USF Libraries
USF Digital Collections

The role of proactivity during organizational entry

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
The role of proactivity during organizational entry proactive socialization tactics, citizenship and counterproductive work behaviors
Physical Description:
Book
Language:
English
Creator:
Rodopman, Ozgun Burcu
Publisher:
University of South Florida
Place of Publication:
Tampa, Fla.
Publication Date:

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Performance
Organizational socialization
Newcomer adjustment
Justice
Personal initiative
Dissertations, Academic -- Psychology -- Doctoral -- USF   ( lcsh )
Genre:
bibliography   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )

Notes

Abstract:
ABSTRACT: Newcomers engage in proactive behaviors during organizational entry to increase their adjustment to the organization and to successfully complete their socialization. The present study investigated the links between proactive socialization tactics (i.e., positive framing, sense making and relationship building) and organizational outcomes. Specifically, organizational citizenship behaviors (e.g., assisting coworkers) and counterproductive work behaviors (e.g., verbal abuse) were investigated. The sample included 216 employees from various industries and organizations with an average organizational tenure of 9 months. The results indicated that all proactive socialization behaviors were associated with high levels of citizenship behaviors (i.e., OCB). Only positive framing was associated with low levels of counterproductive work behaviors (e.g., CWB). Furthermore, newcomer adjustment variables (i.e., role clarity, self-efficacy and social integration) were positively related to OCB and negatively related to CWB. The results also provided some support for the newcomer adjustment variables as mediators between proactive socialization behaviors and OCB/CWB. The present study also investigated the role of procedural justice in this model that links proactive socialization behaviors to OCB/CWB through newcomer adjustment variables. Results indicated procedural justice moderated the relationship between relationship building and newcomer adjustment including role clarity, self-efficacy and social integration.
Thesis:
Dissertation (Ph.D.)--University of South Florida, 2009.
Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references.
System Details:
Mode of access: World Wide Web.
System Details:
System requirements: World Wide Web browser and PDF reader.
Statement of Responsibility:
by Ozgun Burcu Rodopman.
General Note:
Title from PDF of title page.
General Note:
Document formatted into pages; contains 78 pages.
General Note:
Includes vita.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of South Florida Library
Holding Location:
University of South Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
aleph - 002317422
oclc - 660058815
usfldc doi - E14-SFE0003041
usfldc handle - e14.3041
System ID:
SFS0027358:00001


This item is only available as the following downloads:


Full Text
xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8 standalone no
record xmlns http:www.loc.govMARC21slim xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.loc.govstandardsmarcxmlschemaMARC21slim.xsd
leader nam 2200385Ka 4500
controlfield tag 001 002317422
005 20100901154503.0
007 cr cnu|||uuuuu
008 100901s2009 flua ob 000 0 eng d
datafield ind1 8 ind2 024
subfield code a E14-SFE0003041
040
FHM
c FHM
035
(OCoLC)660058815
049
FHMM
090
BF121(Online)
1 100
Rodopman, Ozgun Burcu.
4 245
The role of proactivity during organizational entry
h [electronic resource] :
b proactive socialization tactics, citizenship and counterproductive work behaviors /
by Ozgun Burcu Rodopman.
260
[Tampa, Fla.] :
University of South Florida,
2009.
500
Title from PDF of title page.
Document formatted into pages; contains 78 pages.
Includes vita.
502
Dissertation (Ph.D.)--University of South Florida, 2009.
504
Includes bibliographical references.
516
Text (Electronic dissertation) in PDF format.
3 520
ABSTRACT: Newcomers engage in proactive behaviors during organizational entry to increase their adjustment to the organization and to successfully complete their socialization. The present study investigated the links between proactive socialization tactics (i.e., positive framing, sense making and relationship building) and organizational outcomes. Specifically, organizational citizenship behaviors (e.g., assisting coworkers) and counterproductive work behaviors (e.g., verbal abuse) were investigated. The sample included 216 employees from various industries and organizations with an average organizational tenure of 9 months. The results indicated that all proactive socialization behaviors were associated with high levels of citizenship behaviors (i.e., OCB). Only positive framing was associated with low levels of counterproductive work behaviors (e.g., CWB). Furthermore, newcomer adjustment variables (i.e., role clarity, self-efficacy and social integration) were positively related to OCB and negatively related to CWB. The results also provided some support for the newcomer adjustment variables as mediators between proactive socialization behaviors and OCB/CWB. The present study also investigated the role of procedural justice in this model that links proactive socialization behaviors to OCB/CWB through newcomer adjustment variables. Results indicated procedural justice moderated the relationship between relationship building and newcomer adjustment including role clarity, self-efficacy and social integration.
538
Mode of access: World Wide Web.
System requirements: World Wide Web browser and PDF reader.
590
Advisor: Paul Spector, Ph.D.
653
Performance
Organizational socialization
Newcomer adjustment
Justice
Personal initiative
0 690
Dissertations, Academic
z USF
x Psychology
Doctoral.
773
t USF Electronic Theses and Dissertations.
856
u http://digital.lib.usf.edu/?e14.3041



PAGE 1

The Role of Proactivity during Organizationa l Entry: Proactive Socialization Tactics, Citizenship and Counterproductive Work Behaviors by Ozgun Burcu Rodopman A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of Psychology College of Arts and Sciences University of South Florida Major Professor: Paul Spector, Ph.D. Walter C. Borman, Ph.D. Carnot Nelson, Ph.D. Joseph Vandello, Ph.D. Chu-Hsiang Chang, Ph.D. Date of Approval: July 6, 2009 Keywords: performance, organizational socializat ion, newcomer adjustment, justice, personal initiative Copyright 2009, Ozgun Burcu Rodopman

PAGE 2

Dedication For my wonderful parents, Mualla and Kudret, as always …

PAGE 3

Acknowledgements I am indebted to many people in the completion of this research and for my success in graduate school. First and foremost, I would like to thank my dear advisor, Dr. Paul Spector, for his faith and trust in me as well as for his tremendous help for me to become the best I can become. His foresight and feedback has been invaluable and will guide me throughout my career. I would also like to thank Dr. Tammy Alle n for always inspiring me to realize my potential and Dr. Russell Johnson for al ways inspiring me to become a great researcher. Special thanks to my committee members for all their contributions; to Dr. Walter Borman, Dr. Carnot Nelson, Dr. Joseph Vandello, Dr. Daisy Chang and my committee chair Dr. Alan Balfour. I am also grateful much to Laura Fowler Pierce for her helping me so much with the process. I would also like to thank my dear friends Nilufer Aydinoglu and Elif Sikoglu and my Ph.D. sisters, Ashley Valwoord and Anna Tolentino for their continuous support. Furthermore, my friends in grad uate school Liuqin Yang, Dan Ispas, Alex Illie, Matt Prewett, Matt Tuttle and Rob St ilson and many others made the world a better place. Of course, I would also like to thank Umit Akirmak for all the great things he did for me. Lastly, I would like to thank my parent s, for everything they did for me and for them I do everything.

PAGE 4

i Table of Contents List of Tables................................................................................................................. ......................iii List of Figures................................................................................................................ ......................iv Abstract....................................................................................................................... ...........................v Chapter One: Introduction...................................................................................................... ...........1 Literature Review.............................................................................................................. ......5 Organizational Citizenship Behavior.....................................................................5 Counterproductive Work Behavior........................................................................7 Integration of Citizenship Behavi ors and Counterproductive Work Behaviors......................................................................................... ................8 Linking OCB and CWB in a Personal Control Framework.............................11 Proactive Socialization, Personal Control and Outcomes................................13 The Current Study: Proactive Socialization Tactics and Extra-Task Performance Behaviors (OCB and CWB)........................................................................19 The Mediating Role of Newcomer Adjustment.................................................21 Role Clarity………………………………………………..22 Self-Efficacy………………………………………………23 Social Integration………………………………………….24 The Moderating Effect of Procedural Justice.....................................................25 Summary of the Proposed Hypotheses……………………………………29 Chapter Two: Study Method...................................................................................................... ......30 Method…………………………… ………………………………………30 Participants.................................................................................................30 Procedure....................................................................................................30 Measures.....................................................................................................31 Proactive Socialization Behaviors..............................................31 Role Clarity………………………………………………..31 Self-Efficacy………………………………………………32

PAGE 5

ii Social Integration………………………………………….32 Procedural Justice…………………………………………32 Organizational Citizenship Behavior………………………32 Counterproductive Work Behavior………………………..33 Chapter Three: Results......................................................................................................... .............34 Relationships Between Proactive Socialization Behaviors and Work Behaviors…………………………………………………………………………34 Mediation through Newcomer Adjustment.....................................................................36 Moderating Role of Procedural Justice..............................................................................42 Summary of Results.................................................................................................51 Chapter Four: Discussion....................................................................................................... ..........52 Limitations………………………………………………………………………...56 Implications and Future Directions...................................................................................57 References..................................................................................................................... ......................60 Appendices..................................................................................................................... .....................71 Appendix A: Proactive Socialization Tactics Items.........................................................72 Appendix B: Role Clarity Items..........................................................................................73 Appendix C: Organizational Socialization Self-Efficacy Items.....................................74 Appendix D: Social Integration Items...............................................................................75 Appendix E: Procedural Justice Items...............................................................................76 Appendix F: Organizational Citizenship Behavior Items...............................................77 Appendix G: Counterproductive Work Be havior Items................................................78 About the Author………………………… ……………………………………….End Page

PAGE 6

iii List of Tables Table 1. Means, Standard Deviations, and Intercorrelations...........................................35 Table 2. Analysis of Mediating Role of Role Cl arity (Proactive BehaviorsOCB).........................................................................................................................38 Table 3. Analysis of Mediating Role of Role Cl arity (Proactive BehaviorsCWB)……………………………………………………………………..38 Table 4. Analysis of Mediating Role of Self-Effi cacy (Proactive BehaviorsOCB)……………………………………………………………………...40 Table 5. Analysis of Mediating Role of Self-E fficacy (Proactive BehaviorsCWB)……………………………………………………………………..40 Table 6. Analysis of Mediating Role of Social Integration (Proactive Behaviors-OCB)…………………………………………………………..42 Table 7. Regression of Procedural Justice by Po sitive Framing on Role Clarity, Self-Efficacy and Social Integration.......................................................44 Table 8. Regression of Procedural Justice by Sense Making on Role Clarity, Self-Efficacy and Social Integration.......................................................46 Table 9. Regression of Procedural Justice by Relati onship Building on Role Clarity, Self-Efficacy and Social Integration..............................................48

PAGE 7

iv List of Figures Figure 1. Proposed Relationships in th e Present Study............. ........................ ..................5 Figure 2. Personal Control and Extra-Task Performance Behaviors..............................11 Figure 3. Organizational Socialization Adapted from Saks and Ashforth (1997).......................................................................................................16 Figure 4. Proposed Relationship in the Present Study............... ........................ ................19 Figure 5. Interaction Between Sense Making and Procedural Justice on Self-Efficacy.......................................................................................................47 Figure 6. Interaction Between Relationship Building and Procedural Justice on Role Clarity............................................................................................49 Figure 7. Interaction Between Relationship Building and Procedural Justice on Self-Efficacy..........................................................................................49 Figure 8. Interaction Between Relationship Building and Procedural Justice on Social Integration..................................................................................50

PAGE 8

v The Role of Proactivity during Organizationa l Entry: Proactive Socialization Tactics, Citizenship and Counterproductive Work Behaviors Ozgun Burcu Rodopman ABSTRACT Newcomers engage in proactive behaviors during organizational entry to increase their adjustment to the organization and to su ccessfully complete their socialization. The present study investigated the links between proactive socialization tactics (i.e., positive framing, sense making and relationship buildi ng) and organizational outcomes. Specifically, organizational citizenship behaviors (e.g., assi sting coworkers) and counterproductive work behaviors (e.g., verbal abuse) were investigat ed. The sample included 216 employees from various industries and organizations with an average organizational tenure of 9 months. The results indicated that all proactive socialization behaviors were associated with high levels of citizenship behaviors (i.e., OCB). Only positive framing was associated with low levels of counterproductive work behaviors (e.g., CWB). Furthermore, newcomer adjustment variables (i.e., role clarity, self-efficacy and so cial integration) were positively related to OCB and negatively related to CWB. The results also provided some support for the newcomer adjustment variables as mediators between proactive socialization behaviors and OCB/CWB. The present study also investigated th e role of procedural justice in this model that links proactive socialization behavior s to OCB/CWB through newcomer adjustment variables. Results indicated procedural ju stice moderated the relationship between relationship building and newcomer adjustment in cluding role clarity, self-efficacy and social integration.

