Journal of Applied Psychology Copyright 1994 by the American Psychological Association Inc

1994, Vol. 79, No. 5, 730-743 0021-9010/94/S3.00

Organizational Socialization: Its Content and Consequences

Georgia T. Chao, Anne M. O'Leary-Kelly, Samantha Wolf, Howard J. Klein, and Philip D. Gardner

Content dimensions of the socialization domain were denned in order to determine relationships
between learning particular features of a job/organization and the process and outcomes of social-
ization. Six socialization dimensions—performance proficiency, politics, language, people, organi-
zational goals/values, and history—were supported by a factor analysis on data from 594 full-time
professionals. The socialization process was then examined by comparing three groups of respon-
dents who did not change jobs, changed jobs within the organization, or changed jobs and organiza-
tions. Results showed these groups had significantly different response patterns on all dimensions.
Finally, relationships between socialization content and career outcomes showed the dimensions
accounted for more variance in all criteria than typical tenure operationalizations of socialization.
Furthermore, socialization changes were significantly related to changes in career outcomes for 1-,
2-, and 3-year time intervals.

Organizational socialization is concerned with the learning
content and process by which an individual adjusts to a specific
role in an organization. Definitions of organizational socializa-
tion have progressed from a general description of "learning
the ropes," to a more detailed definition of a "process by which
an individual comes to appreciate the values, abilities, expected
behaviors, and social knowledge essential for assuming an orga-
nizational role and for participating as an organizational mem-
ber" (Louis, 1980b, pp. 229-230). Thus organizational social-
ization is often identified as the primary process by which peo-
ple adapt to new jobs and organizational roles.
Although organizational socialization plays a central role in
the adjustment and learning process of employees, there has
been little empirical research defining and evaluating specific
dimensions of this construct. Without a better understanding of
what is learned during organizational socialization, program-
matic research is limited to the study of this phenomenon
within unspecified content areas. Research that has examined
different strategies for socialization (Jones, 1986) has lacked di-
rect criteria for measuring the extent to which an individual
is socialized. In addition, relationships between the learning of
specific socialization content areas and specific job outcomes
are currently unknown. At a practical level, understanding
Georgia T. Chao, Department of Management, Michigan State Uni-
versity; Anne M. O'Leary-Kelly, Department of Management, Texas
A&M University; Samantha Wolf, Department of Management, Mich-
igan State University; Howard J. Klein, Department of Management,
Ohio State University; Philip D. Gardner, Employment Research Insti-
tute, Michigan State University.
Portions of this research were presented at the Sixth Annual Confer-
ence of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, St.
Louis, Missouri, April 1991.
We would like to thank Steve W. J. Kozlowski and 3 anonymous re-
viewers for their helpful comments and Ronald G. Greenwood for his
assistance with the data collection.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Geor-
gia T. Chao, Department of Management, Michigan State University,
N435 North Business Complex, East Lansing, Michigan 48824-1122.
730
these relationships can aid managerial interventions to improve
socialization strategies and processes.
This article presents an overview of the organizational social-
ization construct, describes specific content dimensions of the
socialization domain, and examines three research questions,
organized into three phases of study. Phase 1 takes a multidi-
mensional perspective of the socialization domain and identifies
specific content areas of what is learned during the socialization
process. Phase 2 explores how these content dimensions may
change as employees mature within jobs or enter new jobs or
organizations. Finally, Phase 3 examines how the content di-
mensions relate to measures of career effectiveness and com-
pares the content dimensions with the typical operationaliza-
tions of organizational socialization: job and organizational
tenure.
Background of Socialization Research
There is a distinct division in the organizational socialization
literature between two types of research. Most of the literature
examines the process of socialization. It is concerned with un-
derstanding the stages through which a newcomer passes as he
or she develops into an organizational member (Buono &
Kamm, 1983; Chao, 1988; Dubinsky, Howell, Ingram, &
Bellenger, 1986; Feldman, 1976, 1981; Louis, 1980b; Porter,
Lawler, & Hackman, 1975; Reichers, 1987; Van Maanen &
Schein, 1979; Wanous, 1980; H. M. Weiss, 1977). More recent
research has focused on the information-acquisition and feed-
back-seeking behaviors of organizational newcomers (Ashford,
1986; E. W. Morrison, 1993; Ostroff& Kozlowski, 1992).
The second area of research is concerned with the content of
socialization—that is, what is actually learned during socializa-
tion. Several researchers have suggested content areas or dimen-
sions of organizational socialization (Feldman, 1981; Fisher,
1986; Schein, 1968). Although there is a great deal of concep-
tual overlap among these proposed content areas, there has been
virtually no empirical research to verify the hypothetical
content of the socialization domain or to relate content areas to
socialization processes and outcomes.
 ORGANIZATIONAL SOCIALIZATION
Thus, a serious limitation in much of the current research
has been the lack of sound construct definition and develop-
ment. No conception of the socialization domain has gained
prominence, and as a result, researchers have often turned to
secondary measures and equated a newcomer's degree of social-
ization with his or her organizational tenure (Gomez-Mejia,
1983; Van Maanen, 1975). This practice misrepresents both the
content and process of socialization. For these studies, an indi-
vidual with longer tenure is assumed to be better socialized than
someone with less tenure. Outcomes attributed to true social-
ization, or real learning, can only be inferred in these studies.
Furthermore, current research is almost exclusively focused
on organizational newcomers, yet basic tenets of socialization
theory describe it as a lifelong process pervading an individual's
entire career (Feldman, 1989; R. F. Morrison & Hock, 1986;
