WHY UNDERSTANDNG SOCIALISATION PROCESSES MAY ENABLE KNOWLEDGE BUILDING
POTENTIAL
Dr. Deborah A. Blackman
Associate Professor in Management
School of Business and Government, University of Canberra
Canberra
ACT 2601, Australia
Deborah.blackman@canberra.edu.au
Tel: +61 (0) 2 62015076
Fax: +61 (0) 2
Dr. Paul Corcoran
Head of School, Management
Faculty of Business
University of the Sunshine Coast
Maroochydore D.C. QLD 4558, Australia
Email: pcorcora@usc.edu.au
Tel: +61 7 5430 1294
Fax: +61 7 5430 1231
Stream: Strategy, Organisational Learning and Knowledge Management.
1
WHY UNDERSTANDNG SOCIALISATION PROCESSES MAY ENABLE KNOWLEDGE BUILDING
POTENTIAL
Abstract
The development of knowledge within an organisation can be accomplished through recruitment of
individuals who hold that knowledge and facilitated by an appropriate organisational culture. However,
little has been done to identify appropriate socialisation pathways for these recruits. This paper
discusses how culture affects knowledge management within an organisation. The concept of
socialisation is then outlined; its different stages and its role in knowledge development. Van Maanen
and Schein’s (1979) dimensions of socialisation tactics and their impact on knowledge development
are then explored through three different scenarios. From this examination it is clear that the mix of
socialisation tactics can aid, defer or hinder successful knowledge development outcomes.
Introduction
It is argued that to achieve competitive advantage organisations need to develop core capabilities
which are supported and implemented by effective knowledge creation and utilisation (De Geus, 1997;
Teece, Pisano and Shuen, 1997). One strategy to deploy new knowledge is to recruit those that
already hold it (Palekar, 2006); either to add to a current knowledge base or to create a new one by
challenging the current status quo. A second strategy for building knowledge capacity is to develop a
culture which supports and enables knowledge creation, retention and utilisation (Kilmann, Saxton and
Serpa, 1986; Schraeder and Self, 2003). We will argue that these strategies are related to each other
and that socialisation processes will affect the potential success of both these strategies.
Based on the key attributes from employees’ daily activities (Bender, 1998; Nomikos, 1989; Botha,
2000), this paper defines the knowledge worker as: ‘any employee possessing specialist knowledge or
know-how who is involved in consultancy based on their specialist knowledge or know-how, or
research and development work for new products, services or processes’. They use their knowledge
and know-how to ‘gather, analyse, add value and communicate information to empower decisionmaking.’ (Roy, Falardeau and Pelletier, 2001: 1). Consequently, a knowledge worker’s usefulness to
the organisation is situated in his/her ability (and willingness) to utilise, share and synthesise existing
knowledge to create new ideas. If a strategy is to employ such a worker it will be vital that their
knowledge can be distributed and utilised throughout their new organisation.
When considering this, it should be noted that individuals may be attracted to organisations that they
perceive as having values similar to their own and that organisations usually seek those with values
that they perceive fit with their organisational culture (O’Reilly, Chatman and Caldwell, 1991;
Chatman, 1991). This would mean that the culture required would need to support the new employee
to fit in and share what they know; socialisation should be fairly simple as there will be little challenge
to the way the individual feels about themselves or their new organisation. However, sometimes
individuals are chosen specifically to change the current status quo (Ashforth and Saks, 1996) as their
differing knowledge, skills or value set may trigger culture change in some way via, it is posited,
socialisation processes that will, in some way, be disruptive (Chao, O'Leary-Kelly, Wolf, Klein and
Gardner, 1994).
However, there are suggestions that knowledge initiatives, built upon the recruitment of new
employees are often ineffective (Schein, 1986; Davenport, Thomas and Cantrell, 2002) and that,
instead of building knowledge potential, knowledgeable recruits move on rapidly taking their skills and
expertise with them. We will argue that this is predictable when the application of socialisation
processes is explored. Initially, this paper outlines how culture affects the potentiality of knowledge
development, sharing and management within an organisation. We will then analyse the way in which
socialisation is a part of knowledge development and the way that mental models, (an internal
representation of the world held by an individual which is constructed from their previous experiences
and acts as a basis for decoding subsequent events and observations), affect the potential outcomes
of the different socialisation dimensions. The paper then uses six dimensions of socialisation tactics to
consider which affect, and which are affected by, the mental models of those being socialised. We
posit that that socialisation can have a major impact upon the knowledge capability of an organisation
2
and that its role on knowledge management needs to be more widely understood. In conclusion the
emergent implications for HRD practitioners will be outlined.
Organisational Culture and its Role in Knowledge Management
According to Baker (1980: 8) organisational culture is:
...some interrelated set of beliefs, shared by most of their members, about how people
should behave at work and what tasks and goals are important.