PAGE 9

1 Chapter One: Introduction If opportunity doesn’t knock, build a door. – Milton Berle In an era of boundariless careers and freq uent job transitions, it is crucial for employees to get socialized to their organization effectively and to adjust to their work setting quickly (Saks and Ashforth, 1997). Orga nizational entry marks a period of “reality shocks”, surprises and uncertainty for newcomer s (Reichers, 1987; Loui s, 1980). Under these turbulent circumstances, successful organization socialization can be achieved when “the person secures relevant job skills, acquires a func tional level of organizational understanding, attains supportive social interactions with co workers, and generally accepts the established ways of a particular organization” (Taormina, 1997, p. 29). The pr ocess of socialization during entry is critical in many respects, be cause perceptions, attitudes and behaviors of newcomers are shaped constantly as they ga in knowledge in their new work setting and establish their roles in the organizational structure (Saks & Ashforth, 1997). Socialization theory posits that people are not reactive and passive agents during organizational entry, but newcomers engage in a set of proactive activiti es to gain control over their environment and increase their work adjustment (Ashford and Black, 1996; Wanberg & Kammeyer-Mueller, 2000). Because the organization cannot possibly provide all of the information and socialization that the employee needs, the em ployee must make some proactive efforts to learn how things are done (Schein, 1968) and to “become fully adjusted insider” (Fisher, 1985, p. 39). Proactive socialization tactics (e .g., information seeking and networking) help

PAGE 10

2 newcomers with the adjustment process (Bauer Bodner, Erdogan, Truxillo & Tucker, 2007). These tactics have been related to positive in dividual and organizati onal outcomes including high performance, high job satisfaction as well as low levels of anxiety, turnover intentions and actual turnover (Ashford & Black, 1996; Morrison, 1993; Saks & Ashford, 1997). The existing research on proactive socialization tactics focuses mainly on task performance (Morrison, 1993b) as a behavioral outcome. Th e influence of such tactics on the behaviors beyond task performance is largely unknown. Two different streams of research study extra-task performance behaviors that impact the context in which tasks are performe d, thereby affect organizational functioning and experiences (Dalal, 2005; Lee & Allen; 2002; Miles, Borman, Spector & Fox, 2002; Spector & Fox, 2002). Organiza tional citizenship behavior (O CB) involves actions that contribute to the organizational, social, and psychological environment in the organization (Borman & Motowidlo, 1993; Organ, 1997). OCB may include acts such as helping coworkers, defending one’s company against crit icisms and offering ideas to improve things. Counterproductive work behavior (CWB), on the other hand, concerns intentional actions to harm the organization or it s members (Fox & Spector, 1999; Spector & Fox, 2002). CWB may include acts such as theft, verbal abuse, withholding of effort, stealing, and physical assault. There has been a growing interest in exploring OCB and CWB for two main reasons. First, they are recognized as part of a br oad conception of job performance that goes beyond assigned tasks (Rotundo & Sackett, 2002). Supervisors factor them in when they evaluate employee performance. Second, both citizenship and counterproductive behavior affect individual and organizational functioning and productivity. OCB is typically associated with positive outcomes such as organizationa l commitment and high performance ratings (Motowidlo & Van Scotter, 1994; Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Paine, & Bachrach, 2000), while

PAGE 11

3 CWB is typically associated with negative out comes such as financial losses and poor wellbeing (Spector & Fox, 2002). This growing body of research has studied OCB and CWB mostly without any reference to a particular time period in organizational life. Thus, there is no research that specifically focuses on the impa ct of experiences during organizational entry on OCB and CWB. This inquiry is important, be cause the beginning of one’s career in an organization is a potent time for organizational identification, cultivation of company values and formation of initial attitudes and behavior al response patterns (Saks & Ashford, 2002), which tend to be resistant to change. Furthermore, perceptions and attitudes about one’s workplace such as justice and job satisfaction are among the main predictors OCB and CWB (Podsakoff et al, 2000; Hershcovis et al., 2007). One of the critical tenets of organizational entry is a move from unfamiliar, unknown, unpredictable and uncontrollable to fa miliar, known, predictable and controllable. As one of the powerful tools to succeed in this transition, personal control is a central theme around which literatures from organizational socialization and extra-task performance behaviors (OCB and CWB) can be integrated. According to the control theory, personal control is a critical motivational force behind human actions including behaviors in the workplace (Bell & Staw, 1989; Greenberger & St rasser, 1986). While control perceptions promote healthy functioning, lack or loss of control has a detrimental effect on motivation, performance and well-being (Greenberger, Strasser, Cummings & Dunham, 1989; Shapiro & Schwartz, 1996). In socialization literature, several authors have described organizational entry as a period of uncertainty (Jones, 19 86; Lois, 1980; Miller & Jablin, 1991) and suggested that gaining personal control by re ducing uncertainty is critical for effective newcomer adjustment and socialization. Al ong similar lines, Ashford and Black (1996) suggested that the “entry into a new organizational environment can be thought of as a

PAGE 12

4 process by which individuals temporarily lose and proactively attempt to regain feelings of control” (p. 200). During this process, personal control can be achieved by the use of proactive socialization tactics, which help newc omers in adjusting to their new role and work setting (Kim, Cable & Kim, 2005). In terms of work behaviors, personal control is also important for extra-task performance behaviors and has been suggested one of the mechanisms that link OCB and CWB. Specifica lly, high control perceptions are associated with OCB, while low control perceptions may trigger CWB (Spector & Fox, 2002). The premises of both lines of inquiry can be taken together. Through proactive socialization tactics, newcomers increase personal control in a state of utmost uncertainty during organizational entry. As they learn about thei r environment or establish beneficial work relationships, they reduce uncertainty and bett er adjust to their social and organizational setting at work; therefore engage in more OCB and in less CWB. In sum, the present study had the goal of testing the following relationships (See Figure 1). First, the main goal was to inve stigate the effect of proactive socialization behaviors on extra-task performance behaviors (OCB and CWB). I utilized the socialization model proposed by Saks and Ashforth (2002), control theory, and OCB-CWB literature to explain how proactivity during or ganizational entry can be link ed to extra-task performance behavior. Second, I examined the role of newcomer adjustment (i.e., role clarity, self-efficacy and social integration), which signifies successful attainment of a certain degree of control, in linking the proactive behaviors to OCB and CWB. Third, I explored the effect of procedural justice as a contextual factor on the re lationship between proactive behaviors and socialization outcomes. Procedur al justice determines whether an individual’s effort will translate into desired outcomes (e.g., self-efficacy), so the relationship between proactive

PAGE 13

5 socialization tactics and outcomes may change depending whether procedures are perceived fair or unfair. I will first review the literature on coun terproductive and organization citizenship behaviors. Then, I will present theoretical and empirical work on extra-task performance behaviors that investigates OCB and CWB simu ltaneously including personal control. Next, I will focus on specific proactive socialization behaviors as a means of gaining control in the work environment. Lastly, I will propose medi ating variables (i.e., newcomer adjustment), which indicate having some level of control, and moderating variables (e.g., justice) that operate in linking proactive socialization behaviors to outcomes. Figure 1. Proposed Relationships in the Present Study Literature Review Organizational Citizenship Behavior Employees who contribute to the organiza tion beyond their job requirements are valuable assets for themselves as well as for the organization. Productive behaviors that are intended to help the organization or the me mbers of the organization are considered organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) (Organ 1997). These activities contribute to the Proactive Socialization Behaviors Positive Framing Sense Making Relationship Building Distal Outcomes Citizenship Behavior Counterproductive Work Behavior Proximal Outcomes Role Clarity Self-efficacy Social Integration Procedural Justice

PAGE 14

6 psychological and social environment of the workplace and to the organization’s productivity by allowing the company to adapt to change and its members to cooperate (Smith, Organ, & Near, 1983). OCB is also conceptually similar to other constructs such as pro-social behaviors (Brief & Motowidlo, 1986), contextual performance (Borman & Motowidlo, 1993) and organizational s pontaneity (George & Brief, 1992). In the literature, there have been different categorizations of OCB. Smith, Organ, and Near (1983) identified two factors: altr uism and generalized compliance. Later, Organ (1995) proposed a five-factor model including altruism, conscientiousness, sportsmanship, courtesy, and civic virtue. In an attempt to extend the domain of the OCB construct, Van Dyne and LePine (1998) suggested helping behavior (i.e., promotive behaviors which emphasizes small acts of consideration) and vo ice behavior (i.e., promotive behaviors that emphasize expression of constructive challenge intended to improve rather than merely criticize) as forms of OCB. OCB has been also defined by its target (Williams & Anderson, 1991). Interpersonal OCB (OCBI) is directed at coworkers (e.g., helping others), whereas organizational OCB (OCBO) targets the organiza tion (e.g., enhancing the reputation of the organization). Citizenship behaviors are influenced by context and by personality. OCB has been related to organizational characteristics (e.g ., group cohesiveness), leadership behaviors (Podsakoff et. al, 2000; Ilies, 2007; Piccolo & Colquitt), perceived justice (Organ & Ryan, 1995) and perceived organizational support (M oorman & Byrne, 2005). Additionally, several studies found that positive employee attitudes such as job satisfaction and organizational commitment promote OCB (Dalal, 2005; Moorman & Byrne, 2005; Podsakoff et. al, 2000). In terms of dispositional antecedents, OCB has been positively related to helpfulness, empathy, agreeableness, positive affectivity, conscientiousness (Allen, Facteau, & Facteau,

PAGE 15

7 2004; Hurtz & Donovan, 2000; Po dsakoff et al., 2000), internal locus of control, collectivism and personal initiative (Borman, Penner, Allen and Motowidlo (2001). Counterproductive Work Behavior Besides prosocial behaviors, people also engage in antisocial behaviors in the workplace. These intentional acts to harm th e organization or its members are considered counterproductive work behavior (CWB) (Spector & Fox, 2002). CWB includes acts such as theft, sabotage, verbal abuse, and work slowdowns (Penney & Spector, 2002). CWB is also conceptually similar to constructs such as wo rk aggression (Fox & Sp ector, 1999; Neuman & Baron, 1998; Spector, 1978), deviance (Robi nson & Bennett, 1995), antisocial behavior (Giacalone & Greenberg, 1997), retaliation (Skarlicki, Folger, & Tesluk, 1999), or revenge (Bies, Tripp, & Kramer, 1997). Like OCBs, CWBs can be differentiated according to the target of the behavior (Robinson & Bennett, 1995; Spector & Fox, 2002). Some CWBs are aimed at other people in the organization (CWBP), while some CWBs targ et the organization (CWBO). For example, employees may verbally abuse a coworker (CWB P) or steal from the organization (CWBO). Recently, Spector, Fox, Penney, Bruursema, Goh and Kessler (2006) developed a scale with five dimensions of CWB including sabota ge, theft, abuse, production deviance and withdrawal. There has been a lot of research on contextual and personality factors that are related to the occurrence and the frequency of CWB. Contextual antecedents of CWB include organizational constraints, role ambiguity, ro le conflict, interpersonal conflict, abusive supervision and poor leadership (Chen & Sp ector, 1992; Detert, Trevino, Burris & Andiappan, 2007; Hershcovis, Turner, Barling, Arnold, Dupre, Inness et al., 2007; Spector &

PAGE 16

8 Fox, 2002). Several reviewers agree that job sa tisfaction and perceived justice are among the key potential antecedents of CWB (e.g. Dalal, 2005; Martinko, Gundlach & Douglas, 2002). Cropanzano, Howes, Grandey, and Toth (1997) also found that organizational support is associated with decreases and organizational politics is associated with increases the likelihood of antagonistic behaviors (e.g., argu ing with coworkers and spreading rumors or gossip about coworkers). Additionally, work group level of CWB coupled with task interdependence of group members (Robinson & O’Really, 1998), supervisory and work group norms (Greenberg & Scott, 1996) have been found to relate to individual levels of CWB. In terms of dispositional antecedents, tr ait anger and trait anxiety have been positively related to CWB (Aquino, Lewis, & Bradfield, 1999; Fox & Spector, 1999; Fox, Spector, & Miles, 1999). Ones, Viswesvaran and Schmidt, (199 3) found that integrity tests that assessed conscientiousness, agreeableness and emotional stability were negatively related to CWB. Other studies reported Machiavellianism (Benne tt & Robinson, 2000), negative affectivity, agreeableness (Skarlicki, Folger, & Tesluk, 1999 ), narcissism (Penney & Spector, 2002) and external locus of control (Perlow & Latham, 1993; Storms & Spector, 1987) as predictors of CWB. Integration of Citizenship Behaviors and Counterproductive Work Behaviors Both OCB and CWB are important acts that affect organizational life in every stage. Research indicated that supervisors factor in subordinates’ OCB and CWB in their performance evaluations (Rotundo & Sackett, 2002). Furthermore, large scale OCB and CWB by the supervisor and coworkers set the norms for engaging in OCB and CWB within a work unit, a department or the organization overall (Robinson & O’Really, 1998). Recently, there have been attempts to explore OCB a nd CWB in a parallel fashion (Dunlop & Lee,

PAGE 17

9 2004; Lee & Allen, 2002; Miles, Borman, Spec tor, & Fox, 2002). Although attempts for model development for the OCB-CWB links are in infancy and mostly empirical, personal control offers an alternative approach to in vestigate how and why people engage in OCB and CWB. Most of the frameworks that study OCB and CWB simultaneously recognize both differences and similarities between the two ex tra-task performance behaviors. The work on OCB and CWB so far concluded that they are distinct constructs. In a meta-analysis on the OCB-CWB relationship, Dalal (2005) reported a moderate negative relationship between the two constructs. Similarly, Kelloway, Loughlin Barling and Nault (2002) reported that OCB and CWB represent two unique factors. There are four main areas in which OCB and CWB are distinct: (1) OCB and CWB may differ in their nature and their content OCB emphasizes usually positive aspects, whereas CWB includes hurtful acts, but OCB and CWB are not necessarily opposites on a continuum. For example, staying extra hours to finish a project can be considered as OCB, but not stayin g overtime is not necessarily CWB. (2) They may differ in the degree of discretion Whereas all types of CWB are agreed to be more under the discretion of the person, there is debate to wh ich extent some OCB (e.g., helping coworkers) is voluntary. Some citizenship behaviors ca n be considered in-role job performance, therefore individuals may engage in them to get organizational rewards (Organ, 1997). In contrast, counterproductive behaviors are discouraged, therefore the choice to engage in them belongs solely to the individual. (3) OCB and CWB may have different antecedents For example, Miles et al. (2002) found that trait anger was significan tly positively related to CWB, but not to OCB. In another study, positive aff ect and job cognitions related to OCB, but not CWB (Lee & Allen, 2002). (4) Researchers identified different motives for OCB and CWB Rioux and Penner (2001) identified prosocial valu es, organizational concern and impression

PAGE 18

10 management as motive for engaging in citize nship behaviors. Meanwhile, Penney, Spector, Goh, Hunter and Turnstall (2006) listed bo redom, retaliation and in fluencing others as motives for engaging in CWB. Therefore, pe ople may engage in OCB and CWB for different reasons. Despite the differences between OCB and CWB, theory and research suggests that the productive and counterproductive aspects of job behaviors share some similarities. (1) They are essentially behaviors that employees perform in the workplace, therefore th ey are subject to similar affective and cognitive processes For example, if employees believe that they are unfairly treated by the organization, they are more likely to engage in OCB and less likely to engage in CWB (Spector & Fox, 2002). (2) Both behaviors are different from task performance in that they have more room for discretion While task performance presents a ‘strong situation’, non-task performance (i.e., contextual performance and counterprodu ctive performance) can be interpreted as a ‘weaker situation’ (Miles et al., 2002). Indivi duals may perceive more control over their choices in the nature and intensity of OCB and CWB as opposed to task performance. Therefore, conditions or antecedents that crea te opportunities for voluntary behaviors will affect both OCB and CWB. (3) OCB and CWB have some common antecedents Conscientiousness, perceived justice, and job sa tisfaction, have been listed as predictors of both OCB and CWB (Dalal, 2005). (4) Some mechanisms are common to both work behaviors. Psychological contract, emotions as responses to stressors and control perceptions have been utilized to explain both OCB and CWB (Spector & Fox, 2002; Spector & Fox, 2008). Since personal control is critical for proactiv e behaviors during organizational entry as well as extra-task performance behaviors, control theory provides a promising framework to link proactive socialization behaviors to OCB and CWB.

