levine,]. M. (2001). Socialization in orga-
nizations and work groups. In M. E. Turner (Ed.), Groups
THE ROLE OF TIME IN SOCIALIZATION DYNAMICS
at work: Theory and research (pp. 69-112). Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Morrison, E. W. (1993a). Longitudinal study of the effects of
information seeking on newcomer socialization. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 78, 173-183. ' and drawing causal inferences from long1tud1nal data. In S.
Morrison, E. W. (1993b}. Newcomer information seeking:
Exploring types, modes, sources, and outcomes. Academy of
Management journal, 36, 557-589.
Morrison, E. W. (1995). Information usefulness and acqui-
sition during organizational encounter. Management,
Communication Quarterly, 9, 131-155.
Morrison, R. F., & Brantner, T. M. (1992}. What enhances or
inhibits learning a new job? A basic career issue. Journal of
Appifrd Ay'hology, 77, 926--940.
Morrison, R. F., & Hock, R. R. (1986). Career building:
Learning from cwnulative work experience, In D. T. Hall
& Associates, Career devel.opment in organizatiom (pp. 236-.
273). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Mowday, R. T., & Sutton, R. I. {1993}. Organizational behavior:
Linking individuals and groups to organizational contexts.
In M. R Rosenzweig & L. W. Porter {Eds.), Annual review
ofpsychol.ogy (Vol. 44, pp. 195-229}. Palo Alto, CA Annual
Reviews.
Nelson, D. L. {1987}. Organizational socialization: A stress per-
spective. Journal ofOccupational Behaviour, 8, 311-324.
Nelson, D. L., & Quick, J. C. (1991). Social support and new-
comer adjustment in organizations: Attachment theory at
work? Journal ofOrganizational Behavior, 12, 543-554.
Nifadkar, S. S. {2009). Newcomer adjustment in a high-speed
context: 1he roles of emotion regulation, organizational
socialization tactics, and psychological safety. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation (Paper 2), Tempe, AZ: Arizona State
University.
Niiya, Y., Crocker, J., & Bartmess, E. N. (2004). From vul-
nerability to resilience: Learning orientations buffer con-
tingent self-esteem from failure. Psychological Science, 15,
801-805.
Noe, R. A, Tews, M. ]., & Dachner, A. M. (2010). Learner
engagement: A new perspective for enhancing our under-
standing of learner motivation and workplace learning. In
]. P. Walsh & A. P. Brief (Eds.), 1he Academy ofManagement
annals (Vol. 4, pp. 279-315}. New York: Routledge.
Ostroff, C., & Kozlowski, S. W. J. (1992}. Organizational social-
ization as a learning process: The role of information acquisi-
tion. Personnel Psychology, 45, 849-874.
Pinder, C. C., & Schroeder, K. G. (1987). Time tO proficiency
following job transfers. Academy ofManagement Journal, 30,
336--353.
Ployhart, R. E., & Vandenberg, R. ]. (2010). Longitudinal
research: The theory, design, and analysis of change. Journal
ofManagement, 36, 94--120.
Porter, L. W., Lawler, E. E., III, & Hackman, J. R. (1975}.
Behavior in organizatiom. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Pratt, M. G. (2000). The good, the bad, and the ambivalent:
Managing identification among Amway distributors.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 45, 456-493.
Quiiiones, M.A., Ford, J. K., & Teachout, M. S. (1995). The
relationship betw'een work experience and job performance:
A conceptual and meta-analytic review. Personnel Psychology,
48, 887-910.
Qureshi, I., & Fang, Y. (2011). Socialization in open source
software projects: A growth mixture modeling approach.
Organizational Research Methods, 14, 208-238.
Raghuram, S., Garud, R., Wiesenfeld, B., ~Gupta, V. (2001).
Factors contributing to virtual work adjustment. Journal of
Mtmagement, 27, 383-405.
Raudenbush, S. W. (2001). Comparing p:rso~al trajectories
T. Fiske, D. L. Schacter, & C. Zahn-Waxler (Eds.), Annual
review ofpsychology (Vol. 52, pp. 501-525). Palo Alto, CA:
Annual Reviews.
Reichers, A. E. (1987). An interactionist. perspective on n~­
comer socialization rares. Academy of Management Review,
12. 278-287.
Rentsch, J. R. (1990). Climate and culture: Interaction and