What is important about this definition is that culture affects how groups cope with adaptation and
that, consequently, culture affects the ability of an organisation to learn, grow and change. The
importance of culture in enabling change is widely recognised (Beer and Nohria, 2000; Harris and
Crane, 2002; Higgins and McAllaster, 2002; Ho, 1999; Sorensen, 2002) Its role is variously seen as
supporting learning (Hall, 2001; Rowley, 2000; Senge, 1990), developing a new sense of commitment
(Clute 1999; Flynn and Chatman, 2001; Tran, 1998) encouraging experimentation (Carr, 1997;
Charharbaghi and Newman, 1996) and engendering the capacity for change (Clegg, 1999; Denison,
2001; Harris and Crane, 2002; Higgins and McAllaster, 2002). The argument is that without a new
culture (or at least amended culture) there can be no long-term change as ‘the way that we do
business’ will not actually change. This has two major implications: firstly, that culture will act as a
filtering system for all new ideas and, secondly, that this will mean that knowledge creation and
acquisition will be affected by the culture as it will support or limit the potential to learn and learning is
the process that must be present for there to be knowledge development (Blackman, 2005).
Blackman (2004) demonstrated that culture is a framework that guides and influences organisational
behaviour and acts as a limiter for the individuals; moreover, behaviours emergent from the cultural
norms were framed by the beliefs and values that made up the culture. This means that the stronger
such frameworks are, the more certain one can be of the behaviour they will evoke (Hall, 2001; Swaab
et al., 2002; Ross, 2002). New meanings will emerge from the shared values and beliefs within the
current culture. For a culture to develop that supports change and challenge, new beliefs and values
(meanings) will need to develop and become a fundamental part of the culture (Schein, 1990;
Smircich, 1983). These new ideas will be framed by the current culture and the stronger that is, the
harder it will be for a new culture to emerge. Thus, the stronger the shared values and beliefs are, the
more the organisation will become self-referential, with new processes being developed from the
shared meanings already in place. What can be seen is that, in this way, culture will frame all new
ideas (Smith, 2002) and will equate to a set of shared mental models. The way that this will affect
learning is seen in Figure 1.
FIGURE 1: Culture acting as a Filtering System Source: Blackman, (2004)
3
Where a difference is perceived in the environment it will then enter the organisational system. The
current culture acts as a framework which determines whether the difference is accepted and adopted
developing a new or amended culture, or whether it is rejected as not fitting with the current thinking.
This leads to a reflexive loop which means that culture becomes a framing mental model for all
potential change.
Mental models provide the link between collectives and individuals as they proffer a context for the
interpretation and understanding of new information: it is argued that all new understandings develop
from the basis of the mental models in place (Kim, 1993; Dixon, 1997; Swaab et al., 2002). However,
this view of a mental model as a framework for new knowledge means that it could, potentially, act as
a closing mechanism. Blackman (2001) and Coopey (1996) have demonstrated that, through
dominant logic and coalitions, new knowledge creation can become self-referential in nature leading to
only some ideas (those related to the current mental model) being acceptable to the system for
consideration. The stronger the mental model, the greater the influence upon the state of openness of
the system, with the possibility that, if the filters become strong enough, there will be rejection of any
non-congruent ideas (Blackman and Henderson, 2004). Consequently, socialisation can be viewed as
managing the mental models of individuals within the company and the collective mental models
shared throughout the organisation.
Where there is a strong culture that does not encourage knowledge creation, adopting challenging
processes, such as double loop learning (Argyris and Schon, 1996), will not be enough as the culture
will prevent the new processes being assimilated into the belief set (Blackman and Henderson, 2004).
The nature of challenge will be defined by the old culture and all new meanings will be formulated from
within the current culture, thereby confirming the constructed nature of the knowledge already within
the organisations. The stronger the culture, the more likely that it will act as a shared mental model
which will frame future developments. This link between culture, knowledge development and mental
models means that the links between socialisation and mental models will need to be explored.
Socialisation and its Role in Knowledge Development
Organisational socialisation is “...the process by which a person learns the values, norms, and
required behaviours which permit him to participate as a member of the organization” (Van Maanen,
1976:67). It is the process of teaching newcomers about the organisation’s culture (Louis, 1990;
Feldman 1981), hence, the way socialisation occurs will affect the way that an employee adapts to a
new job or role. There are three distinct stages to the socialisation process: pre-arrival, encounter and
acquisition. We will look at each in turn in terms of the impact mental models will have upon the
individual and their propensity to develop and share new knowledge.
Pre-arrival
The first stage includes all learning that has occurred prior to the individual joining the organisation
(Feldman, 1976; Van Maanen, 1976). Each individual arrives with a developed set of values, attitudes,
and expectations about the organisation and about the job that they will be performing; the scope,
depth and accuracy of those values, attitudes, and expectations will, of course, differ from individual to
individual (Porter et al., 1975). These views can be said to be mental models (Davison and Blackman,
2005). It is, therefore, logical that the stronger the mental models held by an individual prior to their
arrival, the less likely they are to change upon arrival. If there is commonality between the mental
models of those arriving and those already within the organisation there is likely to be knowledge
sharing. If not the outcomes are less predictable.