PAGE 19

11 Linking OCB and CWB in a Personal Control Framework Personal control is one of the basic motivational forces for human beings (Rothbaum, Weisz & Synder, 1982). Although ther e are individual differences in need for control (Burger & Cooper, 1979), there is comm on agreement that all people strive to have some control over their environment (Greenbe rger & Strasser, 1986). Research has shown that personal control has been associated with psychological well-being, physical health, and mental health (Shapiro & Schwartz, 1996). According to Spector and Fox (2002), control theory provides one of the mechanisms through which OCB and CWB are linked (See Figure 2). Figure 2. Personal Control and Extra-task Performance Behaviors According to Spector and Fox (2002), the extent to which an individual perceives having control in a situation determines how he or she perceives the situation and responds to it. Control perceptions may affect responses to the work environment in several ways (Spector, 1998). First, control mitigates the impact of stressful job situations. In other words, Environment A ppraisal Control Perceptions Counterproductive Work Behavior Organizational Citizenship Behavior

PAGE 20

12 situations perceived to be under personal cont rol are less likely to be seen as stressors. Second, in line with the Karasek (1979) demands-control model, control serves as a buffer. When people experience stressors and if they believe that they have control over these stressors, they respond in more positive ways than when they lack control. Finally, perceived control is thought to affect how people cogn itively reconstruct environmental events and whether they respond constructively or destructively (Spector & Fox, 2002). Specifically, people who have high levels of perceived cont rol are likely to view stressful events as challenges to be overcome constructively. In contrast, people who have low perceived control are likely to view stressful events as threats and to respond in a counterproductive manner. For example, if newcomers perceive th at uncertainty in the environment is under their control, they are more likely to res pond positively and less likely to react negatively. Supporting the suggested role of control perceptions, both OCB and CWB has been related to locus of control (Barbuto & Bugenhagen, 20 06; Fox & Spector, 1999; Hoffi-Hofstetter & Mannheim, 1999; Perlow & Latham, 1993). People who believe that they have control over the events that affect them (i.e., internal locus of control) are more likely to engage in OCB and less likely to engage in CWB. Several cognitive and affective mechanis ms may explain how people deal with different control perceptions. First, high control is associated with positive emotions (Patrick, Skinner & Connell, 1993; Weiner, 1985 ), which predict prosocial behaviors (Clark & Isen, 1982). In contrast, low control invokes negative emotions (Abramson, Seligman & Teasdale, 1978; Patrick, Skinner & Connell, 1993), which predict counterproductive behaviors (Spector & Fox, 2002). Second, perc eived control may involve beliefs about one’s ability to perform the helpful behavior (Spector & Fox, 2002). When people perceive high control of the situation or resources, they may believe that they can successfully carry out

PAGE 21

13 acts of OCB; therefore they are more likely to engage in OCB. In contrast, people who perceive low control over their environment are mo re likely perceive situations and events as stressors; thus they may be prone to engage in CWB (Fox et al., 2001). In fact, people may engage in delinquent and destructive behaviors as a means of exerting control over otherwise uncontrollable circumstances (Allen & Greenberg, 1980). Although literature on control outlines so me circumstances under which people may not want to have high levels of control or de liberately want to relinquish control (Burger, 1989), overall personal control is a necessary human condition. Consequently, behaviors intended to increase control have been associated with positive outcomes including job satisfaction, physical health and psychological well-being (Greenberger, et al., 1989; Shapiro & Schwartz, 1996). Personal cont rol is also important at work (Ashford & Black, 1996). One condition that creates a crisis of control is uncertainty in the environment such as in the case of organizational entry. There are different ways to increase control when dealing with uncertainty. An employee can address the sources of uncertainty directly (e.g., asking about organizational policies) or he/she can build up social-capital re sources to be prepared when uncertainty arises (Saks & Ashforth, 1997). In that sense, proactive socialization behaviors provide a distinct opportunity for the newcom er to position himself or herself in the information loop of the organization, to have access to people and resources as well as to boost a positive mindset (Ashford & Black, 1996; Wanberg & KammeyerMueller, 2000). All these behaviors serve the end of making the work environment more predictable and certain. Proactive Socialization, Personal Control and Outcomes Organizational socialization during new entr y refers to “the process by which an individual acquires the social knowledge and skills necessary to assume an organizational

PAGE 22

14 role” (Van Maanen & Schein, 1979, p. 211). To function efficiently in a work environment and to be a “good soldier” of an organization, people need to know the formal and informal rules of conduct that govern their work sett ing. Through their soci alization experience individuals learn what behaviors are desirable and what ones are not (Van Maanen & Schein, 1979). The main driver of organizational socialization during new entry is uncertainty and lack of knowledge about how things are done in the organization (Saks & Ashforth, 1997). Van Maanen (1977) describes entry into an orga nization as a job transition that “thrust(s) one from a state of certainty to uncertainty; from knowing to not knowing; and from the familiar to the unfamiliar” (p. 16). According to uncertainty reduction theory (Louis, 1980), employees are motivated to gain personal control in unfamiliar and ambiguous organizational settings. Therefore, organizati onal socialization during new entry involves a constant effort to reduce uncertainty in the work environment through learning and work adjustment (Loius, 1985; Saks & Ashforth, 1997). Newcomers try to reduce uncertainty such that “the work environment becomes more pr edictable, understanda ble, and ultimately controllable” (Saks & Ashforth, 1997). Attempts to reduce uncertainty may be instigated by the organization or by the individual (Gruman et al., 2006). Organizations have on-boarding activities for newcomers ranging from casual social gatherings to intens ive training sessions. However, organizational socialization tactics cannot address all sources of uncertainty for all newcomers, so individuals may still need to deal with uncertai nty that arises from their particular situation and experiences. Therefore, individuals may initiate socialization efforts themselves to customize their socialization experience.

PAGE 23

15 The gap between individuals’ motivation for perceived control and relative uncontrollability of entry situations provides employees with a motivation for action and individual initiative (Ashford & Black, 1996; Gr eenberger & Strasser, 1986; Reichers, 1987). Consequently, most people undertake some act ion to gain control and to understand the demands of their new environment. Although control and certainty are not identical concepts, Bell and Staw (1989) suggested that ach ieving certainty gives individuals a degree of control, because people have the knowledge of behaviors demanded of them and of resources available to them. Proactive socializ ation tactics involve behaviors by individuals who actively try to reduce uncertainty in their work environments through their own initiative (Saks & Ashforth, 1997). According to the socialization model developed by Saks and Ashforth (1997), proactive socialization behaviors by the indi vidual lead to a process of information acquisition, uncertainty reduction and learning (See Figure 3). This process results in proximal outcomes such as role clarity, social integration a nd person-organization fit, which then lead to distal outcomes ranging from low levels of stress and absenteeism to high levels of organizational commitment and organizational citizenship behaviors. Supporting this model, research on proactive socialization i ndicated that these proactive socialization behaviors are associated with high social inte gration, job performance, job satisfaction, and low levels of role ambiguity and turnover inte ntions (Morrison, 1993b; Saks and Ashforth, 1997; Wanberg & Kammeyer-Mueller, 2000). Fu rthermore, research also found that proximal outcomes (e.g., role clarity and soci al acceptance) transferred the effects of some tactics to outcomes (Bauer et al., 2007).

PAGE 24

16 Figure 3. Organizational Socialization Adapted from Saks and Ashforth (1997) SOCIALIZATION FACTORS INDIVIDUAL: Proactive strate g ies and behavior INFORMATION UNCERTAINTY REDUCTION LEARNING PROXIMAL OUTCOMES Role Clarity Social identification Person-organization fit Motivation Skill acquisition Personal change Social inte g ration Role orientation DISTAL OUTCOMES INDIVIDUAL Lower stress Higher job satisfaction Higher organizational commitment Lower absenteeism & turnover Higher organizational citizenship behaviors Higher performance Role conformity/role innovation

PAGE 25

17 Proactive socialization behaviors that are helpful in dealing with uncertainty during organizational entry can be placed into thre e main categories (Ashford & Black, 1996; Gruman et al., 2006): Positive framing (interpreting the envi ronment positively), sense making (seeking out information and feedback) and relationship building (general socializing, networking, and building relationships, for example, with one’s boss). Positive framing refers to a cognitive self-management mechanism that employees use “to alter their understanding of a situation by ex plicitly controlling the cognitive frame they place on the situation” (Ashford & Black, 1996 ). People who engage in positive framing look on the positive side of things and view situations as an opportunity rather than a threat. Put differently, positive framing involves in terpreting events in the environment as supportive rather than antagonistic. Positive interpretations of the work events can be considered a coping mechanism that helps reduc e stress, allows employees to feel proactive and able to succeed in their new environment (Ashford & Taylor, 1990). Positive framing has been significantly related to social integrat ion, role clarity, pers on-organization fit, job satisfaction, job performance and turnover (A shford & Black, 1996; Gruman et al., 2006; Kim et al., 2005; Wanberg & Kammeyer-Mueller, 2000). Sense making involves information seeking and feedback seeking (Ashford & Black, 1996). Information seeking refers to employee’s search for and acquisition of information that is related to the job, organization and social context. As employees gain information about their tasks, duties and social expectations in their work setting, they are able to reduce uncertainty and make sense of their new environment (Miller & Jablin, 1991; Saks & Ashford, 1997a). New employees can acqui re information from other newcomers, coworkers, supervisors, mentors and written materi als. In that way, they learn the formal and informal rules and regulations. Feedback seeking refers to an employee’s solicitation of

PAGE 26

18 information about his or her performance (Ashfo rd & Black, 1996). Feedback is especially important for newcomers (Wanberg & Kammeyer-Mueller, 2000), because they are more likely to misintrerpret the environment, ma ke mistakes, and violat e organizational norms than individuals who have completed the socia lization process (Ashford & Taylor, 1990). According to Ashford and Taylor (1990), feedba ck also allows new employees to understand when they need to learn more or when they ne ed to reinterpret past information. Ashford (1986) noted that organizations often do not provide new employees with enough feedback and that is common for employees to have to proactively ask for feedback. Both feedback seeking and information seeking serve to reduce uncertainty and equip the employee with knowledge about performance expectations, norms and relationships, so the work environment becomes more predictable (Saks & Ashforth, 1997a). Information seeking and feedback seeking have been significantly related to social integration, role clarity, personorganization fit, job satisfacti on, job performance and turnover (Ashford & Black, 1996; Gruman et al., 2006; Kim et al., 2005; Wanberg & Kammeyer-Mueller, 2000). Lastly, relationship building refers to behaviors on the part of the new employee that are directed towards initiating social interactio n in the work environment (Ashford & Black, 1996). Relationship building is important for organizational newcomers as a means of avoiding loneliness and social isolation (Nels on & Quick, 1991). According to Chao et al. (1994), people are also important for providing information, resources and support, thereby increasing control perceptions and predictabi lity in the work environment. Ashford and Black (1996) categorized proactive behaviors geared towards relationship building into networking (e.g., stopping by other people’s offices to talk about a project), general socializing (e.g., participating in an organizati on’s formal social acti vities, such as office parties) and building relationships with one’s boss (e.g., joining the supervisor for lunch or

PAGE 27

19 asking questions about his or her background). These proactive behaviors build friendship networks (Nelson & Quick, 1991) and help learn about appropriate skil ls, role expectations as well as organizational policies (Ashford & Black, 1996; Morrison, 1993, 2002; Reichers, 1987). Relationship building has been related to social integration, role clarity, personorganization fit, job satisfact ion, job performance and turnover (Ashford & Black, 1996; Gruman et al., 2006; Kim et al., 2005; Wa nberg & Kammeyer-Mueller, 2000). The Current Study: Proactive Socialization Tactic s and Extra-task Performance Behaviors (OCB and CWB) Organizational socialization during new entry is the process by which individuals acquire the knowledge, skills and behaviors requir ed to participate and function effectively as a member of an organization (Van Maanen & Schein, 1979). The purpose of the present study was to investigate the relationship betw een proactive socialization behaviors and extratask performance behaviors (See Figure 4). Fu rthermore, I examined newcomer adjustment (i.e, role clarity, self-efficacy and social inte gration) as mediating va riables between proactive socialization behaviors and OCB/CWB. Lastly, I explored procedural justice as a moderator between proactive socialization be haviors and newcomer adjustment. Figure 4 Proposed Relationship in the Present Study Proactive Socialization Behaviors Positive Framing Sense Making Relationship Building W ork Behaviors Citizenship Behavior Counterproductive Work Behavior Newcomer Adjustment Role Clarity Self-efficacy Social Inte g ration

PAGE 28

20 Proactive socialization tactics are behaviors that newcomers use to reduce uncertainty in the new work environment and include positive framing (e.g., seeing challenges as opportunity), sense making (e.g., asking for feedback) and relationship building (e.g., networking). Proactive socialization tactic s have been related to task performance (Saks & Ashforth, 1997). Nonetheless, extra-task aspe cts of job performance (i.e., OCB and CWB) have not been investigated as an outcome. In fa ct, in their organization al socialization model, Saks and Ashforth (1997) sugges ted organizational ci tizenship behavior as a distal outcome of the socialization process. However, no empirical study has yet investigated this suggestion. Proactive socialization behaviors by the employee help the employee to reduce uncertainty, to increase predictability and to ge t socialized to the organizational and social context (Bauer et al. 2007). Furthermore, they boost self-efficacy (Saks & Ashforth, 1997a) in the uncertainty context, which will contribute to positive experiences. The positive attitudes and emotions that result from these experiences promote a tendency to engage in citizenship behaviors (Podsakoff et al., 2000). Therefore, proactive socialization behaviors will be positively associated with OCB. Hypothesis 1: Positive framing will be positively related to OCB. Hypothesis 2: Sense making will be positively related to OCB. Hypothesis 3: Relationship building will be positively related to OCB. The literature on stress, personal control and organizational socialization also suggests a link between proactive behaviors and counterproductive work behaviors. However, there is no study that investigated th at link. Proactive socialization behaviors make the work context more predictable and provide a sense of control (Ashford & Black, 1996). Uncertainty is one of the predominant stressors during organizational entry. By using proactive socialization tactics, newcomers re duce uncertainty, learn which behaviors are

PAGE 29

21 appropriate and which one are not (Ashford & Bl ack, 1996); they increase their fit to their organization, form relationships with others and interpret events in a positive light (Bauer et al., 2007; Kim et al., 2005). As a result of increased predictability and control, newcomers who engage in proactive social ization behaviors have fewer negative experiences. In fact, proactive socialization tactics have been asso ciated with low levels of stress and anxiety (Ashford & Taylor, 1990). Stressors are among the strongest potential antecedents of counterproductive work behavior (Spector & Fox, 2002). Furthermore, some destructive behaviors may be a means of exerting control over otherwise uncontrollable circumstances (Allen & Greenberg, 1980). By decreasing st ressors and devising a more problem-focused approach, proactive socialization behaviors m ay also reduce counterproductive tendencies. Therefore, proactive socializ ation behaviors will be negatively associated with CWB. Hypothesis 4: Positive framing will be negatively related to CWB. Hypothesis 5: Sense making will be negatively related to CWB. Hypothesis 6: Relationship building will be negatively related to CWB. The Mediating Role of Newcomer Adjustment During organizational entry, increases in personal control and predictability may be indicated by the degree of newcomer adjustment (Ashford & Black, 1996; Bauer et al., 2007), which is attained as a result of information gathering, uncertainty reduction and learning during the socialization process (Saks & Ashf orth, 1997). Newcomer adjustment consists working both task and social transitions (Fis her, 1986). According to Feldman (1981), newcomer adjustment involves achievement of role clarity, task mastery and social acceptance from others duri ng organizational entry.

