Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences
Revue canadienne des sciences de l’administration
28: 14–26 (2011)
Published online 7 September 2010 in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com). DOI: 10.1002/CJAS.169
Organizational Socialization and Positive
Organizational Behaviour: Implications for
Theory, Research, and Practice
Alan M. Saks*
Jamie A. Gruman
University of Toronto
University of Guelph
Abstract
The purpose of this paper is to advocate a shift in research
and practice on organizational socialization towards one
based on positive organizational behaviour (POB). First,
we demonstrate how the prevailing perspectives of organizational socialization are based on a cognitive-learning
process that emphasizes information and knowledge acquisition. We then review the literature on POB and psychological capital (PsyCap) and argue that socialization
processes should be designed to develop the PsyCap of
newcomers. We offer a new approach to organizational
socialization called socialization resources theory (SRT)
and describe four broad socialization resources that can be
used to develop newcomers’ self-efficacy, hope, optimism,
and resilience. Finally, we discuss the implications of this
approach for research and practice on organizational
socialization. Copyright © 2010 ASAC. Published by John
Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Résumé
Le but de cet article est de préconiser que l’on passe d’une
recherche et d’une pratique axée sur la socialisation organisationnelle vers une recherche fondée sur le comportement
organisationnel positif (POB). Nous commençons par
montrer que les perspectives dominantes de socialisation organisationnelle sont fondées sur un processus
d’apprentissage cognitif qui met l’accent sur l’information
et l’acquisition des connaissances. Nous passons ensuite en
revue les publications antérieures sur le POB et le capital
psychologique (PsyCap) et soutenons que les processus de
socialisation devraient être conçus pour développer le
PsyCap des nouveaux venus. Nous proposons une nouvelle
approche à la socialisation organisationnelle appelé la
Théorie des ressources de socialisation (SRT) et décrivons
quatre ressources de socialisation qui peuvent être utilisées
pour cultiver l’auto-efficacité, l’espoir, l’optimisme et la
résilience de nouveaux venus. Enfin nous discutons des
implications de cette approche pour la recherche de socialisation et la pratique. Copyright © 2010 ASAC. Published
by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
JEL Classification: D23
Keywords: socialization, on-boarding, newcomer, POB,
psychological capital
Mots-clés : socialisation, accueil et intégration, nouveaux
employés, POB. Capital psychologique
Organizational socialization “is the process by which
an individual comes to appreciate the values, abilities,
expected behaviors, and social knowledge essential for
assuming an organizational role and for participating as an
organizational member” (Louis, 1980, pp. 229–230).
During the socialization process, newcomers acquire information and knowledge about their jobs, roles, work groups,
and the organization that is necessary for them to participate and function as successful members of their organization (Haueter, Macan, & Winter, 2003; Morrison,
1993a).
As described by Ashforth, Sluss, and Harrison (2007),
socialization is important because it enables newcomers to
discover what the organization is about, why it is important,
and their place within in it; it facilitates work adjustment;
and it can influence the long-term success and the career of
newcomers. Organizational socialization is also one of the
primary ways that an organization’s culture is transmitted
*Please address correspondence to: Alan M. Saks, Centre for Industrial
Relations and Human Resources, University of Toronto, 121 St. George
Street, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5S 2E8. Email: saks@utsc.utoronto.ca
Copyright © 2010 ASAC. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
14
Can J Adm Sci
28(1), 14–26 (2011)
ORGANIZATIONAL SOCIALIZATION AND POSITIVE ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOUR
and maintained and it can have a lasting effect on employees’ attitudes and behaviours (Bauer, Morrison, & Callister,
1998).
Given the increased mobility of the workforce over the
last decade, organizational socialization has become more
important than ever. According to Bauer, Bodner, Erdogan,
Truxillo, and Tucker (2007), “new employee socialization
or ‘onboarding’ is a key issue for organizations and newcomers alike as individuals undergo socialization more
often in their careers and organizations deal with newcomers more often because of elastic personnel needs” (p. 707).
In addition, given the increasing concerns about labour
shortages as well as employee engagement and retention,
socialization has become an important component of the
management and retention of talent.
Although there has been a dramatic increase in organizational socialization research over the past decade, it has
been dominated by cognitive models that emphasize information and learning. Ashforth, Sluss, and Harrison (2007)
described “making sense of the new situation and learning
the expected capabilities” as the heart of socialization
(p. 41).
We believe that the emphasis of socialization research
on information and learning is too narrow given the current
challenges facing employees and organizations. Organizations today are facing an array of challenges like never
before—global competition, new technology, economic
uncertainty and a volatile economy, labour shortages, internal restructuring, and the recruitment and retention of talent.
As a result, new hires need to be able to work and prosper
in organizations facing enormous pressures and difficulties.
Today’s fast-paced and competitive environment means that
socialization programs have to do more than provide newcomers with abundant information (Rollag, Parise, & Cross,
2005).
We offer a new approach to organizational socialization
that will prepare new hires for the challenges facing organizations today. Along these lines, we consider a positive
organizational behaviour (POB) perspective of organizational socialization and try to answer the question, “What
would organizational socialization look like through the
lens of POB?” We believe that considering socialization
from the perspective of POB can provide a richer and
broader approach to organizational socialization theory,
research, and practice.
In this paper we review current perspectives of organizational socialization followed by a discussion of POB and
psychological capital (PsyCap) and its relevance for organizational socialization. We then present a new approach to
organizational socialization that we call socialization
resources theory (SRT), which describes how socialization
resources can be used to develop newcomers’ psychological
capital. The paper concludes with a discussion of the implications of this approach for socialization research and
practice.
Copyright © 2010 ASAC. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
SAKS & GRUMAN
Current Perspectives of Organizational Socialization
Organizational socialization has been viewed primarily
as a cognitive-learning process that involves information
and knowledge acquisition. Early reviews of organizational
socialization described it primarily as a learning process
(Fisher, 1986) and the most recent review described learning as the “heart of socialization” (Ashforth, Sluss, &
Harrison, 2007). Thus, the prevailing perspective of organizational socialization has not changed much over the last
25 years.
One of the earliest examples of the information approach
to organizational socialization is research on unrealistic
expectations and realistic job previews. According to stage
models of socialization, when newcomers enter organizations they often find that their expectations are not met and
they experience a reality shock (Ashforth, Sluss, & Harrison, 2007). The primary focus of this approach to socialization is to provide applicants with accurate information in
the form of a realistic job preview prior to organizational
entry.
According to Louis (1980), newcomers have much
more to contend with than unmet expectations. She described
organizational entry as a sensemaking process in which
newcomers make sense of the changes, contrasts, and surprises they encounter in new and unfamiliar organizational
settings. The sensemaking model focuses on the cognitive
processes that newcomers need to employ as a means of
coping with surprise and novelty. Sensemaking is a cognitive process in which newcomers interpret and impute
meanings to surprises through interactions with insiders,
attributions, and the alteration of cognitive scripts. As noted
by Louis, this requires information for “amending internal
cognitive maps and for attaching meaning to such surprises
as may arise during early job experiences” so that newcomers develop accurate internal maps of the organizational
setting (p. 244). Thus, sensemaking involves processing
information provided to and obtained by newcomers (Ashforth, Sluss, & Harrison, 2007). On the basis of this perspective, “socialization practices should be developed that help
provide newcomers with insiders’ situation-specific interpretations and setting-specific interpretive schemes” (Louis,
1980, p. 248).
Socialization has often been conceived as a process of
uncertainty reduction. Uncertainty reduction theory holds
that, “newcomers desire to increase the predictability of
interactions between themselves and others within the new
organization” (Bauer et al., 2007, p. 708). Bauer et al.