Encounter
The encounter stage of organisational socialisation occurs as the individual enters the organisation
(Porter et al., 1975; Van Maanen, 1976). It is when the values of the individual encounter the values of
the organisation. The individual undertakes four main activities during this stage: learning the skills
and procedures relevant to the new tasks that they are expected to perform; clarifying their new role
by determining the nature and importance of the tasks; evaluating progress by discovering the views
of significant organisation members on their performance; and establishing relationships with their
supervisors, peers and subordinates (Feldman, 1976). If there is to be ‘cultural shock’ (Yost and
4
Lucas, 2002) whereby mental models of individuals emerge as being different from, and possibly in
conflict with, the culture of the organisation, this is where it will occur. Whether new knowledge will
then emerge will depend upon where the mental models are strongest and the need for the individual
to reduce cognitive dissonance between themselves and their organisation.
Acquisition
This stage occurs through exposure, over time, to the workplace itself (Porter et al., 1975; Feldman,
1976). Consequent to earlier experiences, the individual or the organisation is likely to undergo some
change which, it is anticipated, will be in the direction required by the organisation as traditional
socialisation, whether planned that way or not, focuses on the development of a desired culture. If the
plan was to use the individual to engender change in the organisational mental model and develop a
new culture this is where it will need to occur.
It is clear, therefore, that the socialisation process will have a significant impact upon the potential of
an organisation to access the knowledge an individual is bringing with them into the organisation. In a
world of where there is an increasing focus upon knowledge workers this is an important issue to
understand. We argue that, if there is to be effective socialisation for knowledge building, HRD
practitioners will need to consider how to be more proactive using it in a way to stimulate or support
knowledge development. In order to demonstrate this we intend to model different socialisation
scenarios and consider the implications of each.
Dimensions of Socialisation and their Impact upon Knowledge Development
Let us consider the situation where a new culture is needed to support a desired change, two major
possibilities are posited. Firstly, that organisations will try to develop such a new culture through new
organisational routines which they set up through training and socialisation processes which will
enable those within the organisation to gain the knowledge necessary to be able to change their
views. The second proposition is that organisations may choose to recruit or promote staff who
already have the requisite knowledge and who they think will be able to change the culture via their
values, beliefs and mental models. In either of these cases it can be seen that the role of mental
models will have significant impact upon the potential for change emerging from the socialisation
processes owing to two underlying assumptions that are being made:
• where there is a culture that the organisation wishes to maintain, the people entering their new
role will have mental models that are either already aligned with the culture or which are open
to change and development and can be aligned with the culture currently in place
• where, in the pre-entry stage of socialisation an individual is identified as having mental
models that are different from the current culture, but reflect the culture that is desired, that
such an individual will be able to maintain their mental model and share it with those who they
will encounter in their new role.
However, we argue that such assumptions may be overly optimistic, providing an explanation as to
why socialisation processes fail to achieve the desired results. We will now outline why we consider
this to be a possibility.
Van Maanen and Schein (1979) identified six dimensions of socialisation tactics (see Figure 2), each
comprising a bipolar continuum, which will affect and be affected by the mental models of those being
socialised. Collective versus individual tactics refers to whether newcomers are put through a common
group experience or through a unique individual experience. Formal versus informal tactics refers to
whether newcomers are separated from experienced members of the organisation for a specific period
of induction or placed with experienced members of the organisation in the normal work setting (inthe-job training). Fixed versus variable tactics refers to where there is a schedule for the assumption of
role or where there is no such schedule. Sequential versus random tactics refers to where there are
set steps to be taken leading to the assumption of role and progression in the organisation or where
there is ambiguity or uncertainty over the assumption of role or progression in the organisation.
Investiture versus divestiture tactics refers to whether the newcomer’s personal attributes are affirmed
or whether the newcomer’s personal attributes are denied. Serial versus disjunctive tactics refers to
whether the newcomer is socialised by an experienced member of the organisation acting as a role
model or not. The first two dimensions are mainly concerned with socialisation context, the second
5
pair are mainly concerned with socialisation content and the final two are mainly concerned with social
aspects (Van Maanen and Schein, 1979; Jones, 1986). It was proposed that one pole of each of the
dimensions, represented by collective, formal, sequential, fixed, serial, and divestiture tactics, can be
characterised as institutional socialisation while the opposite pole can be characterised as individual
socialisation. What should be clear is that there is an assumption of openness on the part of the
individual to the tactics they are being exposed to. In developing the example we will reflect upon
whether such an assumption of openness is warranted, considering the impact of mental models and
organisational culture upon an individual’s propensity to learn and create new knowledge.