Van Maanen, 1976; 1984). Factors that may lead to role changes
for established organizational members can range from formal
job/career changes to subtle life changes that trigger a need to
redefine life priorities and the meaning of success. The extent
to which a job may change around an individual and/or an in-
dividual may change within a job can create new learning needs
and resocialization (Louis, 1980a). Obviously, a measure of or-
ganizational tenure would be unable to capture these changes
and needs for resocialization. Thus, given the dynamic nature
of organizational socialization, a content approach to socializa-
tion is essential.
Identification of specific content areas will allow more accu-
rate measurement of how well an individual has learned certain
aspects of the job and organization. Feldman (1981) pointed to
the need for further development of the socialization domain
when he suggested that "it is still unclear which criteria . . .
can be used to judge the success of organizational socialization,
and what the contingencies are on which the completion of the
socialization process depends" (p. 309). Furthermore, despite
the number of theoretical models of organizational socializa-
tion, there has been relatively little empirical evaluation of these
models (Feldman, 1976, 1981; Fisher, 1986; Van Maanen,
1976).
Thus, the current socialization literature is marked by several
crucial limitations that must be addressed. There is a need for
research that focuses on defining the content and dimensional-
ity of the socialization domain. This is necessary in order to
specify the criteria by which the success of organizational so-
cialization can be judged. In addition, we need to ground our
knowledge of organizational socialization through empirical
evaluation, rather than continuing to pose new conceptual
models.
The Organizational Socialization Domain
Organizational socialization describes learning on the part of
the individual who is adjusting to a new or changed role within
the organization. Emphasis on the individual's perspective is
critical, because individual differences will affect how socializa-
tion experiences will be learned and interpreted (Jones, 1983;
Louis, 1980b). As noted earlier, several theorists have argued
that organizational socialization is multidimensional. The di-
mensions should be relatively independent so that socialization
in one area is not necessarily related to socialization in another.
731
The identification of specific content areas of socialization will
allow examination of specific relationships among socialization
dimensions and outcomes. Thus, individuals who are well so-
cialized in organizational politics may be more promotable than
those who are not socialized in politics, whereas individuals
who are well socialized with people in the organization may not
increase their promotion chances because of this particular so-
cialization. Furthermore, if an individual is about equal in all
content areas but one, a deficiency in that area may highlight a
specific problem. Thus, an individual may be able to perform
the job and get along with others in the organization, but failure
to learn about organizational goals and values could put a cap
on that individual's career development. The identification of
different content areas acknowledges the changing importance
each may have for the individual's career.
Three classic sources (Schein, 1968, 1971; Feldman, 1981;
Fisher, 1986) served as the initial framework for the develop-
ment of specific socialization dimensions. The content areas de-
scribed by Schein, Feldman, and Fisher revealed many common
themes on work role behaviors, goals, and values, as well as a
few unique areas mentioned by only one source. Traditionally,
organizational socialization is concerned with the organiza-
tion's influence on an individual's learning (Schein & Ott,
1962), therefore content areas that were judged to be under an
organization's direct or legitimate influence provided the con-
ceptual framework for this research. A review of the socializa-
tion literature was conducted with a view toward elaborating
the content dimensions of the organizational socialization do-
main. From this review, the following six dimensions of organi-
zational socialization were conceptualized and developed.
Performance Proficiency. Most definitions of organizational
socialization involve some discussion of the extent to which the
individual has learned the tasks involved on the job (Brim,
1968; Dubinsky et al., 1986; Feldman, 1976, 1981; Fisher,
1986; Hall, 1987, Louis, 1980b; Van Maanen, 1976; Van
Maanen & Schein, 1979). Fisher (1986) posited that "learning
to perform the required work task is obviously a critical part of
socialization" (p. 107). Furthermore, Feldman (1981) clearly
delineated a performance dimension when he stated, "No
matter how motivated the employee, without enough job skills
there is little chance of success" (p. 313). Although job perfor-
mance is also related to issues not directly tied to organizational
socialization (e.g., training programs, previous experience, ed-
ucation, etc.), the identification of what needs to be learned and
how well an individual masters the required knowledge, skills,
and abilities can be directly influenced by the socialization
process.
People. The idea that socialization involves establishing
successful and satisfying work relationships with organizational
members has been a main theme in the literature (Dubinsky
et al., 1986; Feldman, 1976, 1981; Fisher, 1986; Louis, 1980b;
Reichers, 1987; Schein, 1968; and Van Maanen, 1975). Fisher
(1986) suggested that finding the right person or persons from
whom to learn about the organization, work group, and job
plays a pivotal role in socialization. These work relationships
are typically shaped by work- and nonwork-related individual
characteristics of the organizational members. Personality
traits, group dynamics, and similarity of nonwork interests, as
well as work interactions and structurally defined organiza-
732 CHAO, O'LEARY-KELLY, WOLF, KLEIN, GARDNER
tional relationships, will affect how well the individual's social
skills and behaviors will be accepted by other organizational
members.
Politics. Socialization in organizational politics concerns
the individual's success in gaining information regarding for-
mal and informal work relationships and power structures
within the organization. Effective learning and adjustment to
a new job or organization could be made more efficient by a
heightened awareness of which people are more knowledgeable
and powerful than others (Louis, 1980b; Pfeffer, 1981). Feldman
(1981) suggested that exploring solutions to intergroup conflict
is a key component of socialization. Similarly, Fisher's (1986)