PAGE 30

22 Socialization models treat newcomer ad justment as links between proactive socialization and behavioral outcomes (Bauer et al., 2007; Saks & Ashforth, 1997). In their meta-analytic review, Bauer et al. (2007) identi fied role clarity, self-efficacy and social acceptance as proximal socialization outcomes th at link organizational socialization tactics to behavioral outcomes. They found that adjustme nt (role clarity, self-efficacy and social acceptance) mediated the effects of organizational socialization tactics and information seeking on job satisfaction, organizational commitment, job performance, intentions to remain and turnover. Although they only focu sed on the tactics used by the organization, newcomer adjustment may serve as a mediator be tween socialization tactics by the individual and outcomes. Since newcomer adjustment invo lves reducing uncertaint y, gaining a certain level of control and increasing predictability in the work environment, it is expected to relate to OCB and CWB. Role Clarity. As one indicator of newcomer adjustment, role clarity refers to understanding job tasks to perform and understa nding task priorities and time allocation (Feldman, 1981). Knowing what is expected from oneself gives a sense of control over the work situation (Ashford & Black, 1996). Proactiv e socialization tactics have been positively related to role clarity (Saks & Ashforth, 1997). For example, through feedback and information provided by written document s, supervisors, mentors and coworkers, newcomers can learn what their roles entail a nd how they can succeed in them. A positive mindset also helps newcomers to better understand the demands of their roles. Role clarity has been related to task performance (Ashford & Black, 1996). Employees who are clear about role expectations are more likely to perform well. Role clarity has also been suggested as a mediator in the Saks and Ashforth’s socialization model (1997) between proactive behaviors and OCB. When pe ople know what their roles involve, they

PAGE 31

23 may also gain insights into additional prosoc ial behaviors they may engage in. Furthermore, role clarity has been associated with posi tive experiences, which promote citizenship behaviors. On the contrary, lack of role clarity (i.e., role ambiguity) is a stressor and has been also related to CWB (Chen & Spector, 1992). Th erefore, role clarity may serve as a mediator between proactive socialization tact ics and extra-task behaviors. Hypothesis 7a: Role clarity will be positively related to OCB. Hypothesis 7b: Role clarity will be negatively related to CWB. Hypothesis8a: Role clarity will mediate the relationship between proactive socialization tactics (i) positive framing, (ii) sense making, (iii) relationship building and OCB. Hypothesis 8b: Role clarity will mediate the relationship between proactive socialization tactics (i) positive framing, (ii) sense making, (iii) relationship building and CWB. Self-Efficacy. Self-efficacy is defined as a personal judgment as to “how well one can execute courses of action required to deal wi th prospective situations” (Bandura, 1982, p. 122). People who are high on self-efficacy feel c onfident that they have the abilities, skills and resources to achieve desired outcomes (Ban dura, 1977). Self-efficacy is also a form of control, whereas low self-efficacy is a form of low perceived control in which someone does not believe he or she can do acts successfully (Spector, 1998; Spector & Fox, 2002). During organizational entry, as newcomers learn the tasks of the new job (task mastery), they also gain confidence in their roles; thereby increase their self-efficacy in accomplishing their jobs and fitting in the social environment (Bauer et al., 2007). There is substantial evidence that self-effi cacy leads to high task performance (e.g., Wood, Bandura & Bailey, 1990). Furthermore, Bauer et al. (2007) fo und that self-efficacy serves as a mediator between socialization effo rts by the organization and task performance. However, the relationship between self-efficacy and extra-task performance behaviors

PAGE 32

24 received little attention. Jex and Bliese (1999) suggested that self-efficacy is related to problem-focused coping, therefore it results in more constructive and less destructive responses to stressors. Self-efficacy during the socialization process, which is gained as a result of newcomer’s proactive behaviors to increase control feelings over the environment, represents a source of motivation as well as a resource to deal with stressors constructively, instead of behaving destructively. Therefore, self-efficacy will serve as a link between proactive socialization behaviors and extra-task performance behaviors. Hypothesis 9a: Self-efficacy will be positively related to OCB. Hypothesis 9b: Self-efficacy will be negatively related to CWB. Hypothesis 10a: Self-efficacy will mediate the relationship between proactive socializ ation tactics (i) positive framing, (ii) sense making (iii) relationship building and OCB. Hypothesis 10b: Self-efficacy will mediate the relationship between proactive socializ ation tactics (i) positive framing, (ii) sense making (iii) relationship building and CWB. Social Integration. Social integration as adjustme nt to one’s group and social environment refers to coming to feel liked a nd accepted by peers (Morrison, 1993). Social integration is almost necessary for success in the knowledge era, because “people” are sources of information that is needed to accomplish one’s tasks, and people can provide a supportive environment for well-being. Having access to people and networks gives a sense of control, as social integration makes the wo rk environment predictable, and allows people to have social-capital resources whenever th ey need information and support (Ashford & Black, 1996). Hall’s (1996) work also suggests th at successful employees of the future will be team oriented, collaborative, and willing to share knowledge with and learn from others. Therefore, newcomers who can achieve social integration are at an advantage. Proactive socialization tactics, especially relationship building, has been related to what extent

PAGE 33

25 newcomers will be able to adjust to thei r work group and achieve social integration (Wanberg & Kammeyer-Mueller, 2000). Having good relationships and supportive treatment at work has been related to both OCB and CWB (Bommer et al., 2003; Spector & Fox, 2002). People who receive support are more likely to engage in he lping behaviors towards others (Bommer, Miles & Grover, 2003). Supervisor or leader support has been related to high levels of OCB and low levels of CWB (Ilies, Nahrgang & Morgeson, 2007; Hershcovis et al., 2007). In contrast, negative relationship experiences such as interpersonal conflict and abusive supervision has been negatively related to OCB and positively relate d to CWB (Detert et al., 2007; Spector & Fox, 2002). Therefore, it is expected that proa ctive behaviors will be linked to OCB and CWB through social integration. Hypothesis 11a: Social integration wi ll be positively related to OCB. Hypothesis 11b: Social integration will be negatively related to CWB. Hypothesis 12a: Social integration wi ll mediate the relationship between proactive socialization tactics (i) positive framing, (ii) sense making (iii) relationship building and OCB. Hypothesis 12b: Social integration wi ll mediate the relationship between pr oactive socialization tactics (i) positive framing, (ii) sense making (iii) relationship building and CWB. The Moderating Effect of Procedural Justice Organizational justice concerns the fair treatment of people in organizations (Colquitt, 2001). Fairness percep tions have three main types. Di stributive justice refers to the perceived fairness of the outcomes (Moorman & Byrne, 2005) received by self and others from an employer. Procedural justice refers to the perceived fairness of the processes that determines organizational outcomes independent of the fairness of the actual outcomes received (Thibaut & Walker, 1975). Interactional ju stice as part of procedural justice refers to

PAGE 34

26 the perceived fairness of interpersonal treatment by a supervisor (Bies, 2005). Among the main types of justice, procedural justice has been most strongly associated with OCB and CWB (Cohen-Charash & Spector, 2001; Organ & Ryan, 1995; Skarlicki & Folger, 1997). Furthermore, procedural justice affects people’s experiences more frequently, as they need to interact with others and deal with decision s and procedures on a daily basis. Procedural justice has been related to important affectiv e and behavioral outcomes including perceived organizational support, job satisfaction (Tekleab Takeuchi, & Taylor, 2005), organizational commitment (Cohen-Charash & Spector, 2001), psychological strain (Judge & Colquitt, 2004), turnover (Tekleab et al., 2005), OCB (Lee & Allen, 2002; Organ & Ryan, 1995) and CWB (Fox, Spector, & Miles, 2001; Skarlicki, Folg er & Tesluk, 1999; Spector & Fox, 1999). The personal control framework identifi ed some boundary conditions for the common finding that personal control leads to positive outcomes. In some conditions, people may prefer a loss of control or intenti onally try to relinquish control (Burger, 1989; Shapiro & Schwartz, 1996). Specifically, personal c ontrol is seen as less desirable when it (a) leads to an uncomfortable level of concern for self-preservation, (b) decreases the likelihood that the person will be able to achieve desire d outcomes, or (c) leads to an increase in predictability that draws the person’s attention to the aversive aspects of the situation (e.g., when the increased controllability leads to an increase in attention to the now-predictable events). The level of procedural justic e may qualify for such a condition during the organizational entry, because proc edural justice affects to what extent proactive socialization behaviors will be successful and will lead to control perceptions and to newcomer adjustment. Presence of justice may make the attainment of desirable outcomes such role clarity, self-efficacy and social integration as a result of proactive socialization behaviors more likely. In contrast, lack of fairness will make the environment unpredictable and

PAGE 35

27 decreases the likelihood that the newcomer can attain desirable outcomes and maximize positive socialization outcomes by their ow n initiative. For example, in an unfair environment, newcomer’s information seeking ma y result in discomfort ing information (e.g., unethical policies), whereas feedback seeking may not necessarily lead to useful and constructive feedback delivered in a respectful manner. In short, fairness may increase the likelihood that proactive socializ ation tactics are associated with positive outcomes including role clarity, self-efficacy and social integration. On the contrary, in an unfair environment, proactive socialization tactics are less likely to lead to positive outcomes. Therefore, it is expected that different levels of procedural justice will affect to what extent proactive socialization behaviors will be associated with role clarity, self-efficacy and social integration. Hypothesis 13: Procedural justice will moderate the rela tionship between proactive socialization behaviors and role clarity. The positive relationship between proactive socialization behaviors and role clarity will be stronger when procedural justice is high than low. Hypothesis 14: Procedural justice will moderate the rela tionship between proactive socialization behaviors and self-efficacy. The positive relationship between proactive socialization behaviors and self-efficacy will be stronger when procedural justice is high than low. Hypothesis 15: Procedural justice will moderate the rela tionship between proactive socialization behaviors and social integration. The positive relationship between proactive socialization behavio rs and social integration will be stronger when procedural justice is high than low. To summarize, the current study proposed several links and mechanisms regarding how proactive socialization behaviors are relate d to extra-task performance behaviors (i.e., OCB and CWB). First, the direct relationships between proactive socialization behaviors (i.e., positive framing, sense making a nd relationship building) and OCB/CWB are investigated. Second, newcomer adjustment variables, which indicate sense of control, are proposed to be related to OCB/CWB and to mediate the relationship between proactive

PAGE 36

28 socialization behaviors and OCB/CWB. Lastly, the moderating role of procedural justice was investigated (See page 31 for the summary of all the hypotheses of this study). Since the objective of the current study was to capture the socialization experience of newcomers, individuals who have started their jobs within the last year were the focus. According to Bauer et al’s meta-analysis (2007 ), the socialization literature focuses on newcomers with an organizational tenure of 3-13 months. Therefore, the recruitment strategy targeted recent graduates from the u ndergraduates and graduate programs covering majors such as business, education, engineering, psychology, and public health.

PAGE 37

29 Summary of the Proposed Hypotheses Hypothesis 1: Positive framing will be positively related to OCB. Hypothesis 2: Sense making will be positively related to OCB. Hypothesis 3: Relationship building wi ll be positively related to OCB. Hypothesis 4: Positive framing will be negatively related to CWB. Hypothesis 5: Sense making will be negatively related to CWB. Hypothesis 6: Relationship building will be negatively related to CWB. Hypothesis 7a: Role clarity will be positively related to OCB. Hypothesis 7b: Role clarity will be negatively related to CWB. Hypothesis 8a: Role clarity will mediate the relationship between proactive socialization tactics (i) positive framing, (ii) sense making (iii) relationship building and OCB. Hypothesis 8b: Role clarity will mediate the relationship between proactive socialization tactics (i) positive framing, (ii) sense making (iii) relationship building and CWB. Hypothesis 9a: Self-efficacy will be positively related to OCB. Hypothesis 9b: Self-efficacy will be negatively related to CWB. Hypothesis 10a: Self-efficacy will mediate the relationship between proactive socialization tactics (i) positive framing, (ii) sense making (iii) relationship building and OCB. Hypothesis 10b: Self-efficacy will mediate the relationship between proactive socialization tactics (i) positive framing, (ii) sense making (iii) relationship building and CWB. Hypothesis 11a: Social integration will be positively related to OCB. Hypothesis 11b: Social integration will be negatively related to CWB. Hypothesis 12a: Social integration will mediate the relationship between proactive socialization tactics (i) positive framing, (ii) sense making (iii) relationship building and OCB. Hypothesis 12b: Social integration will mediate the relationship between proactive socialization tactics (i) positive framing, (ii) sense making (iii) relationsh ip building and CWB. Hypothesis 13: Procedural justice will moderate the relationship between proactive socialization beha viors and role clarity. Hypothesis 14: Procedural justice will moderate the relationship between proactive socialization behaviors and self-efficacy. Hypothesis 15: Procedural justice will moderate the relationship between proactive socialization behavior s and social integration.