(2007) used uncertainty reduction as a theoretical basis for
their model of newcomer information seeking and organizational socialization tactics. Similarly, Saks, Uggerslev,
and Fassina (2007) used uncertainty reduction theory as the
basis for their mediation model of socialization tactics and
newcomer adjustment, arguing “the theoretical and conceptual underpinning of socialization tactics is that they provide
15
Can J Adm Sci
28(1), 14–26 (2011)
ORGANIZATIONAL SOCIALIZATION AND POSITIVE ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOUR
newcomers with information that can reduce their uncertainty surrounding the entry process” (p. 418). Uncertainty
reduction theory is also the basis for research on newcomer
information seeking and proactivity (Miller & Jablin, 1991;
Morrison, 1993a, 1993b).
One of the best-developed theoretical models of organizational socialization is Van Maanen and Schein’s (1979)
typology of socialization tactics (Ashforth & Saks, 1996).
Van Maanen and Schein defined socialization tactics as “the
ways in which the experiences of individuals in transition
from one role to another are structured for them by others
in the organization” (p. 230). In their theory of organizational socialization, Van Maanen and Schein (1979) identified six tactical dimensions and described how they influence
whether a newcomer adopts a custodial, content-innovative,
or role-innovative orientation. Jones (1986) argued that Van
Maanen and Schein’s six tactics form a gestalt called institutionalized socialization (collective, formal, sequential,
fixed, serial, and investiture tactics), while the opposite end
of each tactic forms a gestalt called individualized socialization (individual, informal, random, variable, disjunctive,
and divestiture tactics).
In effect, what socialization tactics do is shape the
information that newcomers receive (Jones, 1986). Institutionalized tactics provide newcomers with information that
reduces the uncertainty inherent in early work experiences
and reflects a more structured and formalized socialization
process. Individualized socialization reflects an absence of
information and structure such that newcomers are socialized more by default than design. The theoretical and conceptual underpinning of socialization tactics is that they
provide newcomers with information that can reduce their
uncertainty surrounding the entry process (Jones, 1986).
Indeed, it has been argued that, “the major reason firms use
institutionalized tactics is to remove some of the uncertainty
of a new environment by offering information that guides
employees’ behaviours” (Kim, Cable, & Kim, 2005, p. 235).
One of the most important developments in the socialization literature in the past 20 years has been a focus on
how newcomers can be actively involved in their own
socialization through proactive behaviours to obtain information. A fundamental characteristic of this research is recognition of the role of information and what newcomers can
do to obtain the information they require (Morrison, 1993a,
1993b) as well as the need for newcomers to seek and obtain
information in an effort to reduce uncertainty (Miller &
Jablin, 1991). Morrison (1993a, 1993b) found that newcomers used monitoring more frequently than inquiry, they used
different modes and sources of information seeking for different types of information, and the frequency of information seeking was related to proximal and distal socialization
outcomes.
As described by Ashforth, Sluss, and Harrison (2007),
“research on newcomer proactivity explores the means by
which newcomers actively seek information about their
Copyright © 2010 ASAC. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
SAKS & GRUMAN
work environment and their role and performance within it
as a means of reducing uncertainty” (p. 22). Research on
newcomer proactivity has found that individual differences
and contextual variables predict proactive behaviour, and
proactivity is related to proximal and distal socialization
outcomes (Ashforth, Sluss, & Harrison, 2007).
Related to the acquisition of information has been
research on what newcomers’ learn and the development of
measures of learning content. Chao, O’Leary-Kelly, Wolf,
Klein, and Gardner (1994) developed a measure of socialization learning that consists of six dimensions (performance proficiency, people, politics, language, organizational
goals and values, and history). More recently, Haueter et al.
(2003) developed and validated a content measure of organizational socialization called the Newcomer Socialization
Questionnaire (NSQ). The scale measures three dimensions
of newcomer socialization (the organization, group, and the
job/task), and was designed to address the shortcomings and
concerns of the Chao et al. (1994) scale. As noted by Haueter
et al., “each component consists of acquiring knowledge
about the dimension and acquiring knowledge about appropriate role behaviours associated with the dimension”
(p. 23).
At the core of this approach is research that treats learning as a key proximal outcome of socialization. A number
of studies have shown that socialization processes such as
orientation training, socialization tactics, mentoring, and
proactive behaviours are related to socialization learning,
which mediates the relationship between socialization processes and adjustment (Allen, McManus, & Russell, 1999;
Ashforth, Sluss, & Saks, 2007; Cooper-Thomas & Anderson, 2002; Klein & Weaver, 2000). So pervasive is this
approach to socialization that Ashforth, Sluss, and Harrision
(2007) argued that learning is central to the socialization
process:
For socialization to effectively bring the newcomer into
the fold, the newcomer should come to know and understand (i.e., learn) the norms, values, tasks, and roles that
typify group and organizational membership. As such,
newcomer learning lies at the heart of any organizational
socialization model (p. 16).
In summary, the prevailing perspective of organizational socialization has revolved around the newcomers’
ability to acquire and assimilate knowledge and information
in order to lower uncertainty and to learn. This perspective
of organizational socialization is shown in Saks and Ashforth’s (1997) multilevel process model of organizational
socialization in which cognitive sensemaking via information, uncertainty reduction, and learning intervenes between
socialization factors and socialization outcomes. As
described by Saks and Ashforth, “the focus of the model is
information and learning which is consistent with recent
research showing that organizational socialization is primarily a learning process” (p. 238). Similarly, Ashforth, Sluss,
16
Can J Adm Sci
28(1), 14–26 (2011)
ORGANIZATIONAL SOCIALIZATION AND POSITIVE ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOUR
and Harrision’s (2007) integrative model also places socialization content/learning as a mediating variable between
socialization processes and newcomer adjustment. According to the authors, “content appears to offer tremendous
potential as the major linchpin between socialization processes and short- and long-term newcomer adjustment”
(p. 31). Furthermore, the evidence suggests that most organizations use an informational approach to orienting new
hires and that managers view the on-boarding process primarily as a means of providing newcomers with information
(Rollag et al., 2005).
While learning is undoubtedly an important and essential part of the socialization process and has, in fact, driven
much of the socialization research to date, we believe that
a new focus is required given the demands and challenges
facing employees and organizations today. When viewed as
a cognitive-learning process, the focus of on-boarding and
socialization programs is the provision of information and
opportunities to acquire information. However, given the
increasing emphasis on talent management, employee
engagement, and employee retention combined with labour
shortages and increasing competition, we believe that the
on-boarding-socialization process must involve much more
than information and learning. In the following sections, we
discuss a new approach to organizational socialization
based on the emerging literature and research on positive
organizational behaviour (POB).
mance outcomes including creativity, learning, entrepreneurship, and leadership (Luthans & Youssef, 2007).
In a recent meta-analysis, Bauer et al. (2007) reported
that socialization tactics, but not information seeking, were
positively related to self-efficacy, and that self-efficacy was
related to several adjustment outcomes. Gruman, Saks, and
Zweig (2006) found that newcomers with higher selfefficacy engaged in proactive behaviours more frequently
and also found that self-efficacy was related to both proximal (e.g. social integration) and distal (e.g. job satisfaction)
socialization outcomes.
Hope
Snyder, Rand, and Sigmon (2005) defined hope as the
belief that people can discover pathways to their goals
(pathways thinking) and find the motivation to use the pathways (agentic thinking). Conceptually similar to selfefficacy, hope is distinguished by the equal importance
placed on two forms of thinking (Luthans, 2002a) and the
fact that self-efficacy concerns situation-specific goals
whereas hope includes cross-situational goals (Snyder et al.,
2005). Although hope has trait-like characteristics, it is also
state-like in that it is connected to the ongoing events people
experience (Snyder, Sympson, Ybasco, Borders, Babyak, &
Higgins, 1996). Luthans and Jensen (2002) cited research
demonstrating a relationship between hope and profitability,
retention, and higher levels of employee commitment and
satisfaction.