statement that organizational socialization involves learning to
work from within the group's culture and deal with political
behavior and Schein's (1968) proposition that the new em-
ployee must learn effective behavior patterns for his or her new
role imply a political dimension to organizational socialization.
Language. This dimension describes the individual's
knowledge of the profession's technical language as well as
knowledge of the acronyms, slang, and jargon that are unique
to the organization. Maccoby (1984) pointed out the impor-
tance of language development in the socialization of children.
She suggested that the acquisition of language allows a child to
understand parental guidance, explanations, and reasoning. A
parallel argument can be applied to the organization member
who requires a certain base knowledge of company-specific lan-
guage in order to comprehend information from others as well
as communicate effectively with other organization members
(Manning, 1970). This dimension is perhaps best exemplified
by Fisher's (1986) proposition that there is some cognitive com-
ponent to learning the task, which includes the learning of or-
ganizational jargon.
Organizational Goals and Values. A dimension embodied
in most definitions of socialization is the learning of specific
organizational goals and values. Schein (1968) argued that so-
cialization includes an understanding of the rules or principles
that maintain the integrity of the organization. The learning
of organizational goals and values also extends to unwritten,
informal, tacit goals and values espoused by members who are
in powerful or controlling positions (Fisher, 1986). Feldman
(1981) clearly highlights the role of learning group norms and
values in the new employee's process of coming to understand
unspoken rules, norms, and informal networks. The Organiza-
tional Goals and Values dimension also links the individual to
the larger organization, beyond the confines of the individual's
job and immediate work environment.
History. Ritti and Funkhou'ser (1987) describe how an or-
ganization's traditions, customs, myths, and rituals are used to
transmit cultural knowledge and thereby perpetuate (i.e., so-
cialize) a particular type of organizational member. Knowledge
of this history, as well as knowledge about the personal back-
grounds of particular organizational members, can help the in-
dividual learn what types of behaviors are appropriate or inap-
propriate in specific interactions and circumstances (Schein,
1968). The importance of popular organizational "stories or sa-
gas" is also emphasized by Fisher (1986) as a means of learning
key organizational principles.
The conceptualization of organizational socialization as de-
scribed above provides a basis for specifying the content or
knowledge representing outcomes of the socialization process.
To establish the efficacy of this conceptualization of socializa-
tion content, this research focused on three primary research
issues. First, if there are several components to the socialization
domain, the content dimensions should be empirically distin-
guishable. Phase 1 of this research evaluated the dimensionality
of a measure designed to assess the six specified content areas.
Second, if the socialization content we defined is salient and
meaningful, it should reflect respondents' socialization experi-
ences. Phase 2 addressed this issue by examining the effects of
objective changes in individuals' socialization process with
meaningful differences in the socialization content. Finally, the
third research issue addressed the relationships between social-
ization content and traditional indicators of socialization and
career development. Phase 3 controlled for organizational and
job tenure to ensure that the content dimensions could account
for significant variance independent of these traditional surro-
gates for socialization effectiveness.
General Method
A sample of 594 college baccalaureate graduates was used to refine
the structure and establish the stability of the socialization dimensions.
The data used in this study were part of a longitudinal study examining
the career development of engineers and managers. These respondents
were alumni who majored in engineering and were recruited from two
sources: a large public university and a small private engineering college.
Letters soliciting subject participation in a 5-year longitudinal study
were mailed to 6,000 alumni who graduated with bachelor degrees in
engineering. Alumni from nine graduating classes were selected to ob-
tain data from a large cross-section of people who graduated between
the years 1956 and 1986. These alumni were invited to participate in
the research so long as they fulfilled two requirements: (a) they were
currently employed as full-time engineers or managers and (b) they did
not plan to retire or leave full-time employment within the period of the
study.
From the original mailing of 6,000 letters, 1,038 postcards indicating
interest in the research were returned. Bulk mailing of the letters made
the response rate of 17.3% a conservative estimate, because it was not
possible to determine how many letters were undelivered to alumni or
how many alumni were deceased. Furthermore, it remained unknown
how many engineering-trained alumni were not employed or were in
careers other than engineering or management. In 1987, the study's 1st
year, surveys were mailed to the 1,038 respondents, and 780 surveys
were returned for a response rate of 75.2%. In 1988, the study's 2nd
year, surveys were mailed to the 780 1 st-year respondents, and 609 com-
plete data sets (78.1% response rate) were returned. In 1989, the study's
3rd year, surveys were mailed to the 609 2nd-year respondents, and 522
complete data sets (85.7% response rate) were returned. Similarly, 472
surveys were returned from the 522 mailed in 1990 (90.4% response
rate), and 432 surveys were returned from the 472 mailed in 1991
(91.5% response rate).
In 1987, the sample was predominantly a male (83.4%) upper middle-
class group with a median family income between $40,000 and $50,000.
Also in 1987, about 64% of the respondents reported careers in engi-
neering, 30% in management, with the remainder reporting other pro-
fessional careers (e.g., law, academe). The respondents' ages ranged from
22 to 58, with a mean age of 34.09. Subject attrition over the 5 years did
not substantially change the demographic composition of the remaining
respondents, and in 1991 the sample was 84.0% male, with a median
family income between $50,000 and $60,000. The respondents' ages
reflected maturity over the 5 years, ranging from 25 to 63, with a mean