PAGE 38

30 Chapter Two: Present Study Method Method Participants The sample for the present study included 216 employees recruited from an alumni list at the University of South Florida. Partic ipants were chosen from recent graduates, who completed their degree within the past year. Specifically, the list of graduating class was obtained from the commencement booklets for Spring 2008 and Summer 2008. The demographics of employees were as followed: % 66 were females and %34 were males. Their average age was 22.1 years ( SD = 3.2). The majority were either Caucasian (58%), African American (21%) or Hispanic, (13%). The average tenure in their current job was 9.2 months ( SD = 2.7). They worked an average of 37.0 hours per week ( SD = 11.8). They were employed predominantly in service (e.g., teacher ; 31.5%), medical/health care (e.g., nurse; 10.5%), or manufacturing (e.g., consumer goods; 10.5%) industries. Furthermore, 124 supervisors returned their rating for their subordinate’s OCB and CWB. Procedure Participants were sent an invitation email to the study, which included a link to the employee survey. They were asked to fill out the survey online at their convenience. Since the focus is on proactive socialization behaviors, participants were instructed to complete the survey only if they have been on the current job for a time period between 3 months and 1 year (Kim et al., 2005). After the participants completed their surveys, they were asked to create a 6-digit code and to forward the same code in an email to their supervisors. The

PAGE 39

31 invitation email sent to the supervisors included a link to the supervisor survey. All surveys from both employees and their supervisors were collected at the secure website. Participants were informed that participation was voluntary and that records would be kept confidential. Measures A two-source (employee and supervisor) survey design was used for this study. The employee survey included measures of proactiv e socialization behaviors, role clarity, selfefficacy, social integration, procedural justice, OCB and CWB. The supervisor survey included measures of OCB and CWB (See Appendix). Proactive Socialization Behaviors. Proactive behaviors at work were assessed with Ashford and Black’s (1996) 20-item scale of proactive behaviors (See Appendix A). Participants were asked to indicate on 5-point Likert scale (1=to no extent, 5=to a great extent) the extent to which they engaged in va rious proactivity behaviors since starting to work at the organization. The proactive behavi or scale included items that assessed positive framing (e.g., “I tried to look on the bright side of things”); sense making–information seeking (e.g., “I tried to learn the important policies and procedures in the company”); sense making–feedback seeking (e.g., “I sought feedba ck on my performance after assignments”); relationship building– general socializing (e.g ., “I attended company social gatherings”); relationship building with supervisor (e.g., “I worked hard to get to know my boss”); and relationship building–networking (e.g., “I starte d conversations with people from different segments of my company”). Coefficient alpha for the proactive socialization scale was .89 with alphas of .74, .83 and .85 for positive fr aming, sense making and relationship building, respectively. Role Clarity. Role clarity was measured using a 6-item role ambiguity scale by Rizzo, House, and Lirtzman (1970) (See Appendix B) Participants reported the extent that they

PAGE 40

32 agreed with each item on a 7-point Likert scale (1=strongly disagree and 7=strongly agree). Higher scores indicated role clar ity. A sample item is ‘I know exactly what is expected of me’. Coefficient alpha for the role clarity scale was .90. Self-Efficacy. Self-efficacy was measured with a 12-item socialization specific selfefficacy scale developed by Gruman et al. (2006) (See Appendix C). Participants were asked to indicate their confidence in the task, role, work group, and organiza tional domains of the job (Feldman, 1981; Ostroff & Kozlowski, 1992) using a 10-point scale with anchors (1) not at all confident, to (10) totally confident. Sample items for each domain were as follows: “Handle routine work-related problems” (task) ; “Handle the demands and expectations of my role in the organization” (role); “Be accepted by my coworkers and my workgroup” (group); and “Function according to the organiza tion’s values and norm s” (organizational). Coefficient alpha for this scale was .90. Social Integration. Social integration was measured us ing a 4-item scale developed by Wanberg and Kammeyer-Mueller (2000) (See Appe ndix D). Participants reported the extent that they agreed with each item on a 7-point Likert scale (1=strongly disagree and 7=strongly agree). Higher scores indicated high levels of social integration. A sample item is “My coworkers seem to accept me as one of them”. Coefficient alpha for this scale was .92. Procedural Justice. Procedural justice was measured using a 7-item scale developed by Colquitt (2001) (See Appendix E). Response choi ces ranged from 1 = “strongly disagree” to 5 = “strongly agree”. Higher scores represented greater perceived levels of justice. Sample items included “Decisions at my organizati on have upheld ethical and moral standard”. Coefficient alpha for this scale was .83. Organizational Citizenship Behavior. OCB was measured using Lee and Allen’s (2002) scale (See Appendix F). To avoid any overlap with CWB items, Lee and Allen (2002) used a

PAGE 41

33 pool created by previous scales to select th e items, which are clearly beneficial to the individuals and the organization. The 16 item s, which were summed into a total score, included OCB directed both at coworkers and at the organization. Sample items include “Help others who have been absent” and “Offer ideas to improve the functioning of the organization“. Participants reported the extent that they engage in specific behaviors on a 5point scale (1=never, 5=every day). High scores indicated high incidence of OCB. Coefficient alpha for this scale was .91 for self-report and .88 for supervisor report. Counterproductive Work Behavior. CWB was assessed with 18 items adapted from a behavioral checklist developed by Spector, Fox, Penney, Bruursema, Goh and Kessler (2006) (See Appendix G). The checklist taps into CWB including sabotage, theft, abuse, production deviance and withdrawal. Sample items are “I purposely wasted your employer’s materials/supplies”, “I started an argument with someone at work”, “I purposely worked slowly when things needed to get done”. Part icipants were asked to indicate the frequency with which they engaged in specific behaviors on a 5-point scale (1=never, 5=every day). All items were summed into a single CWB score wi th high values indicating high incidence of CWB.

PAGE 42

34 Chapter Three: Results Relationships between Proactive Social ization Behaviors and Work Behaviors Means, standard deviations and correlations are shown in Table 1. Hypothesis 1-3 proposed that proactive socialization behavi ors (positive framing, sense making and relationship building) would be positively rela ted to OCB. As hypothesized, people who reported high levels of positive framing, sense making and relationship building also reported more OCB ( r = .20, p < .05 r = .36, p < .01; r = .39, p < .01, respectively). Furthermore, when supervisors evaluated empl oyee’s OCB, sense making and relationship building was significantly and positively related to OCB ( r = .20, p < .05; r = .25, p < .01, respectively). However, positive framing was not significantly associated with supervisor reports of OCB ( r = .10, p > .05). Hypotheses 3-5 proposed that proactive soci alization behaviors (positive framing, sense making and relationship building) would be negatively related to CWB. As hypothesized, people who reported high levels of positive framing also reported less CWB ( r = -.20, p < .05). However, no significant relationship was found between sense making and CWB ( r = 07, p > .05) as well as between relationship building and CWB ( r = -.06, p > .05). When supervisors rated employee’s CWB, none of the proactive socialization behaviors were significantly related to CWB ( r = -.06, p > .05 for positive framing; r = -.07, p > .05 for sense making and r = -.12, p > .05 for relationship building).

PAGE 43

35 Table 1 Means, Standard Deviations, and Intercorrelations 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1 Positive Framing .74 2 Sense Making .48** .83 3 Relationship Building .13* .48** .85 4 Role Clarity .39* .23**.09 .90 5 Self-Efficacy .41**.32* .19* .45** .90 6 Social Integration .18* .19**.21**.29**.22** .92 7 Procedural Justice -.04 .12 .35**.12 .15* .16* .83 8 OCB .20* .36**.39**.32**.34** .28**.341** .90 9 CWB -.20* -.07 -.06 -.38**-.33** -.28**-.22**-.35** NA 10 OCBSupervisor .10 .20* .25**.18* .24** .20* .18* .28**-.12 .88 11 CWBSupervisor -.06 -.07 -.12 -.15* -.16* -.16*-.10 -.06 .16* -.40** NA Mean 3.92 3.69 3.58 4.14 4.18 4.29 3.65 3.94 1.47 3.24 1.52 SD .53 .65 .69 .67 .46 .62 .69 .55 .48 .68 .62 Note. N= 216 for self reports, N= 124 for supervisor reports p < 0.05 level (2-tailed), ** p < 0.01 level (2-tailed). Reliabilities are in bold.

PAGE 44

36 Mediation through Newcomer Adjustment The next set of hypotheses concerned the mediation between proactive socialization behaviors (i.e., positive framing, sense making and relationship building) and work behaviors (i.e., OCB and CWB) through role clarity, self -efficacy and social integration. Sobel tests (Sobel, 1982) along with procedures developed by Baron and Kenny were used to test for mediation. This test is a direct test for th e indirect effect of IV on DV and helps to determine whether a mediator carries the influe nce of an IV to a DV (Baron & Kenny, 1986; Preacher & Hayes, 2004). Its utility has been demonstrated frequently (Hayes & Preacher, 2004; MacKinnon, Warsi & Dwyer, 1995). A vari able may be considered a mediator to the extent to which it carries the influence of a given independent variable (IV) to a given dependent variable (DV). Generally speaking, me diation can be said to occur when (1) the IV significantly relates to the mediator, (2) the IV significantly relates to the DV in the absence of the mediator, (3) the mediator has a significant unique relationship with the DV, and (4) the relationship of the IV on the DV sh rinks upon the addition of the mediator to the analysis (multiple regression). In the case of simple mediation, the Sobel test is conducted by comparing the strength of the indirect effect of IV on DV. If the Sobel value is significant, there is evidence to support mediation. Hypotheses 7a and 7b proposed that role clarity would be positively related to OCB and negatively related to CWB, respectively. As hypothesized, people who reported high levels of role clarity also reported more OCB ( r = .32, p < .01) and less CWB ( r = -.38, p < .01). Furthermore, when supervisors evaluated employee’s OCB, role clarity was significantly and positively related to OCB ( r = .18, p < .05) and negatively related to CWB ( r = -.15, p < .05).

PAGE 45

37 Hypothesis 8a and 8b concerned the mediating role of role clarity in predicting OCB and CWB (See tables 2 and 3). For Hypothesi s 8a, mediation was only tested for positive framing and sense making, because relationship bui lding was not significan tly related to role clarity (i.e., the mediator). In line with hypothe sis 8a, the results supported that role clarity is a mediator of the relationships between positiv e framing and OCB as well as between sense making and OCB. Role clarity did not mediat e the relationship between relationship building and OCB. For Hypothesis 8b, mediation was only tested for positive framing, because sense making and relationship building were not rela ted to CWB (i.e., the dependent variable). As hypothesized, the results supported role clarit y is a mediator of the relationship between positive framing and CWB. Role clarity did not serve as a mediator for the relationship building between sense making and CWB as well as between relationship building and CWB. When supervisor reports of OCB were used fo r analysis, the mediation was tested only for sense making, because positive framing was not significantly related to supervisor-reported OCB (i.e., the dependent variable), whereas rela tionship building was not significantly related to role clarity (i.e., the mediator). The results supported the role of role clarity as a mediator between sense making and OCB as well as relationship building and OCB.

PAGE 46

38 Table 2 Analysis of Mediating Role of Role Clarity (Proactive BehaviorsOCB) Step 1 Step 2 R2 F Sobel-z Mediation Beta Beta Self-report OCB Positive Framing .20* .09 .11** 13.17** 4.17** Yes Role clarity .28** Sense Making .36** .30** .19** 26.08** 3.01** Yes Role clarity .24** Relationship building .39** NA NA NA NA No Role clarity NA Supervisor-report OCB Positive Framing .10 NA NA NA NA No Role clarity NA Sense Making .20** .15** .12** 12.63** 2.36* Yes Role clarity .17** Relationship building .25** NA NA NA NA No Role clarity NA Table 3 Analysis of Mediating Role of Role Clarity (Proactive BehaviorsCWB) Step 1 Step 2 R2 F Sobel-z Mediation Beta Beta Self-report CWB Positive Framing -.20* -.05 .15** 19.26** -4.72** Yes Role clarity -.36** Sense Making -.07 NA NA NA NA No Role clarity NA Relationship building -.06 NA NA NA NA No Role clarity NA

PAGE 47

39 Hypotheses 9a and 9b proposed that self-efficacy would be positively related to OCB and negatively related to CWB, respectively. As hypothesized, people who reported high levels of self-efficacy also reported more OCB ( r = .34, p < .01) and less CWB ( r = -.33, p < .01). Furthermore, when supervisors evaluated employee’s OCB, self-efficacy was significantly and positively related to OCB ( r = .24, p < .05) and negatively related to CWB ( r = -.16, p < .05). Hypothesis 10a and 10b concerned the mediatin g role of self-efficacy in predicting OCB and CWB (See tables 4 and 5). In line with hypothesis 10a, the results support that self-efficacy is a mediator of the relationsh ips between positive framing and OCB, between sense making and OCB as well as between re lationship building and OCB. For Hypothesis 10b, mediation was only tested for positive framing, because sense making and relationship building were not significantly related to CWB (i.e., the dependent variable). As hypothesized, the results support self-efficacy as a mediator of the relationship between positive framing and CWB. Self-efficacy did not mediate the relationship between sense making and CWB as well as between relations hip building and CWB. The mediation analysis was not run with supervisor data, because none of the proactive socialization behaviors (i.e., positive framing, sense making and relationship building) were related to supervisor reports of CWB.