Figure 2: Six Dimensions of Socialisation Tactics Source: Van Maanen and Schein (1979)
Three differing scenarios are postulated using a desired new culture of customer orientation as the
potential outcome. The first demonstrates the situation where there is no current model of accepted
customer orientation but the organisation wishes to develop a new culture to support such an
orientation. The second considers an example where there is an existing culture of customer
orientation that the organisation wishes to maintain. The third scenario considers the situation where
there is an existing culture of customer orientation that the organisation wishes to change. In each
case the organisation is recruiting individuals with a strong current mental model of customer
orientation as anyone with a weak mental model is most likely to adopt the existing cultural norms of
the organisation.
Scenario 1: No current model of accepted customer orientation, but the organisation wishes to
develop a new culture to support such an orientation
Collective versus Individual: Where the socialisation tactic is collective, the newcomer will either
accept one of the group models, the one closest to their own, or reject the models within the
organisation in total at the acquisition stage. Any congruence or differences between the newcomer’s
mental model and the group’s mental model will be recognised at the encounter stage. The
newcomer’s mental model will be strengthened where congruence exists. As the newcomer has a
strong mental model of customer orientation, challenges to their mental model may lead to cognitive
dissonance and withdrawal behaviours. It is possible that the group undertaking the collective
socialisation may develop a culture of their own at the encounter stage. However, as a group of
newcomers, change in organisational culture is unlikely unless a newcomer is, or newcomers in the
group are, in a position of influence and can engender such change.
Where the socialisation tactic is individual, then the newcomer’s own perception of what is acceptable
customer orientation is likely to prevail during the encounter stage. Once the newcomer is working
with others, at the acquisition stage, the level of team orientation, coupled with the newcomer’s
position, will affect whether the organisational perspective alters. Any potential change will only occur
6
in the immediate work group unless the newcomer is in a position of influence and can engender
change.
Formal versus Informal: Where the socialisation tactic is formal, differences in customer orientation
are unlikely to become apparent until the acquisition stage, when culture clash may ensue. Unless the
newcomer is in a position of influence and can change the symbols and artefacts of organisational
culture, little will change and the newcomer may exhibit withdrawal behaviours. Where the
socialisation tactic is informal, differences in customer orientation will become apparent at the
encounter stage. As the newcomer has a strong mental model of customer orientation this may lead to
cognitive dissonance and withdrawal behaviours.
Fixed versus Variable: Where the socialisation tactic is fixed, differences in customer orientation are
unlikely to become apparent until the acquisition stage, when culture clash may ensue. Unless the
newcomer is in a position of influence and can change the symbols and artefacts of organisational
culture, little will change and the newcomer may exhibit withdrawal behaviours. Where the
socialisation tactic is variable, the newcomer will discover the current norms of the organisation for
themselves. As the assumption of role will likely depend upon the adoption of appropriate behaviours,
this may lead to confusion between the stated model of customer orientation and the actual model of
customer orientation. As the newcomer has a strong mental model of customer orientation this may
lead to cognitive dissonance and withdrawal behaviours.
Sequential versus Random: Where the socialisation tactic is sequential, newcomers are likely to be
entering the new role as a form of promotion. They can be assumed to have some influence over
others and some knowledge of the existing lack of organisational culture. There will be no newcomer
change until the acquisition stage; the newcomer will retain their mental model of customer orientation
culture and know that they are expected to share it. Unless the newcomer is in a position of influence
and can change the symbols and artefacts of organisational culture, little will change and the
newcomer may exhibit withdrawal behaviours. Where the socialisation tactic is random, the likely
outcomes are the same as for variable tactics, discussed above.
Investiture versus Divestiture: Where there is investiture the newcomer will maintain their knowledge,
attributes and mental models during the encounter stage. At the acquisition stage the newcomer will
learn of the lack of a dominant model and discover the norms of the organisation and the work group.
As the newcomer has a strong mental model of customer orientation this may lead to cognitive
dissonance and withdrawal behaviours. Where there is divestiture the newcomer will be asked to
change at the encounter stage and culture clash may ensue. Unless the newcomer is in a position of
influence and believes that they will be able to engender change they may commence withdrawal
behaviours.
Serial versus Disjunctive: If there is congruence between the mental models of the experienced
member and the newcomer, the newcomer’s mental model will be strengthened. The newcomer will
not learn of any differences and there will be no newcomer change until the acquisition stage. Given
the earlier strengthening of the newcomer’s mental model this may lead to cognitive dissonance and
withdrawal behaviours during the acquisition stage. If there is a lack of congruence between the
mental models of the experienced member and the newcomer, and the experienced member is in a
position of apparent influence, the newcomer will learn of the lack of a cultural model and discover the
norms of the organisation. For newcomers with strong mental models of customer orientation this may
lead to cognitive dissonance and withdrawal behaviours. Where the socialisation tactic is disjunctive,
the newcomer will discover the differences in mental models at the encounter stage and this may lead
to cognitive dissonance and withdrawal behaviours.
Scenario 2: An existing culture of customer orientation that the organisation wishes to
maintain.
Collective versus Individual: Where the socialisation tactic is collective the current model will be
adopted by the newcomer. The congruence between the individual’s mental model and the
organisational model will be recognised at the encounter stage. Where the socialisation tactic is
individual the congruence will not be recognised until the acquisition stage. Thus, the newcomer’s
mental model will be strengthened earlier through the use of a collective socialisation tactic.