age in 1991 of 38.7.Furthermore, many of the respondents moved from
 ORGANIZATIONAL SOCIALIZATION
engineering into management positions, with only 39% of the sample
reporting their 1991 jobs in engineering and 53% reporting jobs in man-
agement. All respondents who were employed in professional careers
were included in this study.
Phase 1: Multidimensionality of Organizational
Socialization Domain
Method
A questionnaire was developed to measure the six factors of organiza-
tional socialization: (a) Performance Proficiency, (b) Politics, (c) Lan-
guage, (d) People, (e) Organizational Goals and Values, and (f) History.
Originally, 39 items were developed to measure the six socialization fac-
tors. Respondents were required to rate randomly ordered items on a
5-point Likert scale ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree.
Responses to the 39 items were collected from the 780 Ist-year respon-
dents and from an independent sample of 5,460 full-time employed col-
lege graduates. Results from confirmatory factor analyses conducted on
the independent sample were used to eliminate 13 items. Also, 8 new
items were added for a final 34-item, revised questionnaire for the fol-
low-up samples of engineers and managers. All analyses reported in
Phase 1 are based on the revised scales and the sample of 594 respon-
dents in the 2nd year of data collection.
Results
As a check of the six a priori dimensions of socialization, the
34 items were subjected to a principal-components factor anal-
ysis with varimax rotation. The exploratory factor analysis was
conducted without specifying the number of factors to be ex-
tracted. Based on the Kaiser criterion, six factors were ex-
tracted, accounting for 58.1% of the variance. These six factors
replicated the six a priori factors. Item assignment to factors
was based on factor loadings of .40 or higher. With that rule, all
of the 34 items loaded on their a priori factors. Only four items
showed factor loadings above .40 on both the a priori and an
additional factor. The results from the exploratory factor analy-
sis were judged to be supportive of the six a priori dimensions
of socialization. The 34 items, the six a priori factors, and the
rotated factor loadings from the factor analysis are reported in
Table 1.
In conclusion, results from the principal-components factor
analysis reproduced the six a priori dimensions. An individual's
level of socialization on a particular dimension was computed
as the mean value of the a priori items for that dimension. Cor-
relations among the socialization dimensions ranged from .23
to .64, with a median correlation of .42. Although some of these
correlations were moderate, there were different patterns of re-
lationships between the socialization dimensions and job out-
comes. Correlations among the socialization dimensions and
their discriminant validity are discussed in Phase 3.
The reliabilities of the six dimensions, as measured by Cron-
bach's coefficient alpha, were acceptable, with estimates greater
than or equal to .78. Phase 3 presents these reliabilities for each
year of data collected between 1988 and 1991. From the results
of Phase 1, our assessment of organizational socialization was
judged to be useful as a measure of the extent to which an indi-
vidual has become socialized in specific content areas.
733
Phase 2: Socialization Dimensions and Job Changes
The general literature on organizational socialization has typ-
ically focused on organizational newcomers and the process that
is used to convert newcomers to organizational members. How-
ever, Schein (1971) described how new learning demands and
role changes are created whenever the individual moves along
three organizational dimensions. The functional dimension de-
scribes different operational areas such as production, finance,
research and development, and so forth; the hierarchical dimen-
sion describes different ranks or levels of power and authority;
and the inclusion dimension describes how central an individ-
ual is to the operations of a work unit. Schein also suggested
how an external inclusion dimension is the first organizational
experience for newcomers, because it describes how job appli-
cants gain minimal acceptance and entry into the organization.
This dimension will be referred to as an organizational bound-
ary, because the individual leaves one domain of functional, hi-
erarchical, and inclusionary dimensions to become a newcomer
in an entirely new domain.
People in roles denned by specific functional, hierarchical,
and inclusionary dimensions will develop norms of valued be-
haviors and attitudes. These norms are shaped by job incum-
bents, and barring any substantial changes to work procedures
and/or personnel, these norms would represent standards ex-
pected of newcomers. As people move along different organiza-
tional dimensions, there will be new demands for learning.
From an individual perspective, changes in one or more organi-
zational dimensions will necessitate relearning or resocializa-
tion in content areas that differ between the old and new roles.
A longitudinal study was conducted to examine how different
content areas of socialization would be related to objective job/
organizational changes. Comparisons among people who kept
the same job, people who changed jobs within the organization,
and people who changed both jobs and organizations were ex-
amined across the six socialization factors. These groups may
also be described by the number and/or degree of changes in
organizational dimensions. People keeping the same job are
least likely to change on an organizational dimension, people
changing jobs within the organization make few changes, and
people changing jobs and organizations cross an organizational
boundary and are most likely to make changes on all dimen-
sions. Given the theoretical linkages between Schein's (1971)
organizational dimensions and need for socialization, three
hypotheses were addressed.
Hypothesis 1: People who remained in one job would show few
changes or moderate increases in the socialization dimensions.
Hypothesis 2: People who changed jobs within an organization
would show greater decreases in Performance Proficiency and Pol-
itics than in Language and Organizational Goals and Values. The
former two content dimensions are associated with a specific job,
whereas the latter two content dimensions are generally consistent
within an organization.
Hypothesis 3: People who changed jobs and organizations would
show the greatest decreases in the content dimensions, because they
were most likely to face new situations that would demand learning
and role changes.
The hypotheses represent basic tenets of Schein's (1971) so-
734 CHAD, O'LEARY-KELLY, WOLF, KLEIN, GARDNER