Positive Organizational Behaviour
Positive organizational behaviour (POB) has been
defined as “the study and application of positively oriented
human resource strengths and psychological capacities that
can be measured, developed, and effectively managed for
performance improvement in today’s workplace” (Luthans,
2002a, p. 59). The focus of POB is on positive state-like
capacities that are relatively malleable and thus amenable
to change. Four state-like capacities are the focus of POB
theory and research: self-efficacy, hope, optimism, and
resilience. Luthans and his associates have synthesized the
four states into a multidimensional, higher-order construct
known as psychological capital or PsyCap (Luthans,
Youssef, & Avolio, 2007).
Optimism
Optimism refers to having positive outcome expectancies and/or making positive attributions for events (Luthans,
2002a). Optimists expect good things to happen to them
(Carver & Scheier, 2005) and when they experience bad
events, they make external, specific, and unstable attributions (Buchanan & Seligman, 1995). Because optimism can
lead to meaningless pursuits or unrealistic goals, and because
in some circumstances mild pessimism can be advantageous, the focus of POB is on realistic and flexible optimism
(Luthans, 2002a). Optimism differs from hope in that optimism does not address pathways thinking, and includes
expectancies about outcomes achieved via forces outside
one’s self (Luthans & Jensen, 2002; Luthans & Youssef,
2007). Employee optimism is associated with leadership
style (DeHoogh & Den Hartog, 2008) and is positively
related to organizational outcomes including employee
retention (Seligman & Shulman, 1986) and sales performance (Corr & Gray, 1996).
Self-Efficacy
Based on original work by Bandura (1997), Luthans
defined self-efficacy as “an individual’s conviction (or confidence) about his or her abilities to mobilize the motivation,
cognitive resources, and courses of action needed to successfully execute a specific task within a given context”
(Stajkovic & Luthans, 1998, p. 66). The focus in POB is on
state self-efficacy, which is malleable, unlike general efficacy, which is trait-like (Luthans, 2002b). Self-efficacy is
positively associated with a number of work-related perfor-
Copyright © 2010 ASAC. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
SAKS & GRUMAN
Resilience
Resilience involves maintaining positive adjustment,
coping successfully, and bouncing back when facing chal-
17
Can J Adm Sci
28(1), 14–26 (2011)
ORGANIZATIONAL SOCIALIZATION AND POSITIVE ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOUR
lenging conditions, including those involving positive
change (Luthans, 2002b; Luthans & Youssef, 2007). Luthans
and Youssef (2007) noted that in POB the conceptualization
of resilience includes a proactive, discrepancy-creationdimension, and focuses on the adaptive use of assets to
address risks and on the interplay between the risks one
faces and one’s repertoire of assets. In their review of the
research on resilience, Sutcliffe and Vogus (2003) suggested that resilience is derived from at least two foundational elements: adequate resources and an active mastery
motivation system.
Masten and Reed (2005) suggested that resilience can
be promoted by preventing or reducing risks (risk-focused
strategies), improving the number or quality of resources or
social capital (asset-focused strategies), or mobilizing
human adaptational systems (process focused strategies).
Through a process of training, knowledge development, role
modelling, and recovering from mistakes, a sense of competence develops, which allows individuals to better cope
with novel or challenging situations and persevere when
confronted with difficulties (Sutcliffe & Vogus, 2003).
In summary, we believe that PsyCap and the four constructs that comprise it represent important proximal outcomes of organizational socialization that are highly relevant
for newcomers and are in fact antecedents of traditional
socialization outcomes. In the next section, we describe a
new approach to organizational socialization based on POB.
Organizational Socialization and Positive
Organizational Behaviour
POB provides a new and exciting approach to organizational socialization in terms of theory, research, and practice. Firstly, PsyCap is positively related to work outcomes
that have long been considered traditional evaluative criteria
of organizational socialization practices such as job performance, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment
(Luthans, Avolio, Avey, & Norman, 2007). Secondly, there
have been calls to study the more proximal outcomes of
socialization that may mediate socialization effects on more
distal work related outcomes (Ashforth, Sluss, & Harrision,
2007; Bauer et al., 1998). Thirdly, and perhaps most importantly, each of the PsyCap constructs contribute positively
to one’s psychological well-being and therefore merit study
for that reason alone (Xanthopoulou, Bakker, Demerouti, &
Schaufeli, 2009).
But how can socialization programs best be designed
to develop newcomers’ PsyCap? As described below, the
Job Demands-Resources (JD-R) model provides a theoretical basis for developing a socialization theory for building
each of the PsyCap constructs.
PsyCap Development and Work Outcomes
Luthans, Avey, Avolio, Norman, and Combs (2006)
reported the results of three studies demonstrating that short,
micro-interventions have been effective in building PsyCap
in management students and practicing managers by up to
three percent. More recently, Luthans, Avey, and Patera
(2008) demonstrated that a two-hour, web-based training
intervention was successful in building PsyCap among a
cross section of working adults.
PsyCap of employees relates positively to work outcomes such as supervisory ratings of performance (Luthans,
Avey, Clapp-Smith, & Li, 2008). Clapp-Smith, Vogelgesang, and Avey (2009) found that PsyCap of sales agents
related to sales-growth performance, mediated by trust in
management. Moreover, CEO PsyCap (excluding the selfefficacy component) has been shown to relate positively to
firm performance, mediated by transformational leadership
(Peterson, Walumbwa, Byron, & Myrowitz, 2009).
PsyCap is also positively associated with organizational citizenship behaviour (Gooty, Gavin, Johnson,
Frazier, & Snow, 2009), job satisfaction, organizational
commitment, and has been shown to fully mediate the relationship between supportive organizational climate and performance (Luthans, Norman, Avoilo, & Avey, 2008).
Additionally, overall PsyCap appears to have a more consistent relationship with performance and job satisfaction
than do the individual variables of which it is composed
(Luthans, Avolio, Avey, & Norman, 2007). As noted by
Luthans, Youssef, and Avolio (2007), the impact of overall
PsyCap on work outcomes is likely greater than its individual components.
Copyright © 2010 ASAC. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
SAKS & GRUMAN
Job Demands-Resources (JD-R) Model
According to the JD-R model, the work environment
can be divided into demands and resources. Job demands
refer to physical, psychological, social, or organizational
features of a job that require sustained physical and/or psychological effort from an employee that can result in physiological and/or psychological costs. Common job demands
include work overload, job insecurity, role ambiguity, and
role conflict. Job resources refer to physical, psychological,
social, or organizational features of a job that are functional
in that they help achieve work goals, reduce job demands,
and stimulate personal growth, learning, and development.
Job resources can come from the organization (e.g., pay,
career opportunties, job security), interpersonal and social
relations (supervisor and coworker support, team climate),
the organization of work (e.g., role clarity, participation in
decision making), and from the task itself (e.g., skill variety,
task identify, task significance, automonmy, performance
feedback) (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007).
The basic premise of the JD-R model is that high job
demands exhaust employees’ physical and mental resources
and lead to health problems and a depletion of energy. Job
18
Can J Adm Sci
28(1), 14–26 (2011)
ORGANIZATIONAL SOCIALIZATION AND POSITIVE ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOUR
resources are motivational and can lead to positive attitudes,
behaviour, and well-being (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007).