PAGE 48

40 Table 4 Analysis of Mediating Role of Self-e fficacy (Proactive BehaviorsOCB) Step 1 Step 2 R2 F Sobel-z Mediation Beta Beta Self-report OCB Positive Framing .20* .06 .12** 15.60** 3.10** Yes Self-efficacy .31** Sense Making .36** .28** .19** 26.62** 3.80** Yes Self-efficacy .26** Relationship building .39** .34** .26** 34.44** 2.61** Yes Self-efficacy .28** Supervisor-report OCB Positive Framing .10 NA NA NA NA No Self-efficacy NA Sense Making .20* .17* .19** 18.08** 3.18** Yes Self-efficacy .21* Relationship building .25** .20* .18** 24.20** 2.99** Yes Self-efficacy .22** Table 5 Analysis of Mediating Role of Self-E fficacy (Proactive BehaviorsCWB) Step 1 Step 2 R2 F Sobel-z Mediation Beta Beta Self-report CWB Positive Framing -.20* -.06 .12** 14.78** 3.07** Yes Self-efficacy .31** Sense Making NA NA NA NA NA No Self-efficacy NA Relationship building NA NA NA NA NA No Self-efficacy NA

PAGE 49

41 Hypotheses 11a and 11b proposed that social integration would be positively related to OCB and negatively related to CWB, respectively. As hypothesized, people who reported high levels of social integrat ion also reported more OCB ( r = .28, p < .01) and less CWB ( r = -.28, p < .01). Furthermore, when supervisors eval uated employee’s OCB, social integration was significantly and positively related to OCB ( r = .20, p < .05) and negatively related to CWB ( r = -.16, p < .05). Hypothesis 12a and 12b concerned the medi ating role of social integration in predicting OCB (See Table 6) and CWB. For Hypothesis 12a, mediation was only tested for sense making and relationship building, because positive framing was not related to social integration (i.e., the mediator). In line with Hypothesis 12a, the results support that social integration is a mediator of the relationship s between sense making and OCB as well as between relationship building and OCB. Social integration did not mediate the relationship between positive framing and OCB. The medi ation analysis was not tested for CWB, because sense making and relationship building were not related to selfor supervisorreported CWB (i.e., the dependent variable), whereas positive framing was not significantly associated with social integration (i.e., the me diator). Social integration did not serve as a mediator between proactive socialization behavi ors (i.e., positive framing, sense making and relationship building). When supervisor re ports of OCB were used for analysis, the mediation was tested only for sense making and relationship building, because positive framing was not related to supervisor-reported OC B. The results supported the role of social integration as a mediator between sense maki ng and OCB as well as relationship building and OCB.

PAGE 50

42 Table 6 Analysis of Mediating Role of Social Integration (Proactive BehaviorsOCB) Step 1 Step 2 R2 F Sobel-z Mediation Beta Beta Self-report OCB Positive Framing NA NA NA NA NA No Social integration NA Sense Making .36** .31** .18** 24.30** 2.47* Yes Social integration .22** Relationship building .39** .35** .20** 27.71** 3.11** Yes Social integration .21** Supervisor-report OCB Positive Framing .10 NA NA NA NA No Social integration NA Sense Making .20** .18* .14* 16.36** 3.41** Yes Social integration .23** Relationship building .25** .18* .18** 23.38** 2.88** Yes Social integration .24** Moderating Role of Procedural Justice Moderated regression analyses were used to test hypotheses 13-15. In the first step, newcomer adjustment variables were regressed on the predictor (i.e., proactive socialization behaviors) and the moderator (i.e., procedural justice). In the second step, the interaction term was added to the regression equation. If the interaction term was significant, and the form of the interaction was as expected, the results were consistent with the moderation hypotheses. To illustrate the nature of the in teraction, the results were graphed (Aiken & West, 1981). Hypothesis 13 proposed that procedural ju stice would moderate the relationship

PAGE 51

43 between positive framing and newcomer adjustment variables, so that the relationship will be stronger as procedural justice increases. As shown in Table 7, the proactive socialization behavior by procedural justice interaction was not significant for role clarity, self-efficacy or social integration. Therefore, this hypothesis was not supported for any newcomer adjustment variable.

PAGE 52

44 Table 7 Regression of Procedural Justice by Positive Framing on Role Clarity, Self-efficacy and Social Integration Role Clarity Selfefficacy Social Integration B Step1 B Step2 B Step1 B Step2 B Step1 B Step2 Step 1Main Effects Positive Framing .44** .42 .33** .19 .14 .00 Procedural Justice .12* .00 .00 .00 .15* .00 R2 .18** .20** .04* F 24.21** 28.95** 5.12* Step 2Interaction Term Positive Framing Procedural Justice .00 .00 .00 R2 .00 .00 .00 F2 .01 .28 .06 Overall R2 .18** .20** .04* Overall F 16.07** 19.34** 3.42* Note. N = 216; p < 0.05 level (2-tailed), ** p < 0.01 level (2-tailed)

PAGE 53

45 Hypothesis 14 proposed that procedural ju stice would moderate the relationship between sense making and newcomer adjustment variables, so that the relationship will be stronger as procedural justice increases. As shown in table 8, the interaction between sense making and procedural justice was signif icant when predicting self-efficacy ( B = .13, SD = .05, p < .05). The positive relationship between sense making and self-efficacy was stronger when procedural justice was high versus low (F igure 5). People reported highest level of selfefficacy, when both procedural justice and sense making was high. There was no moderation of procedural justice when pr edicting role clarity and social integration. Therefore, Hypothesis 11b was supported, while 11a and c was not supported.

PAGE 54

46 Table 8 Regression of Procedural Justice by Sense Making on Role Clarity, Self-efficacy and Social Integration Role Clarity Selfefficacy Social Integration B Step1 B Step2 B Step1 B Step2 B Step1 B Step2 Step 1Main Effects Sense Making .20** -.22 .20** -.24 .16* -.32 Procedural Justice .00 -.37 .00 -.40*.12* -.39 R2 .07** .12** .06* F 8.01** 15.17** 6.78* Step 2Interaction Term Sense Making Procedural Justice .12 .13* .14 R2 .01 .02* .01 F2 2.58 6.01* 2.00 Overall R2 .08 .14** .07* Overall F 6.24** 12.34** 5.60* Note N = 216; p < 0.05 level (2-tailed), ** p < 0.01 level (2-tailed)

PAGE 55

47 3 3.5 4 4.5 5Low Sense Making High Sense MakingSelf-efficacy Low Prodecural Justic e High Prodecural Justic Figure 5. Interaction Between Sense Making a nd Procedural Justice on Self-efficacy Hypothesis 15 proposed that procedural ju stice would moderate the relationship between proactive relationship building and ne wcomer adjustment variables, so that the relationship will be stronger as procedural justice increases. As shown in table 9, the interaction between relationship building and procedural justice was significant when predicting role clarity ( B = .21, SD = .08, p<.05), self-efficacy ( B = .12, SD = .06, p<.05), and social integration ( B = .18, SD = .09, p<.05). The positive relationship between relationship building and role clarity (Figure 6), between rela tionship building and self-efficacy (Figure 7) and between relationship building and social integration (Figure 8) was stronger when procedural justice was high versus low. People reported highest level of role clarity, selfefficacy and social integration, when both proc edural justice and relationship building were high.

PAGE 56

48 Table 9 Regression of Procedural Justice by Relationship Building on Role Clarity, Self-efficacy and Social Integration Role Clarity Selfefficacy Social Integration B Step1 B Step2 Step1 B Step2 B Step1 B Step2 Step 1Main Effects Relationship Building .00 -.80 .10* -.33 .17* -.46 Procedural Justice .00 -.62 .00 -.35 .00 -.52 R2 .01 .04* .05* F 1.27 5.25* 6.48* Step 2Interaction Term Relationship Building* Procedural Justice .21* .12* .18* R2 .03* .02* .02* F2 7.00* 4.04* 4.07* Overall R2 .04* .06* .07* Overall F 3.20* 4.89* 5.74* Note. N = 216; p < 0.05 level (2-tailed), ** p < 0.01 level (2-tailed)

PAGE 57

49 3 3.5 4 4.5 5Low Relationship BuildingHigh Relationship BuildingRole Clarity Low Prodecural Justi c High Prodecural Just Figure 6. Interaction Between Relationship Building and Procedural Justice on Role Clarity 3 3.5 4 4.5 5Low Relationship BuildingHigh Relationship BuildingSelf-efficacy Low Prodecural Justic e High Prodecural Justic Figure 7 Interaction Between Relationship Building and Procedural Justice on Self-efficacy

PAGE 58

50 3 3.5 4 4.5 5Low Relationship BuildingHigh Relationship BuildingSocial Integration Low Prodecural Justic e High Prodecural Justi c Figure 8. Interaction Between Relationship Building and Procedural Justice on Social Integration In sum, hypotheses of direct relationships were supported for all proactive socialization behaviors and OCB. In case of CWB, only positive framing was significantly related to CWB, only when self-reports were used. Hypotheses predicting relationships between newcomer adjustment variables and OC B and CWB were also supported with both self-reports and supervisor-reports of work behaviors. Hypotheses regarding the mediating role of newcomer adjustment received some support. Lastly, hypotheses about the role of procedural justice were mostly supported for th e relationship between proactive socialization behaviors and social integration (See the list of the hypotheses and to what extent they were supported on page 52).

PAGE 59

51 Summary of Results H 1: Positive framing will be po sitively related to OCB. Fully supported H 2: Sense making will be positively related to OCB. Fully supported H 3: Relationship building will be positively related to OCB. Fully supported H 4: Positive framing will be negatively related to CWB. Fully supported H 5: Sense making will be negatively related to CWB. Not supported H 6: Relationship building will be negatively related to CWB. Not supported H 7a: Role clarity will be positively related to OCB. Fully supported H 7b: Role clarity will be negatively related to CWB. Fully supported H 8a: Role clarity will mediate the relationship between proactive socialization tactics (i) positive framing, (ii) sense making (iii) relationship building and OCB. Partially supported For positive framing and sense making H 8b: Role clarity will mediate the relationship between proactive socialization tactics (i) positive framing, (ii) sense making (iii) relationship building and CWB. Partially supported For positive framing H 9a: Self-efficacy will be positively related to OCB. Fully supported H 9b: Self-efficacy will be negatively related to CWB. Fully supported H 10a: Self-efficacy will mediate the relationship between proactive socialization tactics (i) positive framing, (ii) sense making (iii) relationship building and OCB. Fully supported H 10b: Self-efficacy will mediate the relationship between proactive socialization tactics (i) positive framing, (ii) sense making (iii) relationship building and CWB. Partially supported For positive framing H 11a: Social integration will be positively related to OCB. Fully supported H 11b: Social integration will be negatively related to CWB. Fully supported H 12a: Social integration will mediate the relationship between proactive socialization tactics (i) positive framing, (ii) sense making (iii) relationship building and OCB. Partially supported For sense making and relationship building H 12b: Social integration will mediate the relationship between proactive socialization tactics (i) positive framing, (ii) sense making (iii) relationship building and CWB. Not supported H 13: Procedural justice will moderate the relationship between proactive socialization behaviors and role clarity. Not supported H 14: Procedural justice will moderate the relationship between proactive socialization behaviors and self-efficacy. Partially supported Supported for sense making H 15: Procedural justice will moderate the relationship between proactive socialization behaviors and social integration. Fully supported

PAGE 60

52 Chapter Four: Discussion The objective of the present study was to explore the relationship between proactive socialization behaviors, work adjustment variables and voluntary work behaviors. Specifically, I investigated how positive framing, sense making and relationship building was related to citizenship and counterproductive work behavior. To date, these relationships have not been tested empirically. Furthermore, the study explored the mediating role of role clarity, self-efficacy and social integration and the moderating role of procedural justice. This study is also the first study, which ex plored the mediation for socialization efforts initiated by the individual and the first study, which tested a contextual variable for its moderating effect on the relationship between proactive socialization behaviors and newcomer adjustment variables. The results indicated that proactive socializ ation behaviors were related to citizenship behavior. People, who reported engaging in posi tive framing, sense making (i.e., information seeking and feedback seeking) and relationship bu ilding (i.e., general socializing, networking and building relationships with one’s boss) also reported high levels of OCB. The positive relationship between proactive socialization behaviors and OCB was also obtained, when supervisors reported on their subordinates’ OCB. These findings provide support for the socialization model proposed by Saks and Ashforth (1997). According to them, proactive socialization behaviors trigger a process of in formation gathering, uncertainty reduction and learning during organizational entry. Eventually this newcomer socialization leads to positive attitudes and outcomes. Although they sugg ested citizenship behavior as a potential outcome, the present study provides support in an empirical study.

PAGE 61

53 In the case of CWB, only positive framing was related to CWB. People who reported engaging in more positive framing reported lower levels of CWB than people who reported in less positive framing. However, positive fram ing was not significantly related to supervisor reports of CWB. Furthermore, sense making a nd relationship building was not significantly related to CWB. For the most part, proactive socialization behaviors did not predict CWB. One explanation for this finding is that the relationship between proactive socialization behaviors and CWB is more distal. Proactive socialization behaviors do not necessarily relate to CWB, but if they improve the functioning of the newcomer within the new organization context by eliminating stressors (e.g., uncertain ty), by promoting better adjustment, then they may influence CWB. In fact, proactive social ization behaviors were related to newcomer adjustment. Furthermore, CWB was significantly and negatively related to all newcomer adjustment variables including role clarity, self-efficacy and social integration both when CWB was rated by the employee or by the supervisor. The overall pattern also indicates that pr oactive socialization behaviors yield more significant relationships with OCB than CWB. This is in line with the main performance models. Citizenship behaviors are conceptually cl oser to task performance, such that some OCB may be considered as part of task domain (Organ, 1991) and some people engage in OCB to increase their performa nce evaluations (Bolino, 1 999). Proactive socialization behaviors have been related to task performance (Ashford & Black, 1996), so therefore they may be instrumental in increa sing OCB. In the case of CWB, the relationship between proactive socialization and CWB seems to be weak. The mediation results for OCB indicated that proactive socialization behaviors mostly kept the direct relationship as well as the indirect relationships via role clarity, selfefficacy and social integration. The results pr ovide some support for potential mediation,