Table 1
A Priori Socialization Factors, Items, and Factor Loadings
Factor loadings

Factor/item 1 2 3 4 5 6
Conceptual Factor 1 : History
2. I know very little about the history
behind my work group/
department. (R) 74 28 14 02 05 13
9. I am not familiar with the
organization's customs, rituals,
ceremonies, and celebrations. (R) 50 33 31 16 05 08
14. I know the organization's long-held
traditions. 63 23 30 14 11 09
21. I would be a good resource in
describing the background of my
work group/department. 70 20 20 12 21 17
29. I am familiar with the history of my
organization. 73 20 27 10 13 11
Conceptual Factor 2: Language
6. I have not mastered the specialized
terminology and vocabulary of my
trade/profession. (R) 15 72 -02 03 03 34
12. I have not mastered this
organization's slang and special
jargon. (R) 30 72 18 08 04 12
15. 1 do not always understand what
the organization's abbreviations
and acronyms mean. (R) 20 71 23 09 09 16
1 8. I understand the specific meanings
of words and jargon in my trade/
profession. 18 74 13 09 03 18
30. I understand what most of the
acronyms and abbreviations of my
trade/profession mean. 19 77 12 00 13 16
Conceputal Factor 3: Politics
1 . I have learned how things "really
work" on the inside of this
organization. 35 12 65 07 01 14
7. I know who the most influential
people are in my organization. 10 23 66 04 11 05
23. I do not have a good understanding
of the politics in my organization.
(R) 37 06 54 24 -02 19
26. I am not always sure what needs to
be done in order to get the most
desirable work assignments in my
area. (R) 11 06 50 18 23 31
28. I have a good understanding of the
motives behind the actions of other
people in the organization. 16 03 70 12 14 13
32. I can identify the people in this
organization who are most
important in getting the work
done. 26 11 56 18 18 18
Conceptual Factor 4: People
4. I do not consider any of my
coworkers as my friends. (R) 18 08 -04 68 07 02
1 0. I am usually excluded in social get-
togethers given by other people in
the organization. (R) 00 10 09 71 -06 -10
13. Within my work group, I would be
easily identified as "one of the
gang." 12 -02 -02 73 02 15
27. I am usually excluded in informal
networks or gatherings of people
within this organization. (R) 11 10 20 72 -05 05
31. 1 am pretty popular in the
organization. 09 05 27 64 20 15
33. I believe most of my coworkers like
me. -03 -03 16 61 19 20
 ORGANIZATIONAL SOCIALIZATION 735