The motivational potential of job resources can be intrinsic
because they facilitate growth, learning, and development,
or extrinsic because they are instrumental for achieving
work goals (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007). Job resources are
also important because they help individuals cope with job
demands and buffer the effect of job demands on job strain
(Bakker & Demerouti, 2007).
Research on the JD-R model has found support for the
links between job resources and positive outcomes as well
as between job demands and negative outcomes. In particular, job demands are positively related to burnout and health
problems while job resources positively predict work
engagement, extra-role performance, and organizational
commitment (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007). In addition,
some research links job resources and job demands to personal resources, which “are aspects of the self that are generally linked to resilience and refer to individual’s sense of
their ability to control and impact upon their environment
successfully” (Xanthopoulou, Bakker, Demerouti, &
Schaufeli, 2007, p. 124), and which include two of the
constructs that comprise PsyCap, self-efficacy, and optimism as well as organization-based self-esteem (Pierce,
Gardner, Cummings, & Dunham, 1989). According to Xanthopoulou et al. (2009), personal resources parallel the
concept of psychological capital and have been found to
mediate the relationship between job resources (autonomy,
social support, supervisory coaching, and opportunities for
professional development) and work engagement and
exhaustion (Xanthopoulou et al., 2007).
Within the framework of the JD-R model, socialization
programs can be helpful to developing PsyCap and in this
sense equip new hires with the resources that will serve
them well in adapting to job and organizational demands.
In the next section, we describe resources potentially offered
during socialization that could be instrumental to develop-
SAKS & GRUMAN
ing self-efficacy, optimism, hope, and resilience. We refer
to this approach as socialization resources theory (SRT).
Our discussion of SRT focuses on the development of the
individual constructs that comprise PsyCap, which is consistent with prior work (e.g., Luthans et al., 2006; Luthans,
Avey, & Patera, 2008). However, in-line with Luthans,
Youssef, and Avolio’s (2007) suggestion that PsyCap may
be greater than the sum of its constituent parts, we suggest
that the individual constructs operate synergistically and
that overall PsyCap may demonstrate the strongest relationship with socialization outcomes.
Socialization Resources Theory (SRT)
Figure 1 presents a model of socialization resources
(i.e., orientation training, task characteristics, social support,
and leadership), PsyCap, and socialization outcomes. It
shows that socialization resources nourish the four constituent components of PsyCap, and that PsyCap partially mediates the influence of socialization resources on socialization
outcomes. Table 1 presents a summary of the processes
through which socialization resources can promote the
development of the four PsyCap components.
Orientation training
Formal orientation training programs are considered to
be the main socialization process for many newcomers
(Saks & Ashforth, 1997). According to Klein and Weaver
(2000), “orientation programs are a form of employee training designed to introduce new employees to their job, the
people they will be working with, and the larger organization” (p.48). Most organizations provide new hires with
some form of formal orientation training (Wanous & Reichers, 2000). Although orientation training programs are positively associated with desired socialization outcomes (Klein
Figure 1.
A model of socialization resources, psychological capital, and socialization outcomes
Socialization Resources
1. Orientation training
2. Task characteristics
3. Social support
4. Leadership
Copyright © 2010 ASAC. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Psychological Capital
1. Self-efficacy
2. Hope
3. Optimism
4. Resilience
19
Socialization Outcomes
1. Job satisfaction
2. Organizational
commitment
3. Turnover
4. Job performance
Can J Adm Sci
28(1), 14–26 (2011)
ORGANIZATIONAL SOCIALIZATION AND POSITIVE ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOUR
SAKS & GRUMAN
Table 1
Processes through which Socialization Resources Promote the Four Constructs Comprising Psychological Capital
(PsyCap)
Socialization Resource
Process
PsyCap
Orientation and training
Practice, feedback, role modeling
Practice, feedback role modeling, ROPES principles
ROPES principles
Self-efficacy
Hope, optimism
Resilience
Task characteristics
Skill variety, task identity, task significance, autonomy, feedback
Feedback, autonomy skill variety, task identity, task significance,
feedback
Self-efficacy
Hope, resilience optimism
Social support
Role modeling, persuasion, social influence, mentoring,
encouragement
Achieving work goals, mentoring,
Making realistic attributions, mentoring
Overcoming setbacks, mentoring
Self-efficacy
Goal setting, social support, Pygmalion leadership style
Self-efficacy, hope, optimism, resilience
Leadership
& Weaver, 2000; Saks, 1995), they tend to focus solely or
primarily on imparting information (Wanous & Reichers,
2000). For example, orientation programs typically introduce new employees to their job, the people they will be
working with, health and safety issues, terms and conditions
of employment, and the organization itself (Klein & Weaver,
2000; Wanous & Reichers, 2000). That is, they provide
newcomers with lots of information (Klein & Weaver,
2000).
Orientation training programs that contain features
known to enhance self-efficacy (mastery experiences, vicarious learning, social persuasion, and physiological arousal;
Bandura, 1986) are likely to be most effective in strengthening the self-efficacy of new hires. Accordingly, socialization
programs should offer opportunities for practice followed
by feedback and should involve role models and observational learning. Programs designed along these lines are
likely to be effective in developing newcomers’ self-efficacy and to the extent that they increase newcomers’ beliefs
about their potential for success and the achievement of
their work and career goals, training might also aid in the
development of hope and optimism.
Orientation training programs should also be designed
according to the principles of realistic orientation programs
for new employee stress (ROPES). According to Wanous
and Reichers (2000), ROPES are designed to teach coping
skills for the most important stressors that newcomers will
encounter. The basic principles for the design of ROPES
are: (a) inclusion of realistic information that forewarns
newcomers about typical disappointments to expect and
possible adjustment problems, as well as how to cope by
setting goals and taking action; (b) provision of general
support and reassurance; (c) use of the behaviour modelling
Copyright © 2010 ASAC. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Hope
Optimism
Resilience
method of training (use models to show coping skills,
discuss the model’s actions, include behavioural rehearsal
with feedback); (d) teaching self-control of thoughts and
feelings; and (e) targeting specific stressors to specific
newcomers.
ROPES seems especially promising for developing the
resilience of newcomers who will be equipped with emotion-focused and problem-focused coping skills that will
enable them to recover from difficulties and setbacks.
Because ROPES teaches newcomers coping skills for the
major stressors they will encounter, it will also be effective
for buffering the effects of job demands and stressors and
might also aid in developing hope and optimism to the
extent that it facilitates the pursuit and achievement of ones’
goals.
Task Characteristics
A number of task characteristics from Hackman and
Oldham’s (1980) job characteristics model such as skills
variety, task identity, task significance, autonomy, and performance feedback have been shown to be important job
resources in research on the JD-R model (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007). Several studies have found that autonomy/job
control and performance feedback are related to positive
work outcomes (Bakker, Demerouti, & Veerbeke, 2004;
Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004).
In the socialization literature, Katz (1980) noted that
while task significance and feedback are especially important for newcomers during the first three or four months, by
six months all of the job characteristics are important at least
in terms of satisfaction and performance. Colarelli, Dean,
and Konstans (1987) found autonomy and feedback were
20
Can J Adm Sci
28(1), 14–26 (2011)
ORGANIZATIONAL SOCIALIZATION AND POSITIVE ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOUR
positively related to job attitudes and behaviours in a sample
of newly-hired entry-level accountants, and Feldman and
Weitz (1990) found that job design characteristics were
positively related to summer interns’ job attitudes.
Job characteristics might also influence the development of newcomers’ self-efficacy, hope, optimism, and
resilience. For example, feedback can strengthen newcomers’ self-efficacy through encouragement and social persuasion; it can develop hope by providing information
about how well one is meeting goals and facilitating the
achievement of those goals (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007);
it can help newcomers make realistic attributions about
their performance, which helps develop optimism; and it
can help newcomers improve weaknesses and develop
resilience.