7
Formal versus Informal: Where the socialisation tactic is formal the newcomer will learn of the
organisation’s mental model during the encounter stage. Where the socialisation tactic is informal the
newcomer will learn of the organisation’s mental model during the acquisition stage. In either case the
congruence between the newcomer’s mental model and the organisational model will be recognised
and the newcomer’s mental model will be strengthened. However, this will occur earlier if a formal
socialisation tactic is employed.
Fixed versus Variable: Where the socialisation tactic is fixed the newcomer will learn of the
organisation’s mental model during the encounter stage. Where the socialisation tactic is variable the
newcomer will learn of the organisation’s mental model during the acquisition stage. In either case the
congruence between the newcomer’s mental model and the organisational model will be recognised
and the newcomer’s mental model will be strengthened. However, this will occur earlier if a fixed
socialisation tactic is employed.
Sequential versus Random: Where the socialisation tactic is sequential the newcomer will be entering
the role as a form of promotion, thereby strengthening their mental model at the encounter stage.
Where the socialisation tactic is random the individual will learn of the congruence between their
mental model and the organisation’s mental model during the acquisition stage. Therefore, the use of
a sequential socialisation tactic will strengthen the newcomer’s mental model earlier than the use of a
random socialisation tactic.
Investiture versus Divestiture: Where there is investiture the newcomer will maintain their attributes
and mental models during the encounter stage. At the acquisition stage the congruence between the
newcomer’s mental model and the organisational model will be recognised and the newcomer’s
mental model will be strengthened. Divestiture, in this scenario is not an option.
Serial versus Disjunctive: The impact of serial socialisation, assuming that the role model has a strong
mental model of the prevalent customer orientation, will be for the newcomer to learn of the
organisation’s mental model at the encounter stage. Where the socialisation tactic is disjunctive, the
newcomer will learn of the organisation’s mental model during the acquisition stage. In either case the
congruence between the newcomer’s mental model and the organisational model will be recognised
and the newcomer’s mental model will be strengthened. However, this will occur earlier if a serial
socialisation tactic is employed.
Scenario 3: An existing culture of customer orientation that the organisation wishes to change
Collective versus Individual: Where the socialisation tactic is collective the current model, which
includes a non-required culture, is likely to predominate. Once the newcomer is working with others
the lack of congruence between their mental model and the organisation’s mental model will become
apparent. The newcomer will likely resolve the inconsistency by rejecting the organisation’s model and
withdrawal behaviours may occur unless the newcomer believes they can engender change.
Where the socialisation tactic is individual then the newcomer’s own perception of what is acceptable
customer orientation is likely to prevail during the encounter stage. At the acquisition stage the
newcomer will learn of the differences in customer orientation. Given the newcomer’s strong mental
model of customer orientation this may lead to cognitive dissonance and withdrawal behaviours unless
the newcomer believes they can engender change.
Formal versus Informal: Where the socialisation tactic is formal the newcomer will learn of the
organisation’s mental model during the encounter stage. If the newcomer has a strong mental model
of customer orientation this may lead to cognitive dissonance and withdrawal behaviours unless the
newcomer has influence.
Where the socialisation tactic is informal the newcomer will learn of the lack of a model and discover
the norms of the organisation at the encounter stage. If the newcomer has a strong mental model of
customer orientation this may lead to cognitive dissonance and withdrawal behaviours.
Fixed versus Variable: Where the socialisation tactic is fixed the newcomer will not learn of any
differences and there will be no newcomer change until the acquisition stage. The newcomer retains
their mental model of customer culture, knowing that they are expected to share it. Culture clash may
8
ensue. Unless the newcomer is in a position of influence and can change the symbols and artefacts of
organisational culture, little will change and the newcomer may exhibit withdrawal behaviours.
Where the socialisation tactic is variable, the newcomer will discover the current norms of the
organisation for themselves. As the assumption of role will likely depend upon the adoption of
appropriate behaviours, this may lead to confusion between the stated model of customer orientation
and the actual model of customer orientation. As the newcomer has a strong mental model of
customer orientation this may lead to cognitive dissonance and withdrawal behaviours.
Sequential versus Random: Where the socialisation tactic is sequential, the newcomer is likely to be
entering the new role as a form of promotion. They can be assumed to have some level of influence
over others and some level of acceptance of the existing culture. The key will be how much influence
they have in the organisation. There will be no newcomer change until the acquisition stage. The
newcomer will retain their mental model of customer orientation culture and know that they are
expected to share it. Unless the newcomer is in a position of influence and can change the symbols
and artefacts of organisational culture, little will change and the newcomer may exhibit withdrawal
behaviours.
Should the socialisation be random the newcomer may not learn of the lack of a model and discover
what the norms of the organisation until the acquisition stage. As the newcomer has a strong mental
model of customer orientation this may lead to cognitive dissonance and withdrawal behaviours.