Table 1 (continued)
Factor loadings
Factor/item
Conceptual Factor 5: Organizational
Goals and Values
3. I would be a good representative of
my organization. 51 08 13 11 41 19
11. The goals of my organization are
also my goals. 07 -05 09 -02 78 -08
16. I believe that I fit in well with my
organization. 18 05 16 42 52 17
17. I do not always believe in the
values set by my organization. (R) -05 06 12 00 65 -01
20. I understand the goals of my
organization. 16 19 51 04 40 03
25. I would be a good example of an
employee who represents my
organization's values. 28 10 14 11 74 09
34. I support the goals that are set by
my organization. 10 11 05 06 83 05
Conceptual Factor 6: Performance
Proficiency
5. I have not yet learned "the ropes"
of my job. (R) 45 23 18 14 -01 41
8. I have learned how to successfully
perform my job in an efficient
manner. 04 13 23 10 12 74
19. I have mastered the required tasks
ofmyjob. 19 28 12 03 -03 76
22. I have not fully developed the
appropriate skills and abilities to
successfully perform my job. (R) 13 27 05 15 -01 73
24. I understand what all the duties of
my job entail. 24 19 25 10 04 60
Eigenvalue 10.04 2.93 2.51 1.66 1.48 1.13
Percent variance 29.5 8.6 7.4 4.9 4.3 3.3
Note. Results are based on ff = 594. Item numbers are indicated to the left of each item. Decimal points
have been omitted from the factor loadings. R = reverse-scored item.

cialization theory. The specific learning requirements of any
new role are affected by the degree of similarity or difference
between old and new roles. Roles with few or no differences do
not require individuals to change and are operationalized here
as the same job. The need for further learning and improvement
may be minimal in this situation. Depending on the extent to
which these people are fully socialized on their jobs, learning
may continue to progress and socialization content may in-
crease, or learning has been completed and socialization has
stabilized. Roles with moderate differences have individuals
moving along one or two organizational dimensions and are op-
erationalized here as job changes within the same organization.
Here the need for socialization depends on the discrepancy be-
tween old and new roles within the boundary of the organiza-
tion. Finally, roles with major differences have individuals
crossing the organizational boundary and are operationalized
here as job and organization changes. For these organizational
newcomers, the need for socialization is most salient to the in-
dividual and the new organization.
Method
The engineers, managers, and professionals who completed the origi-
nal socialization scales were also asked to complete the revised version
for all follow-up years. Matched data from 597 respondents were ob-
tained for the analyses.
In addition to the socialization scales, responses from open-ended
questions identifying the individual's organization, job title, job descrip-
tion, and organizational and job tenure were compared between adja-
cent years to classify each respondent into one of three groups: job in-
cumbents were those respondents who described the same job and or-
ganization (n = 314); job changers were those respondents who
described a different job within the same organization (« = 201); and
organizational changers were those respondents who described different
jobs and different organizations (n = 82). All classifications were per-
formed by the first author. Judgments used to classify respondents' in-
cumbency or change status between 1988 and 1989 were rejudged 2
years later in 1991. Cohen's (1960) kappa index was used to estimate
the intrajudge reliability of these nominal data. The kappa index for
these judgments was .95.
Although data were collected for 5 years, any job or organization
changes occurred only between 2 years. Therefore, it was necessary to
modify the data set in order to allow standard comparisons of before
and after changes and to maximize the subgroup sample sizes. A data
set was created to compare the three groups between two time periods.
Time 1 was the year immediately before any change, and Time 2 de-
noted the year immediately after any change. Respondents who did not
make any job or organization changes constituted the job incumbent
subgroup, and their most recent years of available data were used in the
736 CHAD, O'LEARY-KELLY, WOLF, KLEIN, GARDNER