Furthermore, skill variety, task identity, task significance, and autonomy can facilitate the development of selfefficacy by enhancing newcomers’ sense of performance
mastery. Autonomy might facilitate the development of
hope and resilience by enabling newcomers to develop
their own methods and approaches for achieving their goals
and resolving difficulties and setbacks. Skill variety, task
identity, and task significance might facilitate the development of optimism to the extent that newcomers can attribute the successful completion of important tasks to
themselves.
However, Katz (1978, 1980) found that newcomers’
receptivity to each of the job characteristics varies according
to the stage of socialization. It is possible then that the influence of job characteristics on the constructs comprising
PsyCap might vary during the first six months of entry. At
any rate, the content and nature of the tasks assigned to
newcomers during their first six months is very likely to
have implications for the development of their self-efficacy,
hope, optimism, and resilience.
stress of newly hired nurses and predicted several adjustment
outcomes. As well, positive relationships between newcomers and insiders are associated with a number of socialization outcomes (Bauer et al., 1998). Similarly, research on
socialization tactics has found that the social tactics are the
strongest predictors of newcomer adjustment (Saks et al.,
2007). Chatman (1991) found that attending firm-sponsored
social events was positively related to person-organization
fit and Rollag et al. (2005) found that the development of a
broad network of relationships with coworkers is a key
factor for the rapid adjustment of newcomers.
Social support has also been identified as a job resource
at the interpersonal and social relations level in the JD-R
model (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007). Research on the JD-R
model has found that social support from one’s supervisor
and coworkers is related to a number of positive work outcomes and negatively related to disengagement and burnout
(Bakker et al., 2004; Demerouti, Bakker, Nachreiner, &
Schaufeli, 2001; Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004). Supervisor
support also buffers the negative effects of job demands
(Bakker et al., 2007).
The relationships newcomers develop at work provide
them with resources such as emotional support, advice, and
help (Baker & Dutton, 2007), which can promote all of the
constructs comprising PsyCap. For example, a supportive
supervisor and coworkers are important sources of selfefficacy enhancing information. They function as role
models, provide encouragement and positive feedback, and
can help the newcomer cope with work demands and mitigate anxiety and stress. Social support is also functional for
achieving work goals and can aid in the development of
hope (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007). Supportive colleagues
can also develop newcomers’ resilience by helping the
newcomer overcome setbacks and difficulties, and supportive supervisors and coworkers can help newcomers make
realistic attributions that ensure the newcomer remains
optimistic.
Many studies have shown that social support in the
form of mentoring is related to positive outcomes among
protégés. Ragins (2007) suggested that as a high-quality
connection, mentoring can promote the four dimensions of
PsyCap. Along these lines, meta-analyses demonstrate that
mentoring is associated with individuals’ perception of promotion opportunities (Underhill, 2006) and the belief that
they will advance in their careers (Allen, Eby, Poteet, Lentz,
& Lima, 2004)—outcomes representing hope, optimism,
and self-efficacy.
In summary, social support is probably the most important socialization resource for the development of PsyCap
and consistently relates positively to newcomer adjustment.
Therefore, insiders must be made aware of their important
role in supporting new hires, and organizations should
design socialization programs to create opportunities for
new hires to meet insiders and build relationships as soon
as they enter the organization.
Social Support
Organizational insiders play a key role in the socialization of newcomers not only for the information they provide
(see Ostroff & Kozlowski, 1992), but also as a main source
of social support (Bauer et al., 1998). The importance of
social support and interpersonal interactions with insiders
has long been considered a critical factor in the socialization
of newcomers (Fisher, 1985; Katz, 1980). In fact, some have
gone so far as to argue that interactions between newcomers
and insiders represent “the primary vehicle through which
initial socialization occurs” (Reichers, 1987, p. 278).
A study on the availability and helpfulness of socialization practices found that the three most important socialization aids reported by new hires were interaction with peers,
supervisor, and senior coworkers (Louis, Posner, & Powell,
1983). Fisher (1985) found that social support from coworkers and supervisors reduced the level of unmet-expectations-
Copyright © 2010 ASAC. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
SAKS & GRUMAN
21
Can J Adm Sci
28(1), 14–26 (2011)
ORGANIZATIONAL SOCIALIZATION AND POSITIVE ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOUR
Leadership
manifestation of the Pygmalion effect occurs when a leader’s expectation of subordinate performance generates subordinate behaviour that confirms the leader’s expectation.
Leaders can harness this effect through implementation of
the Pygmalion Leadership Style (PLS), which refers to an
array of behaviours used by managers who have high performance expectations of subordinates (Eden et al., 2000).
These high performance expectations generate greater motivation and performance among followers (Eden, 1984).
Inducing high levels of performance is likely to have direct
effects on newcomers’ self-expectancies and self-efficacy
(Eden, 1984; Eden et al., 2000). Given that PLS involves
attributing subordinate success to internal, stable causes
(Eden et al., 2000), this form of leadership should increase
optimism among newcomers. Inducing a high level of performance among newcomers is also likely to promote hope
by confirming the utility of pathways and agentic thinking
that newcomers employ in pursuit of their work goals.
Finally, the supportive interpersonal climate that characterizes PLS (Eden et al., 2000), which includes coaching in the
face of setbacks, should promote newcomer resilience.
Although management and leadership can be considered distinct processes, they can also be viewed as complementary roles required of effective managers (Yukl &
Lepsinger, 2005). Therefore, we treated leadership and
management as complementary and used these terms interchangeably. However, we recognized that leadership can be
demonstrated by people other than those occupying formal
managerial positions. Thus, although the resources discussed below will typically be provided by newcomers’
managers, they may also be provided by nonmanagerial
employees demonstrating informal leadership.
Leaders or the managers of newcomers are especially
important for the successful socialization of newcomers. For
example, Bauer and Green (1998) found that manager
behaviour predicted newcomer role clarity, performance
efficacy, and feelings of acceptance. Kammeyer-Mueller
and Wanberg (2003) found that leader influence predicted
newcomers’ political knowledge and turnover. Leaders
might also play a critical role in helping newcomers develop
each of the four constructs that comprise PsyCap. In particular, it has been suggested that authentic leadership can
promote the development of the four state-like capacities
(Norman, Luthans, & Luthans, 2005).
Additionally, leaders provide newcomers with resources
that are important for the development of PsyCap. As indicated in the previous section, one of the most important
resources that leaders provide for newcomers is social
support. They are also a main source of information for
developing newcomers’ self-efficacy by modelling appropriate behaviour and providing encouragement and positive
feedback. Leaders can promote the development of the
other constructs comprising PsyCap by providing assignments that include job characteristics (e.g., autonomy, skill
variety).
Leaders can help newcomers set realistic goals and
develop strategies for goal achievement. A focus on mastery
or learning goals seems especially important because they
focus on enhancing task competence and provide a framework for interpreting and responding to task-related events.
As a result, they have the capacity to develop self-efficacy,
hope, optimism, and resilience. Proximal goals are also
important because they focus attention on appropriate strategies, provide clear markers of one’s progress, result in
more immediate feedback, develop self-efficacy, and
provide “small wins” (Latham & Seijts, 1999). Newcomers
will be able to develop strategies for attaining their goals
and will be able to receive feedback and experience success
sooner and more frequently. Thus, instructing newcomers
to set learning and proximal goals can lead to the development of self-efficacy, hope, and optimism.