Investiture versus Divestiture: Where there is investiture the individual will maintain their attributes and
mental models during the encounter stage. At the acquisition stage, however, the individual will learn
of the organisation’s mental model. Where there is divestiture the individual will be expected to alter
their mental models to align with the organisation’s mental model at the encounter stage. The nature
of the socialisation tactic may simply delay the commencement of withdrawal behaviours. However,
the degree of difference between the mental models and the extent to which the newcomer can
influence cultural change, may moderate those behaviours.
Serial versus Disjunctive: If there is congruence between the mental models of the experienced
member and the newcomer, the newcomer’s mental model will be strengthened. The newcomer will
not learn of any differences and there will be no newcomer change until the acquisition stage. If there
is a lack of congruence between the mental models of the experienced member and the newcomer,
and the experienced member is in a position of apparent influence, the newcomer will learn of the lack
of a cultural model and discover the norms of the organisation. For newcomers with strong mental
models of customer orientation this may lead to cognitive dissonance and withdrawal behaviours.
Implications
The first, and most important implication is the impact of strong versus weak culture and strong versus
weak mental models (refer to Figure 3 below). What can be seen is that the use of socialisation as a
process to engender change via the use of individuals to change the culture is extremely problematic.
It is no surprise that an individual with a weak mental model of the desired (or even any) culture or
framework for the future of the organisation is likely to acclimatise happily into the current culture and
never mind how socialisation is done, they will not effect change within the organisation. However, this
does have implications for recruitment as it shows that it is not enough for someone to have worked
within an alternative culture. If the objective of recruiting new individuals is to enable the development
of a new culture through the acquisition of new knowledge and norms, the potential employee will
have to not only have had experience of the desired culture, but also have strong beliefs of its
importance and the need to replicate it. Otherwise, they will merely adopt their new organisational
culture and have no impact upon it.
Where the individual has strong mental models and there is a weak culture there is a real possibility of
change, but only where the organisation fosters the change carefully through well managed learning
processes that lead to the acquisition of appropriate new knowledge. The individual will need to feel
that they have support to make the changes and the appropriate socialisation systems will need to be
adopted. From the three examples it can be seen that different socialisation tactics are needed for
different outcomes and there are serious implications for managers to consider when using such
tactics to engender change.
9
Figure 3: The potential of an individual to withdraw during socialisation.
In Scenario 1 the socialisation process with the highest likelihood of success can be characterised as
having tactics that are collective, formal, fixed, sequential, investiture, and serial. The use of any
tactics from the other end of the continuum will have an insignificant effect on the likelihood of change.
In Scenario 2 the socialisation process with the highest likelihood of success can be characterised as
having tactics that are collective, formal, fixed, sequential, investiture, and serial. Notwithstanding this,
the use of tactics drawn from the other end of the continuum are likely to delay, rather than hinder,
changes in customer orientation. In Scenario 3 the socialisation process with the highest likelihood of
success can be characterised as having tactics that are individual, fixed, random, investiture, and
disjunctive. There is no significant difference whether formal or informal tactics are used. The degree
to which the newcomer can influence the organisational culture (usually based around seniority in the
organisation or standing in the profession/occupation) is also a key factor in both Scenario 1 and
Scenario 3.
Where there are strong mental models and a strong culture, change is unlikely. The new employee
can develop and strengthen an existing culture but changing it will be much more difficult. Here, again,
the degree to which the newcomer can influence the organisational culture is also a key factor in both
Scenario 1 and Scenario 3.
The stage at which newcomers are exposed to the cultural norms of the organisation is also likely to
impact on the success of the socialisation strategy. Certain tactics will delay exposure of the
newcomer to the organisation’s mental model until the acquisition stage while others will expose the
newcomer at the encounter stage. By understanding the connection between the mix of socialisation
tactics and the stage of socialisation organisations can identify the points at which the newcomer is
likely to confront ‘culture shock’ and cognitive dissonance. The organisation can then proactively
manage newcomer expectations at the appropriate stage, fostering new knowledge development as
appropriate. Where the newcomer has been recruited to engender change behavioural reinforcement
techniques can be applied in a timely manner.
The scenarios highlight a number of other issues associated with the use of differing socialisation
tactics. The successful use of a collective socialisation tactic appears to rely heavily on the level of
homogeneity within the group. Too much diversity will likely have a negative effect on knowledge
sharing. The successful use of a serial socialisation tactic appears to rely on the level of congruence
of the mental models of the experienced organisation member and the newcomer unless one of them
has a weak mental model. The use of the divestiture socialisation tactic is likely to be successful only
where the newcomer has a weak mental model. Where this is used there will need to be additional
strategies adopted to strengthen the newcomer’s mental model congruent with that of the
organisation.