analyses. Thus, the time interval between Time 1 and Time 2 was 1 year Table 2
for all groups. Means, Standard Deviations, Univariate F tests, andt Tests
of Socialization Scales
Results Time 1 Time 2
Socialization scale/ Paired
Data were analyzed by a 3 X 2 repeated measures multivari- group3 M SD M SD t tests
ate analysis of variance (MANOVA) for the six socialization di-
mensions. The 3 X 2 design examined the three groups (job Performance
incumbents, job changers, and organizational changers) and Proficiency
1 4.06 0.55 4.20, 0.48 5.63**
two time periods. The overall F tests for group, F(12, 1178) = 2 4.01 0.61 3.76y 0.66 -5.43**
7.75, p < .001; time, F(6,589) = 16.44,^ < .001; and the Group 3 3.99 0.64 3.54E 0.78 -4.81**
X Time interaction, F(12, 1178) = 13.78, p < .001, were sig- F test 0.91 58.87**
nificant. The significant interaction precluded interpretation of Language
the main effects. Univariate F tests comparing groups within a 1 4.30 0.58 4.40X 0.52 3.71**
2 4.25 0.62 4.09y 0.66 -3.96**
time period and paired t tests comparing time periods within a 3 4.22 0.62 3.87Z 0.79 -3.35**
group for each of the six socialization dimensions were con- Ftest 0.79 31.28**
ducted to better understand the interaction effects. These uni- People
variate tests as well as group means and standard deviations are 1 3.78 0.52 3.84, 0.53 2.38*
2 3.79 0.56 3.76, 0.54 -0.75
presented in Table 2. 3 3.74 0.52 3.51, 0.57 -3.43**
The follow-up F tests compared the three groups. For four of Ftest 0.22 12.01**
the six socialization dimensions, there were no significant Organizational Goals
differences among the groups at Time 1. Thus, the three groups and Values
were comparable with one another prior to any job and/or or- 1 3.70, 0.58 3.70 0.58 0.09
2 3.57y 0.58 3.65 0.58 2.36*
ganizational changes. The exceptions to these results were 3 3.38y 0.69 3.64 0.58 3.26**
found for the Organizational Goals and Values and History di- Ftest 10.13** 0.67
mensions. Results from the Scheffe method of group compari- Politics
sons (p < .05) showed the job incumbents were significantly 1 3.86 0.58 3.91, 0.58 1.91
2 3.79 0.59 3.79, 0.54 0.12
higher relative to job changers and organizational changers for 3 3.80 0.44 3.52y 0.58 -4.01**
the Organizational Goals and Values dimension at Time 1. For Ftest 1.10 15.74**
the History dimension, job incumbents and job changers were History
significantly higher than organizational changers at Time 1. 1 4.08, 0.61 4.15, 0.56 2.53*
2 4.01, 0.64 3.92y 0.63 -1.97*
These differences suggest that people who are about to leave an 3 3.80y 0.70 3.39Z 0.79 -3.93**
organization were not highly socialized in that organization's Ftest 6.40** 49.57**
Organizational Goals and Values and History.
Although the three groups were found to be similar for four of Note. F tests examined differences across three groups, with df= 2,
the six dimensions at Time 1, they were found to be significantly 594. The t tests examined differences within groups, with df~ 313 for
job incumbents, df= 200 for job changers, and df= 81 for organiza-
different on five dimensions at Time 2. For these dimensions, tional changers. Groups with different subscripts x, y, or z, are signifi-
group comparisons were performed with the Scheffe method (p cantly different (p < .05).
< .05). Organizational changers were significantly lower than ' 1 = job incumben^ (n = 314); 2 = job changers (n = 201); 3 = organi-
job incumbents and job changers on the People and Politics di- zational changers (n = 82).
*/><.05. **p<.01.
mensions, and all three groups were significantly different on
the Performance Proficiency, Language, and History dimen-
sions. For these dimensions, the job incumbents reported the
highest means, followed by job changers, and organizational found only for respondents who actually made job/organization
changers reported the lowest means. Together with the F tests changes. These differences were found on three dimensions for
from Time 1, the job/organizational changes are meaningfully job changers and on five dimensions for organizational chang-
associated with group differences for all six socialization ers. In addition, after their job/organization changes, these
dimensions. groups increased their Organizational Goals and Values social-
The paired t tests showed several significant differences be- ization to be comparable with job incumbents.
tween time periods. For job incumbents, four areas—Perfor- These results provided strong support for Hypotheses 1 and 3.
mance Proficiency, Language, People, and History—showed For Hypothesis 1, job incumbents were least like organizational
modest gains at Time 2. For job changers, significant decreases changers and were described by positive gains on four dimen-
in the areas of Performance Proficiency, Language, and History sions. For Hypothesis 3, compared with the other two groups,
were found. Finally, for organizational changers, significant de- organizational changers showed the largest changes across the
creases were found in five areas: Performance Proficiency, Lan- socialization dimensions, and these changes were significant for
guage, People, Politics, and History. In addition, organizational all six dimensions. An examination of the socialization means
changers and job changers showed significant increases in their showed job changers were between organizational changers and
knowledge of Organizational Goals and Values. job incumbents for all dimensions. Hypothesis 2 received par-
To summarize, at Time 2, lower levels of socialization were tial support. The largest significant change was observed fot the
 ORGANIZATIONAL SOCIALIZATION
Performance Proficiency dimension and was a likely result of
job change. However, a nonsignificant change was found for the
Politics dimension that was also hypothesized to differ as an
individual moved along Schein's (1971) organizational dimen-.
sions. Furthermore, for the dimensions that were hypothesized
to be relatively stable within an organization, Language and
Organizational Goals and Values, significant changes were
observed.
Phase 3: Socialization Dimensions and Career
Effectiveness
Hall (1976) described four criteria of career effectiveness:
performance, attitude, adaptability, and identity. For the perfor-
mance criterion, career effectiveness is generally associated with
greater incomes and higher positions within an organization.
Career attitudes encompass a broad range of outcomes includ-
ing job satisfaction, job involvement, and career commitment.
Adaptability concerns the extent to which an individual can ad-
just to changing technological and organizational demands.
Without this ability, an individual would be more likely to pla-
teau in the career or to become technologically obsolete. Finally,
Hall believed the identity criterion was most important to the
individual. Identity refers to the individual's total identity and
how well all the roles played by the individual are integrated.
Schneider and Hall (1972) found that the identity perceptions
of priests changed as they became more experienced in their
careers. Identity perceptions were most favorable during the an-
ticipatory socialization phase and became less favorable during
the early years when reality shock set in. More recently, Howard
and Bray (1988) reported that managers who were better ad-
justed (i.e., they adapted to their lives in psychologically healthy
ways) were more involved in and satisfied with their work than
poorly adjusted managers.
Hall (1976) argued that the extent to which an individual was
successfully socialized in an organization would have an impact
on that individual's career effectiveness. Thus, an individual
who learned the socialization content areas very well would be
expected to have greater career effectiveness. Therefore, the fol-
lowing hypothesis was tested:
Hypothesis 4: The socialization content areas would be signifi-
cantly and positively related to the four criteria of career
effectiveness.
Apart from the content areas of socialization, the more tradi-
tional operationalization of socialization has been the use of job
or organizational tenure. The problems with a tenure measure
include its flawed assumption that all individuals are socialized
at the same rate and its failure to capture the complexities of
the socialization construct itself. As a process, organizational
socialization occurs over time. However, outcomes from a suc-
cessful socialization process are better related to the learning of
particular content areas than to the mere passage of time.
Hence, one focus of Phase 3 was to determine the amount of
unique variance in career effectiveness that could be accounted
for by socialization content, after tenure is controlled. Regard-
less of whether tenure is based on the job or on the organization,
it is an inadequate representation of the socialization construct.
Thus, it was hypothesized that
737
Hypothesis 5: The socialization content areas would account for
more unique variance in the criteria of career effectiveness than
would job and organizational tenure, combined.
A second focus of Phase 3 was to explore how changes in or-
ganizational socialization are related to changes in job and ca-
reer outcomes. An individual who is better socialized, that is,
has operationally increased socialization scores over time,
would be better adjusted in the organization and thus enjoy
more positive outcomes. Specifically, an individual who learns
more in the socialization content areas may be more likely to
have corresponding increases in income, job attitudes, adapt-
ability, and career identity as compared with an individual who
does not learn to be better socialized. Thus, it was hypothesized
that
Hypothesis 6: Changes in organizational socialization would be
positively related to changes in career effectiveness.
To date, no theory yet specifies a particular time interval for
socialization changes. This phase of the research examined
changes across 1 -, 2-, and 3-year time intervals to explore the
stability of relationships between changes in socialization and
career effectiveness.
Method
Sample
Data from 182 engineers, managers, and professionals who did not
change jobs or organizations between 1988 and 1991 were used in this
study.
Measures
The socialization scales from 4 years, 1988-1991, were used in this
phase of the research. Cronbach's coefficient alpha was calculated for
all scales in all years, and all were equal to or above .78. Job and organi-
zational tenure were measured by open-ended items asking respondents
to fill in the number of years and months they had been with their job
or organization. The mean and standard deviation for job tenure were
6.08 and 4.51 years, respectively. For organizational tenure, the mean
was 13.51 years, with a standard deviation of 9.18.
In addition to tenure and the socialization scales, five measures of
career effectiveness were collected in 1989, 1990, and 1991: personal
income, career involvement, job satisfaction, identity resolution, and
adaptability. These measures represented the four criteria of career
effectiveness described by Hall (1976).
Performance. Performance was operationalized as personal income
and measured on one rating scale. Twelve categories listing $10,000
ranges were available starting from less than $20,000 and ending with
more than $120,001. Correlations among these identical items across
the 3 years ranged from .82 to .94.
Attitudes. Two attitudes were included to capture attitudes toward a
specific job as well as a more general career attitude. Job satisfaction
and career involvement were measured with the Minnesota Satisfaction
Questionnaire (MSQ; D. J. Weiss, Dawis, England, & Lofquist, 1967)
and the Career Involvement scale (Gould, 1979), respectively. Gould
(1979) developed the latter scale in order to capture Hall's (1976) atti-
tude criterion. The reliabilities of the MSQ and Career Involvement
scale were assessed by Cronbach's coefficient alpha for each year of data
collection and ranged from .84 to .88.
Identity. Gould's (1979) Identity Resolution scale was developed to
738 CHAO, O'LEARY-KELLY, WOLF, KLEIN, GARDNER