Another way in which leaders can promote newcomers’
PsyCap is through the Pygmalion effect, which is a special
case of the self-fulfilling prophecy (Merton, 1948). One
Copyright © 2010 ASAC. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
SAKS & GRUMAN
Discussion
Summary
A common criticism of the socialization literature over
the past 20 years is that it is fragmented and suffers from a
lack of integration (Bauer et al., 2007; Fisher, 1986; Saks
& Ashforth, 1997). In this paper, we have used POB to offer
a new approach to organizational socialization research and
practice. One of the benefits of POB is that it provides a
means for greater integration and less fragmentation of
socialization research. Further, a focus on the four state-like
capacities that form PsyCap is consistent with calls for
socialization research to focus on proximal or primary indicators of adjustment (Ashforth, Sluss, & Harrison, 2007;
Bauer et al., 1998). The approach we have described in this
paper provides many new directions for socialization practice and research that focus on the relationship and effects
of socialization resources on the four constructs that comprise PsyCap.
Contributions to Scholarship
The approach we have described in this paper integrates
the research and literature on POB, the JD-R model, selfefficacy theory, and organizational socialization. This
approach, which we have termed socialization resources
theory (SRT), offers researchers and practitioners a new
way to think about socialization as well as a new approach
for orienting and socializing newcomers.
Firstly, it suggests a new set of proximal outcomes to
consider in addition to information and learning outcomes.
The constructs comprising PsyCap are in and of themselves
22
Can J Adm Sci
28(1), 14–26 (2011)
ORGANIZATIONAL SOCIALIZATION AND POSITIVE ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOUR
highly relevant for new hires beginning a new job, entering
a new organization, and/or starting a new career. They also
serve as proximal socialization outcomes that have been
found to predict more traditional-secondary socialization
outcomes. Secondly, this approach incorporates many of the
most important socialization processes (e.g., task characteristics, orientation training, social support, socialization
agents) into a coherent framework and links them to the four
constructs comprising PsyCap. Thirdly, SRT suggests
potential relationships and provides guidance for developing traditional socialization outcomes through socialization
resources and the constructs comprising PsyCap.
Socialization resources theory also extends the literature on POB to a new domain—that of organizational socialization. Although the focus of the POB and PsyCap literature
has been on employees in general, it seems especially critical
to focus on PsyCap development during the entry-socialization
process given the potential long-term effects on individuals
and organizations. Not only do positive psychological
resource capacities appear amenable to development through
intervention, there is conceptual and empirical support for
the idea that such development may be exponential. The
development of targeted positive capacities may engender
other capacities through what are variously termed gain
spirals (Hobfoll, 2001) or upward spirals (Fredrickson,
2001). As described by Hobfoll (2001), because the loss of
resources is stressful, and because other resources must be
spent to counteract additional resource loss, once losses
begin to occur people become increasingly vulnerable to
further loss. Conversely, people who possess resources, such
as positive psychological resource capacities, are more
capable of orchestrating resource gains, and such gains fuel
further gains. Simply put, resources tend to spawn other
resources. This helps to explain why resources tend to occur
in clusters or resource caravans (Hobfoll, 2001).
In her work on the adaptive value of positive emotions,
Fredrickson (2001) explains this mutual reinforcement of
resources in terms of the broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions. The theory posits that positive emotions
broaden people’s transient thought-action repertoires and
help to build durable personal resources such as resilience,
which in turn foster increased positive emotions (Fredrickson, 2001). Given the potential of socialization to influence
newcomers’ emotions (Ashforth & Saks, 2002), it seems
worthwhile to extend the POB literature and the development of PsyCap to newcomers and the socialization process.
comers’ self-efficacy, hope, optimism, and resilience. Organizations might begin by conducting a socialization resource
audit to identify the extent to which their on-boardingsocialization programs incorporate the resources to develop
newcomers’ PsyCap. This might lead to changes in orientation training programs, the tasks and jobs that newcomers
are assigned, the amount and type of social support available for newcomers, and the actions and involvement of
supervisors.
Socialization resources theory suggests that organizations should design orientation training programs that
provide newcomers with realistic information about possible disappointments as well as how to cope with them, offer
general support and reassurance, use behaviour modelling
to demonstrate coping skills, include opportunities for
rehearsal with feedback, educate newcomers on how to
control their thoughts and feelings; and target specific
stressors for particular newcomers.
In terms of social support, there are many things managers and organizations can do to facilitate interactions and
relationship building with insiders. Rollag et al. (2005)
described several strategies such as providing opportunities
for socializing, planning introductions, networking assignments that require newcomers to work with and build relationships with a variety of insiders, and assigning a buddy
to newcomers. In addition, supervisors and coworkers
should be trained on how to provide social support to newcomers and the important role they play in developing newcomers’ self-efficacy, hope, optimism, and resilience. These
strategies are likely to help newcomers develop a network
of relationships with insiders who can become important
sources of social support that will aid in the development of
newcomers’ PsyCap.
The early work assignments of newcomers should be
carefully designed to ensure that they provide sufficient
levels of the core job characteristics, especially feedback
and task significance in the first few months followed
with increasing amounts of skill variety, task identity, and
autonomy (Katz, 1980). What newcomers do, learn, and
achieve in their first three to six months is likely to have a
profound effect on their self-efficacy, hope, optimism, and
resilience.
Finally, supervisors should be aware of how they can
develop newcomers’ PsyCap and the effect of their expectations on new hires. Supervisors should instruct newcomers
on how to set proximal goals for learning and goal accomplishment. High expectations for newcomers and the
achievement of difficult goals build an early foundation of
positive state-like capacities that can have positive exponential effects.
Applied Implications
The approach to organizational socialization described
in this paper provides managers and organizations a new
way to think about the on-boarding and socialization of new
hires. That is, rather than thinking about what new hires
need to know and overwhelming them with information,
they should think about what they can do to develop new-
Copyright © 2010 ASAC. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
SAKS & GRUMAN
Limitations and Future Research Directions
The approach to organizational socialization that we
have described in this paper opens up many new avenues
23
Can J Adm Sci
28(1), 14–26 (2011)
ORGANIZATIONAL SOCIALIZATION AND POSITIVE ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOUR
for socialization research and the study of relationships that
have seldom, if ever, been examined. For starters, socialization research might test the relationships between different
socialization resources and each of the constructs comprising PsyCap. Although we have described four broad dimensions of socialization resources, there are many possible
ways to operationalize each of them. For example, research
on social support might investigate support from various
insiders (e.g., supervisors, other newcomers, senior coworkers, etc.) as well as the effects of mentors and assigned
buddies on the four constructs comprising PsyCap. It would
also be worthwhile to investigate various factors associated
with social support such as the quantity, quality, and type
of support. For example, Kammeyer-Mueller and Judge
(2008) summarized evidence that mentoring that focuses on
career issues versus psychosocial issues produces different
effects on protégé career outcomes, but did not examine
outcomes involving the constructs comprising PsyCap.
Research on task characteristics might examine the extent
to which each of the job characteristics relates to the four
constructs comprising PsyCap.
Future research might examine the relationships
between socialization resources, PsyCap, and socialization
outcomes as depicted in Figure 1. Thus, future research
might examine the relationships between various socialization resources and each PsyCap construct as well as relationships between the PsyCap constructs and socialization
outcomes. In addition, as suggested by our model, future
research might examine the extent to which the constructs
comprising PsyCap mediate the relationship between socialization resources and socialization outcomes.
Finally, experimental research might test the effects of
socialization resource interventions. As indicated earlier,
several studies have begun to test the effects of training
interventions on PsyCap. Along these lines, socialization
research might test the effects of orientation training programs on PsyCap. Orientation programs designed according
to ROPES seem especially likely to influence newcomers’
PsyCap.
beneficial for newcomers and organizations than the more
traditional informational approach that emphasizes knowledge acquisition and learning.
References
Allen, T.D., Eby, L.T., Poteet, M.L., Lentz, E., & Lima, L. (2004).