10
Conclusions
The scenarios discussed above show that different socialisation tactics are needed for a successful
knowledge development outcome in different contexts. There are serious implications for HRD
managers to consider when trying to harness new knowledge to engender change as the stronger the
individual’s mental models prior to organisational entry, the higher the disposition to withdrawal –
whether the culture is strong or weak. Consequently it will be important to understand the employees
expectation of their new role and their likelihood to be comfortable with the mental models they are
going to encounter.
It has been demonstrated that the use of socialisation tactics that feature formal, fixed and investiture
dimensions have the highest likelihood of success – regardless of the existing situation, in order to
ensure that the new knowledge is accepted within the culture and is not withheld by the individual. It
has also been shown that, in relation to some of the socialisation tactics, further strategies will need to
be put in place to strengthen existing or new mental models.
REFERENCES
Argyris, C & Schon, D. (1996). Organizational Learning II: Theory, Method and Practice. Reading,
Mass.: Addison Wesley.
Ashforth, B.K. and Saks, A.M. (1996). ‘Socialization tactics: Longitudinal effects on newcomer
adjustment’. Academy of Management Journal, 39 (1): 149-138.
Baker, E.L. (1980). ‘Managing Organizational Culture’. Management Review, July, 8-13.
Beer, M. and Nohria, N. 2000. ‘Cracking the Code of Change’. Harvard Business Review, May-June,
133-141.
Bender, D.R. (1998). "Knowledge Management Makes Information Work", Washington Business
Journal, Vol. 17 No. 6, pp.35-36.
Blackman, D.A., (2001). 'Does a Learning Organisation Facilitate Knowledge Acquisition and
Transfer?'
Electronic
Journal
of
Radical
Organization
Theory,
February,
7,
2.
www.mngt.waikato.ac.nz/ejrot/Vol7_1/blackman.pdf#search=%22deborah%20blackman%20ejrot%22
Blackman, D. (2004). ‘How Developing Mental Models Can Develop Stagnation’. SAM/IFSAM VIIth
World Congress in Göteborg, Sweden 2004.
Blackman, D.A. (2005)
Blackman, D.A. and Henderson, S. (2004) ‘How Foresight Creates Unforeseen Futures: The Role of
Doubting’ Futures, 36 (2): 253-266.
Botha , D.F. (2000), "A Conceptual Framework for the Management of Knowledge in a knowledgebased enterprise", South African Journal of Business Management, Vol. 31 No. 4, pp. 141-148.
Carr, A. 1997. The Learning Organization: New Lessons/Thinking for the Management of Change and
Management Development?. Journal of Management Development, April 16 (4): 224-232.
Chaharbaghi, K. and Newman, V., 1996. Innovating: Towards an Integrated Learning Model.
Management Decision, July, 34 (4): 5-14.
Chao, G.T., O'Leary-Kelly, A.M., Wolf, S., Klein, H.J and Gardner, P.D. (1994). ‘Organizational
Socialization: Its Content and Consequences’. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79 (5): 730-743,
Chatman, J.A., (1991) Matching People and Organizations: Selection and Socialization in Public
Accounting Firms, Administrative Science Quarterly, 36, 459-484.
Clegg, S., 1999. 'Globalizing the Intelligent Organization: Learning Organizations, Smart Workers, (not
so) Clever Countries and the Sociological Imagination'. Management Learning, September, 30 (3):
259-280.
Clute, P.W., 1999. ‘Change at an Oil Refinery: Toward the Creation of a Learning Organization’.
Human Resource Planning, June, 22 (2): 24-34.
Coopey, J., (1995). 'The Learning Organization, Power, Politics and Ideology.' Management Learning,
26, 2, 193-213.
Davenport, T.H., Thomas, R.J. and Cantrell, S. (2002). ‘The Mysterious Art and Science of
Knowledge-Worker Performance, Sloan Management Review, 44 (1): 23-30.
Davison, G. and Blackman, D.A. (2005). ‘The Role of Mental Models in the Development of
Knowledge Management Systems’. International Journal of Organisational Behaviour. 10 (6):
http://www.usq.edu.au/resources/davisonblackmanvol10no6.pdf, Accessed 1/11/06.
De Geus, A. (1997), The Living Company. Harvard Business Review, March/April, Vol. 5, No. 2: 5159.
11
Denison, D., 2001 ‘Organizational Culture: Can it be a Key Lever for Driving Organizational Change?’.
In Cooper, C.L., Cartwright, S and Earley, P.C., The International Handbook of Organizational Culture
and Climate, John Wiley and Sons Ltd, Chichester, 346-372.
Dixon, N.M., (1997). 'The Hallways of Learning'. Organizational Dynamics, Spring, 25, 4, 23-35.
Feldman, D.C., (1976) A Contingency Theory of Socialization. Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol.
21, 433-452.
Feldman, D.C., (1981) The Multiple Socialization of Organization Members. Academy of Management
Review, 6, 309-318.
Flynn, F.J and Chatman, J.A., 2001 Strong Cultures and Innovation: Oxymoron or Opportunity?. In
Cooper, C.L., Cartwright, S and Earley, P.C., The International Handbook of Organizational Culture
and Climate, John Wiley and Sons Ltd, Chichester, 263-287.