qualitative differences in organizational meanings. Journal of
App/;cd Ay,ho/ogy, 75, 668-681.
Riordan, C. M., Weatherly, E.W., Vandenberg, R. J ., & Self, R. M.
(2001}. The effects of pre-entry experiences and socializa-
tion tactics on newcomer attitudes and turnover. Journal of
Managerial Issues, 13, 159-176.
Rizzo, J. R., House, R. J., & Lirtzman, S. I. (1970}. Role con-
flict and an1biguity in complex organizations. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 15, 150-163.
Rogers,]. K. {2000}. Temps: 7he many faces ofthe changing work-
p!.ttce. Ithaca, NY: ILR Press.
Rollag, K. (2004). The impact of relative tenure on newcomer
socialization dynamics. journal of Organizational Behavior,
25, 853-872.
Rollag, K. (2007). Defining the term "new" in new employee
research. Journal of Occupational and Organizational
Psycho/.ogy, 80, 63-75.
Saks, A. M. (1995). Longitudinal field investigation of the mod-
erating and mediating effects of self-efficacy on the relation-
ship between training and newcomer adjustment. Joun1al of
Applied Psychology, 80, 211-225.
Saks, A. M., &Ashforth, B. E. (1997). Organizational socializa-
tion: Making sense of the past and present as a prologue for
the future.]oun1al ofVocrttional Behrivior, 51, 234-279.
Saks, A. M., Uggerslev, K. L., & Fassina, N. E. (2007).
Socialization tactics and newcomer adjustn1cnt: A meta-
analytic review and test of a n1odel. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 70, 413--446.
Salas, S., & Von Glinow, M. A. (2008}. Fostering organiza-
tional learning: Creating and maintaining a learning cul-
ture. In R. ]. Burke & C. L. Cooper (Eds.}, Building more
effective organizations: HR management and performance
in practice (pp. 207-227}. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
Schleef, D. J. (2006}. Managing elites: Professional socializa-
tion in law and business schools. Lanham, MD: Rowman &
Littlefield.
Schneider, B. (1983}. lnteractional psychology and organiza-
tional behavior. In L. L. Cummings & B. M. Sraw (Eds.),
Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 5, pp. 1-31}.
Greenwich, CT: JAi Press.
Scholarios, D., Lod..l'er, C., &Johnson, H. (2003). Anticipatory
socialisation: The effect of recrifit1nent and selection
experiences on career expectations. Career Development
International, 8, 182-197.
Scott, C., & Myers, K. K. (2005}. 1be socialization of emotion:
Learning emotion management at the fire station. Journal of
Applied Communication Reser1rch, 33, 67-92.
Shipp, A. J., Edwards, J. R., & Lambert, L. S. (2009).
Conceptualization and measurement of temporal focus:
The subjective experience of the past, present, and future.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,
110, 1-22.
Shipp, A. J., & Jansen, K. ]. (2011). Reinterpreting time in fit
theory: Crafting and recrafring narratives of fit in medias res.
Academy ojManagement Review, 36, 76--101.
Slaughter, J.E., & Zickar, M. J. (2006}. A new look at the role
of insiders in the newcomer socialization process. Group &
Organization Management, 31, 264-290.
Sluss, D. M., van Dick, R, & Thompson, B. S. (2010). Role
theory in organizations: A relational perspective. In S. Zedeck
(Ed.), APA handbook ofindustrial and organizational psychology
Vol. 1: Building and helping the organization (pp. 505-534}.
Washington, DC: Atnerican Psychological Association.
Snook, S. A. (2000). Friendly fire: 1he accidental shootdown ofU.S.
Black Hawks over Northern Iraq. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press.
Solo1non, M. R., Surprenant, C., Czepiel, J. A., & Gutman,
E. G. (1985). A role theory perspective on dyadic interac-
tions: The service encounter. Jounial of Marketing, 49(1),
99-111.
Song, Z., & Chathoth, P. K. (2010}. An interactional approach
to organizations' success in socializing their intern new-
comers: The role of general self-efficacy and Organizational
Socialization Inventory. Journal of I'lospitality & Tourism
Research, 34, 364--387.
Sonnen tag, S., Niessen, C., & Ohly, S. (2004). Learning at work:
Training and development. In C. L. Cooper & I. T. Robertson
(Eds.), International review of industrial and organizational
psychol.ogy (Vol. 19, pp. 249-289}. Chichester, UK: Wiley.
Stohl, C. (1986). 1he role of memorable messages in the process
of organizational socialization. Communication Quarterly,
34, 231-249.
Sullivan, S. E. (1999}. The changing nature of careers: A review
and research agenda.journal ofManagement, 25, 457--484.
Takeuchi, N., & Takeuchi, T. (2009}. A longitudinal inves-
tigation on the· factors affecting newcomers' adjustment:
Evidence from Japanese organizations. International Journal
ofHuman Resource Management, 20, 928-952.
Taormina, R. J. {1997). Organizational socialization: A tnulti-
domain, continuous process model. International Journal of
Selection andAssessment, 5, 29-47.
Taormina, R. J. (2004}. Convergent validation of two mea-
sures of organizational socialization. International Journal of
Human Resource Management, 15, 76-94.
Teboul, J. C. B. (1995). Determinants of new hire information-
seeking during organizational encounter. Western Journal of
Communication, 59, 305-325.
Tesluk, P. E., &Jacobs, R.R. (1998). Toward an integrated model
of work experience. Personnel Psychol.ogy, 51, 321-355.
Thomas, H. D. C., & Anderson, N. (1998}. Changes in new-
c01ners' psychological contracts during organizational social-
ization: A study of recruits entering the British Arn1y. Journal
ofOrganizationalBehavior, 19, 745-767.
Turner, V. W. (1969). The ritual process: Structure and anti-struc-
ture. Chicago: Aldinc.
Vancouver, J.B., Tamanini, K. B., & Yoder, R. J. (2010). Using
dynamic computational models to reconnect theory and
research: Socialization by the proactive newcon1er as exam-
ple. journal ofManagement, 36, 764-793.
Vandenberg, R. J., & Self, R. M. {1993). Assessing newcom-
ers' changing con1mionents to the organization during the
first 6 months of work. Journal of Applied Psycho/.ogy, 78,
557-568.
ASH FORTH
 VandeWalle, D .. Ganesan, S., Challagalla, G. N., & Brown, S.
P. (2000). An integrated model of feedback-seeking behav-
ior: Disposition, context, and cognition. Journal ofApplied
P;ychohgy, 85, 996-1003.
van Gennep, A. (1960). The rites ofpassage (M. B. Vizedom
& G. L. Caffee, Trans.). Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Van Maanen, J. (1977). Experiencing organization: Notes on the
meaning ofcareers and socialization. In J. Van Maanen (Ed.),
Organizational careers: Some new perspectives (pp. 15-45).
London: Wiley.
Van Maanen, ]., & Schein, E. H. (1979). Toward a theory of
organizational socialization. In B. M. Staw (Ed.), &search in
organizational behavior (Vol. I, pp. 209-264). Greenwich,
CT: JAi Press,
Waller, M. ]., Conte, ]. M., Gibson, C. B., & Carpenter, M.
A. (2001). The effect of individual perceptions of deadlines
on team performance. Academy ofManagement Review, 26,
586-600.
Wanberg, C.R., & Kammeyer-Mueller, J. D. (2000). PrecliC.
and outcomes of proactivity in the socialization pr ~;. ·
.ocess
Journal ofApplied Psychology, 85, 373-385. ·
Wanous,]. P. (1992). Organizational entry: Recruitment, sefectfu
orientation, and socialization ofnewcomers (2nd ed.). Rea.di~~;
MA: Addison-Wesley.
Weick, K. E. {1995). Sensemaking in organizations. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Wrzesniewski, A., & Dutton, ]. E. {2001). Crafting a job:
Revisioning employees as active crafters of their Work,
Academy ofManagement Review, 26, 179-201.
Yoder, ]. D., & Aniakudo, P. {1996). When pranks become
harassment: The case of African American women firefight- ,
ers. Sex Roi.es, 35, 253-270.
Zaheer, S., Albert, S., & Zaheer, A. (1999). Time scales and
organizational theory. Academy of Management Review, 24,
725-741.
Zerubavel, E. (1976). Timetables and scheduling: On the social
organization of time. Sociological Inquiry, 46, 87-94.

'1
I

Seif
don of
ins true
presen-
the ac·
via res
theore1
deal o
researc
ties of
Indeed
impor1
appro~

are sys
and ar
cal an~
oped'
collect
vation:
tions c
collect
& Cai

186 THE ROLE OF TIME IN SOCIALIZATION DYNAMICS

View publication stats