Career benefits associated with mentoring for protégés:
A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89,
127–136.
Allen, T.D., McManus, S.E., & Russell, J.E.A. (1999). Newcomer socialization and stress: Formal peer relationships as
a source of support. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 54,
453–470.
Ashforth, B.E., & Saks, A.M. (1996). Socialization tactics: Longitudinal effects on newcomer adjustment. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 149–178.
Ashforth, B.E., & Saks, A.M. (2002). Feeling your way: Emotions
and organizational entry. In R.G. Lord, R.J. Klimoski, & R.
Kanfer (Eds.), Emotions in the Workplace: Understanding the
Structure and Role of Emotions in Organizational Behavior
(pp.331–369). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Ashforth, B.E., Sluss, D.M., & Harrison, S.H. (2007). Socialization in organizational contexts. In G.P. Hodgkinson & J.K.
Ford (Eds.), International review of industrial and organizational psychology. Chichester, UK: Wiley.
Ashforth, B.E., Sluss, D.M., & Saks, A.M. (2007). Socialization
tactics, proactive behavior, and newcomer learning: Integrating socialization models. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 70,
447–462.
Baker, W., & Dutton, J.E. (2007). Enabling positive social capital
in organizations. In J. Dutton & B.R. Ragins (Eds.), Exploring
positive relationships at work (pp. 325–345). New York:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Bakker, A.B., & Demerouti, E. (2007). The job demands-resources
model: State of the art. Journal of Managerial Psychology,
22, 309–328.
Bakker, A.B., Demerouti, E., & Verbeke, W. (2004). Using the
job demands-resources model to predict burnout and performance. Human Resource Management, 43, 83–104.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A
social cognitive theory. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New
York, NY: Freeman.
Bauer, T.N., Bodner, T., Erdogan, B., Truxillo, D.M., & Tucker,
J.S. (2007). Newcomer adjustment during organizational
socialization: A meta-analytic review of antecedents, outcomes, and methods. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92,
707–721.
Bauer, T.N., & Green, S.G. (1998). Testing the combined effects
of newcomer information seeking and manager behavior on
socialization. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 72–83.
Bauer, T.N., Morrison, E.W., & Callister, R.R. (1998). Organizational socialization: A review and directions for future
research. In G.R. Ferris (Ed.), Research in personnel and
human resources management (vol. 16, pp. 149–214). Greenwich CT: JAI Press.
Buchanan, G.M., & Seligman, M.E.P. (Eds.). (1995). Explanatory
style. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Conclusion
In conclusion, we have argued that the literature on
organizational socialization is out of touch with an increasingly turbulent and competitive business environment in
which the management of talent and the development and
value of human and psychological capital have become the
most critical factors for organizational success and survival.
Given the ever-increasing frequency and importance of
newcomer on-boarding and socialization, on-boarding and
socialization can no longer simply involve providing newcomers with large amounts of information. It must involve
the identification of resources that new hires need in order
to develop their self-efficacy, hope, optimism, and resilience. Such an approach will no doubt prove much more
Copyright © 2010 ASAC. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
SAKS & GRUMAN
24
Can J Adm Sci
28(1), 14–26 (2011)
ORGANIZATIONAL SOCIALIZATION AND POSITIVE ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOUR
Hackman, J.R., & Oldham, G.R. (1980). Work redesign. AddisonWesley, Reading, MA.
Haueter, J.A., Macan, T.H., & Winter, J. (2003). Measurement of
newcomer socialization: Construct validation of a multidimensional scale. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 63,
20–39.
Hobfoll, S.E. (2001). The influence of culture, community, and the
nested-self in the stress process: Advancing conservation of
resources theory. Applied Psychology: An International
Review, 50, 337–421.
Jones, G.R. (1986). Socialization tactics, self-efficacy, and newcomers’ adjustments to organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 29(2), 262–279.
Kammeyer-Mueller, J.D., & Judge, T.A. (2008). A quantitative
review of mentoring research: Test of a model. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 72, 269–283.
Kammeyer-Mueller, J.D., & Wanberg, C.R. (2003). Unwrapping
the organizational entry process: Disentangling multiple antecedents and their pathways to adjustment. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 88, 779–794.
Katz, R. (1978). Job longevity as a situational factor in job satisfaction. Administrative Science Quarterly, 23, 204–223.
Katz, R. (1980). Time and work: Toward an integrative perspective. In B. Staw & L.L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (vol. 2, pp. 81–127). Greenwich CT: JAI
Press.
Kim, T., Cable, D.M., & Kim, S. (2005). Socialization tactics,
employee proactivity, and person-organization fit. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 90(2), 232–241.
Klein, H.J., & Weaver, N.A. (2000). The effectiveness of an organizational-level orientation training program in the socialization of new hires. Personnel Psychology, 53, 47–66.
Latham, G.P., & Seijts, G.H. (1999). The effects of proximal and
distal goals on performance on a moderately complex task.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20, 421–429.
Louis, M.R. (1980). Surprise and sense making: What newcomers
experience in entering unfamiliar organizational settings.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 64, 226–251.
Louis, M.R., Posner, B.Z., & Powell, G.N. (1983). The availability
and helpfulness of socialization practices. Personnel Psychology, 36, 857–866.
Luthans, F. (2002a). Positive organizational behavior: Developing
and managing psychological strengths. Academy of Management Executive, 16, 57–72.
Luthans, F. (2002b). The need for and meaning of positive organizational behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23,
695–706.
Luthans, F., Avey, J.B., Avolio, B.J., Norman, S.M., & Combs,
G.J. (2006). Psychological capital development: Toward a
micro-intervention. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27,
387–393.
Luthans, F., Avey, J.B., Clapp-Smith, R., & Li, W. (2008). More
evidence on the value of Chinese workers’ psychological
capital: A potentially unlimited competitive resource? The
International Journal of Human Resource Management, 19,
818–827.
Luthans, F., Avey, J.B., & Patera, J.L. (2008). Experimental analysis of a web-based training intervention to develop positive
psychological capital. Academy of Management Learning and
Education, 7, 209–221.
Carver, C.S., & Scheier, M.F. (2005). Optimism. In C.R. Snyder
& S.J. Lopez. (Eds.), (2005). Handbook of positive psychology. NY, NY: Oxford University Press.
Chao, G.T., O’Leary-Kelly, A.M., Wolf, S., Klein, H.J., & Gardner,
P.D. (1994). Organizational socialization: Its content and
consequences. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 730–743.
Chatman, J.A. (1991). Matching people and organizations: Selection and socialization in public accounting firms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36, 459–484.
Clapp-Smith, R., Vogelgesang G.R., & Avey, J.B. (2009). Authentic leadership and positive organizational capital: The mediating role of trust at the group level of analysis. Journal of
Leadership and Organizational Studies, 15, 227–240.
Colarelli, S.M., Dean, R.A., & Konstans, C. (1987). Comparative
effects of personal and situational influences on job outcomes
of new professionals. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72,
558–566.
Cooper-Thomas, H., & Anderson, N. (2002). Newcomer adjustment: The relationship between organizational socialization
tactics, information acquisition and attitudes. Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 75, 423–437.
Corr, P.J., & Gray, J.A. (1996). Attributional style as a personality
factor in insurance sales performance in the UK. Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 69, 83–87.
DeHoogh, A.H.B., & Den Hartog, D.N. (2008). Ethical and despotic leadership, relationships with leader’s social responsibility, top management team effectiveness, and subordinates’
optimism: A multi-method study. The Leadership Quarterly,
19, 297–311.
Demerouti, E., Bakker, A.B., Nachreiner, F., & Schaufeli, W.B.