PAGE 62

54 that is socialization works through newcomer ad justment variables. Specifically, the effects of positive framing, sense making and relations hip building were related to OCB via role clarity, self-efficacy and social integration. In case of CWB, there was support for mediation of the relationship between positive framing and CWB. No other mediation was detected, because two of the three types of proactive so cialization behaviors (i .e., sense making and relationship building) were not significantly re lated to CWB. Furthermore, in line with the personal control framework, when newcomers succeed in adjustment with role clarity and self-efficacy and increase their control percepti ons, they are more likely to engage in OCB and less likely to commit CWB. The present study is possibly the first study that examines the effects of justice, specifically procedural justice, on the relation ship between proactive socialization behaviors and work behaviors. The results suggested a moderating role of procedural justice for some of the relationships. Procedural justice did not have a moderating effect on the relationship between positive framing and the newcomer adjust ment variables. As part of the definition, people who engage in positive framing see th e environment in a positive light (Ashford & Black, 1996). Framing is internal to the indivi dual and perceiving the environment as ‘fair’ maybe part of the positive framing process. On the contrary, the sense making and relationship building behaviors are external to the individual and happen within an organizational context. The newcomer may enga ge in these behaviors, but he/she may not necessarily attain the intended outcomes (e.g., ro le clarity, self-efficacy or social integration). Procedural justice may determine whether the intended outcomes are achieved, because people are exposed to organizati onal procedures daily (Colquitt et al., 2001). For example, if the newcomer requests information on a procedure and doesn’t get it, he/she may perceive unfairness. Or if certain people have better acce ss to mentors during social gatherings, it may

PAGE 63

55 be perceived as unjust. Among the tested hypot heses, procedural justice mattered for only sense making and only in predicting self-efficacy. Interestingly, procedural justice moderated the relationships between relati onship building and all newcomer adjustment variables. In other words, when people engaged in relations hip building in a fair environment, they experienced higher levels of role clarity, self -efficacy and social integration. One explanation may be that procedural justice is more crit ical for relationship building than the other proactive socialization behavi ors, because only when procedures are fair, newcomers are likely to establish beneficial relationships with others and become an insider within the social networks. Considering all the results, this study provides some support for the personal control framework and points out that there may be other explanations for the newcomer socialization process. Uncertai nty reduction theory and personal control models are among the most commonly utilized frameworks to ex plain how proactive socialization behaviors lead to outcomes (Ashford & Black, 1996; Ba uer et al., 2007). Saks and Ashforth (1997) proposed that proactive socialization behavior s lead to proximal outcomes that signify decreased uncertainty and increased control pe rceptions (Saks & Ashforth, 1997). In the present study, the proximal outcomes (i.e., newcomer adjustment variables) only partially mediated most of the relation ships for OCB. The proactive socialization behaviors were directly related to OCB in addition to their indi rect association via role clarity, self-efficacy and social integration. Newcomer adjustme nt variables mediated only the relationship between positive framing and CWB.

PAGE 64

56 Limitations The literature on organizational socializati on does not specify a time frame for the initial socialization experience, when individuals first start their jobs (Bauer et al., 2007). There is debate as to when it is completed and at which point in time researchers should measure the extent of socialization. Bauer et al (2007) suggested that the most commonly used time frame is 1 year and the range for organizational tenure for this study was between 3 months to 12 months with an average of 9 months. The sample size for supervisors in this st udy was less than desired, so the results might have been affected for regression analyses. To get better picture of the true relationship between main variables and behaviors reported by the supervisor, the relationships should be repeated with a bigg er sample of supervisor-report of OCB/CWB. Still, most of the direct relationships were significant with the supervisor data. All data were collected at the same time However, organizational entry involves a process that unfolds over time (Kim et al ., 2005; Saks & Ashforth, 1997). Ideally, the variables can be measured at different time s both to see how these newcomer adjustment variables develops as well as to establish the consistency of outcomes including OCB and CWB over time. However, this is the first stud y that investigated the effects of proactive socialization behaviors on extra-task performa nce behaviors and the findings are important for subsequent cross-sectional and longitudinal studies. The design of this study also does not allow making inferences about causality. It is possible that people who experience high levels of role clarity, self-efficacy and soci al integration may engage in more proactive socialization behaviors. Similarl y, people who report high levels of OCB may engage in more positive framing, sense making and relationship building.

PAGE 65

57 Implications and Future Directions Although the model of organizational soci alization by Saks and Ashforth (1997) posited citizenship behaviors as an outcome no study I could find investigated this proposition. The present study provided support for this relationship and demonstrated that proactive socialization behaviors are associated with high levels of citizenship behaviors. Saks and Ashforth’s (1997) model also proposed lower stress as an outcome variable that was negatively related to socialization behavior s. Most prior studies investigate the positive outcomes of the socialization process. The pres ent study demonstrated that positive framing was associated with low levels of counterproductive work behavior. The models of organizational socialization may benefi t by integrating both citizenship and counterproductive work behaviors as addition to task behaviors/performance. The present study also identified new antecedents for OCB and CWB. It also adds to literature on proactivity by investigating outcomes and conditi ons that affect proactive behaviors. In sum, the findings contribute to our knowledge on ne wcomer socialization, extra-task performance and proactivity. Additional antecedents and outcomes of proa ctive socialization be haviors should be investigated. Research has shown that socializat ion initiated by the organization encourages proactive socialization behaviors, because it is perceived as a sign for approval of these behaviors (Gruman et al., 2006). Other persona lity (e.g., proactive personality, achievement orientation and need for approval) and organiza tional factors (e.g., organizational support) may relate to high levels of proactive soci alization behaviors. In terms of newcomer adjustment, additional proximal and distal out comes may be investigated. For example, in addition to role clarity, self-efficacy and soci al integration, newcomer adjustment variables

PAGE 66

58 such as person-organization fit and role orientat ion may be explored for their role in linking proactive socialization behaviors and OCB/CWB (Kim et al., 2005; Saks & Ashforth, 1997). Furthermore, among distal outcomes of newc omer socialization, job satisfaction and organizational commitment has been related to OCB and CWB (Podsakoff et al., 2000; Spector & Fox, 2002). As a next step, the relationship between organizational socialization behaviors and performance outcomes including OCB and CWB should be investigated. Saks and Ashforth’s model (1997) include socialization be haviors initiated both by the individual and by the organization. Research has shown that organizational socialization tactics are related to high task performance (Bauer et al., 2007). Therefore, it would be interesting to explore whether organizational socialization tactics w ill be related to extra-task performance behaviors (i.e., OCB and CWB). Moreover, the inclusion of both organizational and proactive socialization behaviors in the sa me study would allow to look at all the relationships simultaneously and provide a more comprehensive picture of how socialization efforts factor into the models that explain OCB and CWB. Lastly, organizational entry can be considered a period that evokes stressful experiences for the newcomer. Above all, the newcomer needs to deal with uncertainty (Ashford & Black, 1996; Saks & Ashforth, 1997) and make their work environment more predictable and certain. Future studies may investigate stressors that are specific to the process of moving from uncertainty to certainty. For example, anxiety due to failure and lack of feedback may be more relevant to th e socialization experience of newcomers. Furthermore, the newcomer makes use of many different ways to deal with stressors in addition to proactive socialization behaviors such as organizational support, coworker support and mentoring, which maybe available to the newcomer without any effort on

PAGE 67

59 his/her part. Such research will also help to cl arify the role of personal control in predicting OCB and CWB during organizational entry. In terms of practical implications, the pres ent study suggests that when organizations and managers encourage proactive socialization behaviors, newcomers may experience better adjustment and engage in more citizenshi p behaviors. Furthermore, when newcomers experience role clarity, self-efficacy and social integration, they may be more likely to engage in more OCB and less CWB. Therefore, activiti es and opportunities that increase newcomer adjustment will benefit the orga nization (Bauer et al., 2007). For example, organizations may offer training sessions and social gather ings for newcomers or promote an open environment, which provides support for proact ive socialization behaviors. Also, supervisors may assign newcomers projects, which may increase their self-efficacy. The present study also emphasized fairness perceptions for some proactive socialization tactics in achieving better newcomer adjustment. Therefore, organi zations may facilitate newcomer adjustment by providing a fair environment.

PAGE 68

60 References Abramson, L. Y., Seligman, M. E. P., & Teas dale, J. D. (1978). Learned helplessness in humans. Critique and reformulation Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 87 49-74. Aiken, L. S & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions Thousand Oaks, CA, US: Sage Publications, Inc. Allen, T. D., Facteau, J. D., & Facteau, C. L. (2004). Structured interviewing for OCB: Construct validity, faking, and the effects of question type. Human Performance, 17, 124. Ashford, S. J., & Black, S. J. (1996). Proactivity during organizational entry: The role of desire for control. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 199–214. Ashford, S. J., & Taylor, M. S. (1990). Adap tation to work transitions: An integrative approach. In G. R. Ferris & K. M. Rowland (Eds.), Research in personnel and human resource management (Vol. 8, pp. 139). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Aquino, K., Lewis, M. U., & Bradfield, M. (1999) Justice constructs, negative affectivity, and employee deviance: a proposed model and empirical test. Journal of Organizational Behavior 20, 1073-1091. Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84 191-215. Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist, 37 122147 Barbuto, J. E., & Bugenhagen, M. J. (2006). Preliminary relation between followers' locus of

PAGE 69

61 control and organizational citizenship behaviors. Psychological Reports, 98(3 ), 882-884. Barling, J. & Phillips, M. (1993). Interactio nal, formal, and distributive justice in the workplace: An exploratory study. Journal of Psychology 649-656. Bauer, T. N., Bodner, T., Erdogan, B., Truxillo, D. M., & Tucker, J. S. (2007). Newcomer adjustment during organizational soci alization: A meta-analytic review of antecedents, outcomes, and methods. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(3), 707-721. Bell, N. E., & Staw, B. M. (1989). People as sculptors versus sculpture: The roles of personality and personal control in organizations. In Arthur, M. B. & Hall, D. T. (Eds.) Handbook of career theory (pp. 232-251). New York, NY, US: Cambridge University Press. Bennett, R. J., & Robinson, S. L. (2000). Deve lopment of a measure of workplace deviance. Journal of Applied Psychology 85, 349-360. Bies, R. J., Tripp, T. M., & Kramer, R. M. (199 7). At the breaking point: Cognitive and social dynamics of revenge in organizations. In R. A. Giacalone & J. Greenberg (Eds.) Antisocial behavior in organizations (pp. 18-36). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Bies, R. J. (2005). Are procedural and inter actional justice conceptually distinct. In: J. Greenberg, & J. Colquitt (Eds.) Handbook of organizational justice (pp. 85-112); Mahwah, NJ, US: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Bommer, W. H., Miles, E. W., & Grover, S. L. (2003). Does one good turn deserve another? Coworker influences on employee citizenship. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24 181-196. Borman, W. C., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1993) Expanding the criterion domain to include elements of contextual performance. In N. Schmitt & W. C. Borman (Eds.). Personnel selection (pp. 71-98). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

PAGE 70

62 Borman, W. C., Penner, L., Allen, T., & Motowi dlo, S. (2001). Personality predictors of citizenship performance. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 9, 52-69. Brief, A. P., & Motowidlo, S. J. (198 6). Prosocial organiza tional behaviors. Academy of Management Review, 11, 710-725. Burger, J. M. (1989). Negative reactions to increases in perceived personal control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56 246-256. Burger, J. M. & Cooper, H. M. (1979). The desirability of control. Motivation and Emotion, 3 381-393. Camman, C., Fichman, M., Jenkins, D., & Klesh, J. (1979). The Michigan Organizational Assessment Questionnaire. Unpublished manus cript, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Clark, M. S., & Isen, A. M. (1982). Towards understanding the relationship between feeling states and social behavior. In A. H. Hastorf & A. M. Isen (Eds.), Cognitive social psychology (pp. 73-108). Amsterdam: Elsevier. Cohen-Charash, Y., & Spector, P. E. (2001). The role of justice in organizations: A metaanalysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 86 278-321. Colquitt, J. A. (2001). On the dimensionality of organizational justice: A construct validation of a measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 386-400. Crant, J. M. (2000). Proactive behavior in organizations. Journal of Management, 26(3) 435-462. Cropanzano, R., Howes, J. C., Grandey, A. A., & Toth, P. (1997). The relationship of organizational politics and support to wo rk behaviors, attitudes and stress. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 18, 159-180.

PAGE 71

63 Cropanzano, R., Rupp, D.E., & Byrne, Z. S. (2003). The relationship of emotional exhaustion to work attitudes, job perf ormance, and organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(1) 160-169. Detert, J. R., Trevino, L. K., Burris, E. R., & Andiappan, M. (2007). Managerial modes of influence and counterproductivity in organi zations: A longitudinal business-unit-level investigation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(4) 993-1005. Duffy, M. K., Ganster, D. C., & Shaw, J. D. (1998). Positive affectivity and negative outcomes: The role of tenure and job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 950-959. Feldman, D. C. (1981). The multiple so cialization of organization members. Academy of Management Review, 6 309-318. Fisher, C. D. (1986). Organizational socializations. In R. A. Giacalone & P. Rosenfeld (Eds.), Research in personnel and human resources management (Vol. 4, pp. 101–145). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Fox, S., & Spector, P. E. (1999). A m odel of work frustration--aggression. Journal of Organizational Behavior 20, 915-931. Fox, S. & Spector, P. E. (2005). Counterproductive work behavior: Inve stigations of actors and targets American Psychological Association, NE. Fox, S., Spector, P. E., & Miles, D. (2001) Counterproductive work behavior (CWB) in response to job stressors and organizationa l justice: Some mediator and moderator tests for autonomy and emotions. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 59 291-309. George, J. M., & Brief, A. P. (1992). Feelings of good: A conceptual analysis of the mood at work-organizational spontaneity relationship. Psychological Bulletin, 112 310-329. Giacalone, R. A., & Greenberg, J. (1997). Antisocial behavior in organizations Thousand Oaks,

PAGE 72

64 CA: Sage. Gottfredson, G. D., & Holland, J.L. (1990). The longitudinal test of the influence of congruence: Job satisfaction, competency utilization, and counterproductive behavior. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 37(4) 389-398. Greenberg, L., & Barling, J. (1999). Predicting employee aggression against coworkers, subordinates and supervisors: The roles of person behaviors and perceived workplace factors Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20, 897-913. Greenberg, J., & Scott, K. S. (1996). Why do workers bite the hands that feed them? Employee theft as a social exchange process. In : B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.) Research in organizational behavior: An annual series of analytical essays and critical reviews 18, (pp. 111-156). US: Elsevier Science/JAI Press. Greenberger, D. B., & Strasser, S. (1986). Development and application of a model of personal control in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 11 164-177. Greenberger, D. B., Strasser, S., & Dunham, R. B. (1989). The impact of personal control on performance and satisfaction. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 43 29-51. Griffin, A. E. C., Colella, A., & Goparaju S. (2000). Newcomer and organizational socialization tactics: An interactionist perspective. Human Resource Management Review, 10, 453–474. Gruman, J. A., Saks, A. M., & Zweig, D. I. (2 006). Organizational socialization tactics and newcomer proactive behaviors: An integrative study. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 69 90-104. Hall, D. T. (1996). Long live the career: A relational approach. In D. T. Hall (Ed.), The career is dead-Long live the career (pp. 1-14). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