Hall, B.P., 2001 ‘Values Development and Learning Organizations’. Journal of Knowledge
Management, 5 (1), 19-32.
Harris, L.C. and Crane, A., 2002 ‘The Greening of Organizational Culture: Management Views on the
Depth, Degree and Diffusion of Change’. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 15 (3), 214234.
Higgins, J.M. and McAllaster, C., 2002 ‘Want Innovation: Then Use Cultural Artifacts that Support it’.
Organizational Dynamics, 31 (1), 74-84.
Ho, W. 1999.’Organizational Transformation for Service Excellence in a Public Hospital in Hong Kong’.
Managing Service Quality, 9 (6): 383-388.
Jones, G.R., (1986) Socialization Tactics, Self-Efficacy, and Newcomers’ Adjustments to
Organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 29, 2, 262 – 279.
Kilmann, R.H., Saxton, M.J., and Serpa. R., (1986) Five Key Issues in Understanding and Changing
Culture, in Kilmann, R.H., Saxton, M.J., and Serpa. R., Gaining Control of the Corporate Culture,
Jossey-Bass Publishers, San Francisco, 1-16.
Kim, D.H., (1993). 'The Link between Individual and Organizational Learning'. Sloan Management
Review, Fall, 37-49.
Louis, M.R., (1990) Acculturation in the Workplace: Newcomers as Lay Ethnographers, in Schneider,
B., Organizational Culture and Climate, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers, pp. 85 – 129.
Nomikos, G.E. (1989), "Managing Knowledge Workers for Productivity", National Productivity Review,
Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 165-174.
O’Reilly III, C.A., Chatman, J. and Caldwell, D.F. (1991). ‘People and organizational culture: a profile
comparison approach to assessing person-organization fit’. Academy of Management Journal, 34 (3):
487-516.
Palekar, P. (2006). ‘Knowledge Acquisition through Selection’. IIMB Management Review, 18 (1): 2736.
Porter, L.W., Lawler, E.E. and Hackman, R.J. (1975) Behavior in Organizations, New York, McGrawHill.
Ross, N., 2002. ‘Cognitive Aspects of Intergenerational Change: Mental Models, Cultural Change, and
Environmental Behaviour Among the Lancandon Maya of Southern Mexico’. Human Organization,
Summer, 61 (2): 125-140.
Rowley, J., 2000 ‘From Learning Organisation to Knowledge Entrepreneur’. Journal of Knowledge
Management, 4 (1), 7-15.
Roy, M.C., Falardeau, J. and Pelletier, C. (2001), "Support Systems for Knowledge Workers: The
Need for new Development Approaches", Journal of Knowledge Management Practice, August, Vol. 2,
<www.tlainc.com/articl24.htm>.
Schein, E.H., (1986) How Culture Forms, Develops, and Changes in Kilmann, R.H., Saxton, M.J., and
Serpa. R., Gaining Control of the Corporate Culture, Jossey-Bass Publishers, San Francisco. 17-43.
Schein, E. 1990. ‘Organizational Culture’. American Psychologist, February, 45 (2): 109-119.
Schraeder, M. and Self, D.R., (2003) Enhancing the Success of Mergers and Acquisitions: An
Organizational Culture Perspective. Management Decision, Vol. 41, No. 5/6, 511-522.
Senge, P., 1990. The Fifth Discipline. Doubleday Dell, NY.
Smircich, L., 1983. 'Concepts of Culture and Organizational Analysis. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 28: 339-358.
Smith, M.E., 2002. ‘The importance and challenge of managing the business culture’. Supervision,
May, 63 (5): 12-13.
Sorensen, J.B., 2002 ‘The strength of corporate culture and the reliability of firm performance’.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 47, 70-91.
12
Swaab, R.I., Postems, T., Neijens, P., Kiers, M.H. and Dumay, A.C.M., (2002). ‘Multiparty Negotiation
Support: The Role of Visualization’s Influence on the Development of Shared Mental Models’. Journal of
Management Information Systems, Summer, 19, 1, 129-150.
Teece, D. Pisano, G. and Shuen, A. (1997), Dynamic capabilities and strategic management.
Strategic Management Journal Vol.18, No.7: 509-533.
Tran, V., 1998 ‘The Role of the Emotional Climate in Learning Organisations’. The Learning
Organisation, 5 (2), 99-103.
Van Maanen, J, (1976) Breaking-In: Socialization to Work, in Dubin, R., Handbook of Work,
Organization, and Society, Chicago: Rand McNally and Company, 67 – 130.
Van Maanen, J. and Schein, E.H., (1979) Toward a Theory of Organizational Socialization, in Staw,
B., Research in Organizational Behaviour, Vol. 1, Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, 209 – 264.
Yost, A.D and Lucas, MS. (2002) ‘Adjustment issues affecting employment for immigrants from the
former soviet union’. Journal of Employment Counselling, 39 (4): 153170.
13