(2001). The job demands-resources model of burnout. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 86, 499–512.
Eden, D. (1984). Self-fulfilling prophesy as a management tool:
Harnessing Pygmalion. Academy of Management Review, 9,
64–73.
Eden, D., Geller, D., Gewirtz, A., Gordon-Terner, R., Inbar, I.,
Liberman, M., Pass, Y., Salomon-Segev, I., & Shalit, M.
(2000). Implanting Pygmalion leadership style through workshop training: Seven field experiments. Leadership Quarterly, 11, 171–210.
Feldman, D.C., & Weitz, B.A. (1990). Summer interns: Factors
contributing to positive developmental experiences. Journal
of Vocational Behavior, 37, 267–284.
Fisher, C.D. (1985). Social support and adjustment to work: A
longitudinal study. Journal of Management, 11, 39–53.
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.
Fredrickson, B.L. (2001). The role of positive emotions in positive
psychology: The broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions. American Psychologist, 56, 218–226.
Gooty, J., Gavin, M., Johnson, P.D., Frazier, M.L., & Snow, D.B.
(2009). In the eyes of the beholder: Transformational leadership, positive psychological capital, and performance. Journal
of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 15, 353–367.
Gruman, J.A., Saks, A.M. & Zweig, D.I. (2006). Organizational
socialization tactics and newcomer proactive behaviors: An
integrative study. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 69,
90–104.
Copyright © 2010 ASAC. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
SAKS & GRUMAN
25
Can J Adm Sci
28(1), 14–26 (2011)
ORGANIZATIONAL SOCIALIZATION AND POSITIVE ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOUR
Saks, A.M. (1995). Longitudinal field investigation of the moderating and mediating effects of self-efficacy on the relationship
between training and newcomer adjustment. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 80, 211–225.
Saks, A.M., & Ashforth, B.E. (1997) Organizational socialization:
Making sense of the past and present as a prologue for the
future. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 51, 234–279.
Saks, A.M., Uggerslev, K.L., & Fassina, N.E. (2007). Socialization tactics and newcomer adjustment: A meta-analytic
review and test of a model. Journal of Vocational Behavior,
70, 413–446.
Schaufeli, W.B., & Bakker, A.B. (2004). Job demands, job
resources, and their relationship with burnout and engagement: A multi-sample study. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 25, 293–315.
Seligman, M.E.P., & Shulman, P. (1986). Explanatory style as a
predictor of productivity and quitting among life insurance
sales agents. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
50, 832–838.
Snyder, C.R., Rand, K.L., & and Sigmon, D.R. (2005). Hope
theory: A member of the positive psychology family. In
C.R. Snyder & S.J. Lopez. (Eds.), (2005). Handbook of positive psychology (pp. 257–276). New York: Oxford University
Press.
Snyder, C.R., Sympson, S.C., Ybasco, F.C., Borders, T.F., Babyak,
M.A., & Higgins, R.L. (1996). Development and validation
of the state hope scale. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 70, 321–335.
Stajkovic, A.D., & Luthans, F. (1998). Social cognitive theory and
self-efficacy: Going beyond traditional motivational and
behavioral approaches. Organizational Dynamics, 26, 62–74.
Sutcliffe, K.M., & Vogus, T.J. (2003). Organizing for resilience.
In K.S. Cameron, J.E. Dutton, & R.E. Quinn (Eds.), Positive
organizational scholarship (pp. 94–110). San Francisco, CA:
Berrett-Koehler Publishers Inc.
Underhill, C.M. (2006). The effectiveness of mentoring programs
in corporate settings: A meta-analytic review of the literature.
Journal of Vocational Behavior, 68, 292–307.
Van Maanen, J., & Schein, E.H. (1979). Toward a theory of organizational socialization, In B.M. Staw (Ed.), Research in
Organizational Behaviour, (Vol. 1, pp. 209–264). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Wanous, J.P., & Reichers, A.E. (2000). New employee orientation
programs. Human Resource Management Review, 10,
435–451.
Xanthopoulou, D., Bakker, A.B., Demerouti, E., & Schaufeli,
W.B. (2009). Reciprocal relationships between job resources,
personal resources, and work engagement. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 74, 235–244.
Xanthopoulou, D., Bakker, A.B., Demerouti, E., & Schaufeli,
W.B. (2007). The role of personal resources in the job
demands-resources model. International Journal of Stress
Management, 14, 121–141.
Yukl, G., & Lepsinger, R. (2005). Why integrating the leading and
managing roles is essential for organizational effectiveness.
Organizational Dynamics, 34, 361–375.
Luthans, F., Avolio, B.J., Avey, J.B., & Norman, S.M. (2007).
Positive psychological capital: Measurement and relationship
with performance and satisfaction. Personnel Psychology, 60,
541–572.
Luthans, F., & Jensen, S.M. (2002). Hope: A new positive strength
for human resource development. Human Resource Development Review, 1, 304–322.
Luthans, F., Norman, S,M., Avoilo, B.J., & Avey, J.B. (2008). The
mediating role of psychological capital in the supportive
organizational climate –employee performance relationship.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29, 219–238.
Luthans, F., & Youssef, C.M. (2007). Emerging positive organizational behavior. Journal of Management, 33, 321–349.
Luthans, F., Youssef, C.M., & Avolio, B.J. (2007). Psychological
capital: Developing the human competitive edge. Oxford,
UK: Oxford University Press.
Masten, A.S., & Reed, M-G, J. (2005). Resilience in development.
In C.R. Snyder & S.J. Lopez. (Eds.), (2005). Handbook of
positive psychology. (pp. 74–88). NY, NY: Oxford University
Press.
Merton, R.K. (1948). The self-fulfilling prophesy. Antioch Review,
8, 193–210.
Miller, V.D., & Jablin, F.M. (1991). Information seeking during
organizational entry: Influences, tactics, and a model of the
process. Academy of Management Review, 16, 92–120.
Morrison, E.W. (1993a). Newcomer information seeking: Exploring types, modes, sources, and outcomes. Academy of Management Journal, 36, 557–589.
Morrison, E.W. (1993b). Longitudinal study of the effects of information seeking on newcomer socialization. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 78(2), 173–183.
Norman, S., Luthans, B., & Luthans, K. (2005). The proposed
contagion effect of hopeful leaders on the resiliency of
employees and organizations. Journal of Leadership and
Organizational Studies, 12, 55–64.
Ostroff, C., & Kozlowski, S.W.J. (1992). Organizational socialization as a learning process: The role of information acquisition.
Personnel Psychology, 45, 849–874.
Peterson, S.J., Walumbwa, F.O., Byron, K., & Myrowitz, J. (2009).
CEO positive psychological traits, transformational leadership, and firm performance in high technology start-up and
established firms. Journal of Management, 35, 348–368.
Pierce, J.L., Gardner, D.G., Cummings, L.L., & Dunham, R.B.
(1989). Organization-based self-esteem: Construct definition,
measurement, and validation. Academy of Management
Journal, 32, 622–648.
Ragins, B.R. (2007). Diversity and workplace mentoring relationships: A review and positive social capital approach. In T.D.
Allen & L.T. Eby (Eds.), The Blackwell handbook of mentoring: A multiple perspectives approach (pp. 281–300). Malden,
MA: Blackwell Publishing.
Reichers, A.E. (1987). An interactionist perspective on newcomer
socialization rates. Academy of Management Review, 12,
278–287.
Rollag, K., Parise, S., & Cross, R. (2005). Getting new hires up to
speed quickly. MIT Sloan Management Review, 46, 35–41.
Copyright © 2010 ASAC. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
SAKS & GRUMAN
26
Can J Adm Sci
28(1), 14–26 (2011)