PAGE 73

65 Hershcovis, S. M., Turner, N., Barling, J., Arnold, K. A., Dupre, K. E., Inness, M., et al. (2007). Predicting workplace aggression: A metaanalysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 228–238. Hoffi-Hofstetter, H., & Mannheim, B. (1999) Managers' coping resources, perceived organizational patterns, and responses durin g organizational recovery from decline. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20(5) 665-685. Hurtz, G. M., & Donovan, J. J. (2000). Personality and j ob performance: The Big Five revisited. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 869–879. Ilies, R. Nahrgang, J. D., & Morgeson, F. P. (2007). Leader-member exchange and citizenship behaviors: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92 269-277. Jex, S. M., & Bliese, P. D. (1999). Efficacy beliefs as a moderator of the impact of workrelated stressors: A multilevel study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84 349-361. Judge, T. A., & Colquitt, J. A. (2004). Organi zational justice: The mediating role of workfamily conflict. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(3) 395-404. Kim, T., Cable, D. M., & Kim, S. (2005). Soci alization tactics, employee proactivity, and person–organization. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90 (2), 232–241. Lee, K., & Allen, N. J. (2002). Organizational citizenship behavior and workplace deviance: The role of affect and cognitions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 131-142. LePine, J. A., Erez, A., & Johnson, D. E. (2002). The nature and dimensionality of organizational citizenship behavior: A critical review and meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 52-65. Louis, M. R. (1980). Surprise and sense maki ng: what newcomers experience in entering unfamiliar organizational settings. Administrative Science Quarterly, 64 226–251. MacKinnon, D. P., Warsi, G., & Dwyer, J. H. (1995). A simulation study of mediated effect

PAGE 74

66 measures. Multivariate Behavioral Research 30 (1), 41-62. Martinko, M. J., Gundlach, M. J., & Douglas, S. C. (2002). Toward an integrative theory of counterproductive workplace behavior: A causal reasoning perspective. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 10, 36-50. Miles, D. E., Borman, W. E., Spector, P.E., & Fox, S. (2002). Building an integrative model of extra role work behaviors: A comparison of counterproductive work behavior with organizational citizenship behavior. International Journal of Selection and Assessment 10, 51-57. 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. Moorman, R. H. (1991). Relationship between organizational justice and organizational citizenship behaviors: Do fairness percep tions influence employee citizenship? Journal of Applied Psychology, 76(6) 845-855. Moorman, R. H., & Byrne, Z. S. (2005) How does organizational justice affect organizational citi zenship behavior? In: J. Greenberg, & J. Colquitt (Eds.) Handbook of organizational justice (pp. 355-380); Mahwah, NJ, US: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Morrison, E. W. (1993). Longitudinal stud y of the effects of information seeking on newcomer socialization. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 173–183. Morrison, E. W. (2002). Newcomers’ relationshi ps: The role of social network ties during socialization. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 1149–1160. Motowidlo, S. J., & Van Scotter, J. R. (1994) Evidence that task performance should be distinguished from contextual performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 475-480.

PAGE 75

67 Nelson, D. L., & Quick, J. C. (1991). So cial support and newcom er adjustment in organizations: Attachment theory at work? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 12, 543– 554. Ones, D. S., Viswesvaran, C., & Schmidt, F. L. (1993). Comprehensive meta-analysis of integrity test validities: Findings and implic ations for personnel selection and theories of job performance. [Monograph]. Journal of Applied Psychology 78 679-703. Organ, D. W. (1997). Organi zational citizenship behavior: It's construct clean-up time. Human Performance, 10, 85-97. Organ, D. W., & Ryan, K. (1995). A meta-analytic review of attitudinal and dispositional predictors of organizational citizenship behavior. Personnel Psychology, 48, 775-802. Patrick, B. C., Skinner, E. A., & Connell, J. P. (1993). What motivates children’s behavior and emotion? Joint effects of perceive d control and autonomy in the academic domain. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 4 781-791. Penney, L. M. & Spector, P. E. (2002). Narc issism and counterproductive work behavior: Do bigger egos mean bigger problems? International Journal of Selection and Assessment 10(1), 59-67. Penney, L. M., Spector, P. E., Goh, A., Hunter, E. M., & Turnstall, M. (2007). A motivational analysis of counterproductive work behavior (CWB). Unpublished manuscript, University of Houston, Houston, Texas Perlow, R., & Latham, L. L. (1993). Relationship of client abuse with locus of control and gender: A longitudinal study. Journal of Applied Psychology 78 831-834. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Paine, J. B., & Bachrach, D. G. (2000). Organizational citizenship behaviors: A critical review of the theoretical and empirical literature and suggestions for future research. Journal of Management, 26(3) 513-563.

PAGE 76

68 Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers 36 (4), 717-731. Rioux, S. M., & Penner, L. A. (2001). The caus es of organizational citizenship behavior: A motivational analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 1306–1314. Rizzo, J. R., House, R. J. & Lirtzman, S. I. (1970). Role conflict and ambiguity in complex organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 15, 150-163. Reichers, A. E. (1987). An interactionist pe rspective on newcomer socialization rates. Academy of Management Review, 12, 278–287. Robinson, S. L., & Bennett, R. J. (1995). A typology of deviant workplace behaviors: A multidimensional scaling study. Academy of Management Journal 38 555-572. Robinson, S. L., & O’Leary-Kelly, A. M. (1998) Monkey see, monkey do: The influence of work groups on the antisocial behavior of employees. Academy of Management Journal 41 658-672. Rothbaum, F., Weisz, J. R., & Snyder, S. S. ( 1982). Changing the world and changing the self: A two-process model of perceived control Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42 5-37. Saks, A. M., & Ashforth, B. E. (1997a). Orga nizational socialization: making sense of the past and present as a prologue for the future. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 51 234– 279. Saks, A. M., & Ashforth, B. E. (1997b). So cialization tactics and newcomer information acquisition. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 5 48–61. Shapiro, D. H., & Schwartz, C. E. (1996). Co ntrolling ourselves, controlling our world. American Psychologist, 12 1213-1230.

PAGE 77

69 Shein, E. H. (1968). Organizational social ization and the profession of management. Industrial Management Review, 9, 1-16. Skarlicki, D. P., Folger, R., & Tesluk, P. (1999). Personality as a moderator in the relationship between fairness and retaliation. Academy of Management Journal 42 100108. Smith, C. A., Organ, D. W., & Near, J. P. (1983). Organizational citizenship behavior: Its nature and antecedents. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68 653-663. Sobel, M. E. (1982). Asymptotic intervals for in direct effects in structural equations models. In S. Leinhart (Ed.), Sociological methodology 1982, (pp. 290–312). San Francisco: JosseyBass. Spector, P. E., & Jex, S. M. (1998). Devel opment of four self-report measures of job stressors and strain: Interpersonal Conflict at Work Scale, Organizational Constraints Scale, Quantitative Workload Inventor y, and Physical Symptoms Inventory. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 3 356-367. Spector, P. E., & Fox, S. (2002). An emoti on-centered model of voluntary work behavior: Some parallels between counterproductive work behavior (CWB) and organizational citizenship behavior (OCB). Human Resources Management Review, 12 269-292. Spector, P. E., & Fox, S. (2008). Counterprodu ctive behavior and orga nizational citizenship behavior: Complimentary or reciprocal? Unpublished manuscript, University of South Florida, Tampa, Florida. Spector, P. E., Fox, S., Penney, L. M., Bruursema, K., Goh, A., & Kessler, S. (2006). The dimensionality of counterproductivity: Ar e all counterproductive behaviors created equal? Journal of Vocational Behavior, 68 446-460.

PAGE 78

70 Taormina, R. J., & Bauer, T. N. (2000). Organi zational socialization in two cultures: Results from the United States and Hong Kong. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 8, 262–289. Thibaut, J., & Walker, L. (1975). Procedural justice: A psychological analysis. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Van Dyne, L., & LePine, J. A. (1998). Helping and voice extra-role behaviors: Evidence of construct and predictive validity. Academy of Management Journal, 4 108-119. VanKatwyk, Fox, Spector, & Kelloway (2000). Using the Job-Related Affective Well Being Scale (JAWS) to investigate affective responses to work stressors. Journal of Occupational Health Ps ychology, 5, 219-230. Van Maanen, J., & Schein, E. H. (1979). Toward a theory of organizational socialization. In B. M. Staw (Ed.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 1, pp. 209–264). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Wanberg, C. R., & Kammeyer-Mueller, J. D. (2 000). Predictors and outcomes of proactivity in the socialization process. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85 373-385. Weiner, B. (1985). An attributional theory of achievement and emotion. Psychological Bulletin, 92 548-573. Williams, L. J., & Anderson, S. E. (1991). Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as predictors of organizational ci tizenship and in-role behaviors. Journal of Management, 17, 601-617. Wood, R., Bandura, A., & Bailey, T. (1990). Mechanisms governing organizational performance in complex decision-making environments. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 46 181-201.

PAGE 79

71 Appendices

PAGE 80

72 Appendix A: Proactive Socialization Tactics Items (Adapted from Ashford & Black, 1996) Feedback seeking 1. Sought out feedback on my performance after assignments 2. Solicited critiques from my boss 3. Sought out feedback on my performance during assignments 4. Asked your boss’s opinion of my work Positive Framing 5. Tried to see my situation as an opportunity rather than a threat 6. Tried to look on the bright side of things 7. Tried to see my situation as a challenge rather than a problem Generalized Socializing 8. Participated in social office events to meet people (i.e., parties, softball team, outings, clubs, lunches) 9. Attended company social gatherings 10. Attended office parties Boss-relationships 11. Tried to spend as much time as I could with your boss 12. Tried to form a good relationship with my boss 13. Worked hard to get to know my boss Networking 14. Started conversations with people from different segments of the company 15. Tried to socialize with people who are not in my department 16. Tried to get to know as many people as po ssible in other sections of the company on a personal basis Information seeking 17. Tried to learn the (official) organizational structure 18. Tried to learn the important policies and procedures in the organization 19. Tried to learn the polit ics of the organization 20. Tried to learn the (u nofficial) structure

PAGE 81

73 Appendix B: Role Ambiguity Items (Rizzo, House & Lirtzman, 1970) 1. I know exactly what is expected of me 2. I know that I have divided my time properly 3. Explanation is clear of what has to be done 4. I feel certain about how much authority I have 5. I know what my responsibilities are 6. Clear, planned goals/objectives exist for my job

PAGE 82

74 Appendix C: Organizational Socialization Self-efficacy Items (Gruman, Saks & Zweig, 2006) 1. Handle routine work-related problems 2. Effectively assume the responsib ilities demanded of my role in the organization 3. Function according to the organization's values and norms 4. Perform the required duties of the job 5. Handle the demands and expectations of my role in the organization 6. Behave in accordance with the organization's policies and practices 7. Develop relationships with coworkers and my workgroup 8. Adjust to the organization's culture and way of doing things 9. Be accepted by my coworkers and my workgroup 10. Master the task requirements necessary to perform my job 11. Know how to act and behave in accordance with my role in the organization 12. Behave according to the norms and expect ations of my coworkers and my workgroup

PAGE 83

75 Appendix D: Social Integration Item s (Wanberg & Kammeyer-Mueller, 2000) 1. The people I work with respect me 2. My coworkers seem to accept me as one of them 3. I get along with the people I work with very well 4. I feel comfortable around my coworkers

PAGE 84

76 Appendix E: Procedural Justice It ems (Adapted from Colquitt, 1991) 1. I have been able to express my feelings and views concerning decisions made by my organization 2. I have had influence over the decisions arrived at by my organization 3. Decisions at my organization have been consistent 4. Decisions at my organization have been free of bias 5. Decisions at my organization have been based on accurate information 6. I have been able to appeal decisions made at my organization 7. Decisions at my organization have upheld ethical and moral standards

PAGE 85

77 Appendix F: Organizational Citizenship Behavior Items (Lee & Allen, 2002) 1. Help others who have been absent. 2. Willingly give your time to help ot hers who have work-related problems 3. Adjust your work schedule to accommodate other employees’ requests for time off 4. Go out of the way to make newer employees feel welcome in the work group 5. Show genuine concern and courtesy towards coworkers, even under the most tiring business and personal situations 6. Give up time to help others who have work or nonwork problems 7. Assist others with their duties 8. Share personal property with others to help their work 9. Attend functions that are not required but that help the organizational image 10. Keep up with developments in the organization 11. Defend the organization when other employees criticize 12. Show pride when presenting the organization in public 13. Offer ideas to improve the functioning of the organization 14. Express loyalty towards the organization 15. Take action to protect the orga nization from potential problems 16. Demonstrate concern about the image of the organization

PAGE 86

78 Appendix G: Counterproductive Work Behavior Item s (Spector, Fox, Penney, Bruursema, Goh & Kessler, 2006) 1. Purposely wasted your employer’s materials/supplies 2. Purposely did your work incorrectly 3. Came to work late without permission 4. Stayed home from work and said you were sick when you weren’t 5. Purposely damaged a piece of equipment or property 6. Purposely dirtied or littered your place of work 7. Stolen something belonging to your employer 8. Purposely worked slowly when things needed to get done 9. Taken a longer break than you were allowed to take 10. Purposely failed to follow instructions 11. Left work earlier than you were allowed to 12. Insulted someone about their job performance 13. Took supplies or tools home without permission 14. Put in to be paid for more hours than you worked 15. Ignored someone at work 16. Started an argument with someone at work 17. Did something to make someone at work look bad 18. Insulted or made fun of someone at work

PAGE 87

About the Author Ozgun Burcu Rodopman received her Bachel or’s Degree in Political Science and International Relations as well as a double major degree in Psychology from Bogazici University in Istanbul, Turkey in 2003. Upon starting graduate school, she received a Master’s degree in Industrial and Organizational Psychology from University of South Florida, Tampa, Florida in 2006. Currently, she is also working on her master’s degree in Liberal Arts in Management from Harvard University.