Table 3
Means, Standard Deviations, and Reliabilities of Career Effectiveness Measures and Socialization Scales
1988 1989 1990 1991
Measure M SD a M SD a M SD a M SD a

Outcome variable
Personal income a 5.41 2.28
5.03 2.23 —
5.65 2.24
—
5.82 2.11
Career involvement 3.65 .65 .85 3.66 .67 .86 3.68 .65 .85 3.67 .68 .85
Job satisfaction 3.67 .43 .84 3.66 .45 .88 3.64 .46 .86 3.67 .45 .87
Identity resolution 3.90 .64 .74 3.92 .59 .73 3.96 .57 .72 3.98 .57 .70
Adaptability 3.83 .62 .74 3.81 .60 .73 3.79 .64 .75 3.76 .66 .70
Socialization dimension
Performance Proficiency 4.07 .59 .80 4.09 .55 .82 4.20 .49 .80 4.28 .43 .78
Language 4.28 .62 .81 4.34 .52 .86 4.39 .54 .87 4.43 .50 .84
People 3.81 .56 .80 3.73 .58 .82 3.81 .53 .80 3.80 .50 .78
Organizational Goals
and Values 3.67 .52 .81 3.70 .53 .83 3.74 .59 .84 3.75 .59 .85
Politics 3.79 .61 .81 3.85 .57 .79 3.91 .57 .78 3.99 .54 .80
History 3.99 .64 .85 4.07 .55 .85 4.17 .58 .84 4.24 .49 .82

Note. JV=182.
" One-item measure, reliability unknown.

tap Hall's (1976) identity criterion. The alpha coefficient for this scale
ranged from .70 to .74.
Adaptability. An Adaptability scale was also developed by Gould
(1979) to tap Hall's (1976) adaptability criterion. The alpha coefficient
for this scale showed reliability to range from .70 to .75.
Results
Means, standard deviations, and reliabilities for the five out-
come variables and six socialization scales are presented in Ta-
ble 3. Results of the analyses for Hypotheses 4 and 5 are pre-
sented first. Separate analyses for Hypothesis 6 follow. Corre-
lations for 1988 socialization scales and 1991 tenure and career
effectiveness measures are presented in Table 4.
Examination of the correlations among the socialization
scales showed moderate relationships ranging from .23 to .64
with a median correlation of .42. Follow-up surveys revealed
similar patterns of intercorrelations among the socialization
factors, with ranges of .20-.67, .10-.63, and .30-.65 and me-
dian correlations of .46, .41, and .46, respectively.
Correlations between six socialization scales and five career
effectiveness measures ranged from .02 to .48, with 19 of the 30
correlations significant at the .01 level. Overall, the Organiza-
tional Goals and Values dimension showed the strongest rela-
tionships with the criteria, followed by the Language and Poli-
tics dimensions. The People dimension was significantly related
to only two criteria: Identity Resolution and Job Satisfaction.
Thus, although the correlations among the socialization factors

Table 4
Correlations Among Socialization Scales, Career Scales, and Job Satisfaction
Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Independent variable
1. Job tenure
2. Organizational
tenure 40
1988 Socialization scales
3. Performance
Proficiency 14 21
4. Language 11 15 64
5. People -06 -09 26 28
6. Organizational
Goals and Values -05 06 26 37 24
7.. Politics 05 13 51 52 35 47
8.. History 19 28 52 63 23 42 61
1991 Dependent variables
9 . Personal income 06 18 16 18 02 23 33 18
10.. Career involvement -07 03 16 27 09 45 18 20 26
11.. Identity resolution 10 10 43 39 23 21 32 17 20 30
12,. Adaptability -07 -16 22 26 16 27 26 13 09 26 26
13.. Job satisfaction -10 02 26 24 26 48 36 16 25 52 44 29

Note. N = 182. Decimal points have been omitted from the correlation coefficients. All rs a .19 are
significant at the/7 < .01 level; rs > . 16 are significant at thep < .05 level.
 ORGANIZATIONAL SOCIALIZATION 739

were moderate, there were differences in their relationships with
the outcome measures, providing support for their discriminant
validity.
Hierarchical regression analyses were performed for all five
1991 measures of career effectiveness. In Step 1, job tenure and
organizational tenure were entered as predictors in order to de-
termine how much variance was accounted for by these opera-
tionalizations of socialization. In Step 2, all six socialization
content areas, measured in 1988, were entered in order to de-
termine whether they would explain significant, unique vari-
ance. The results of the regression analyses are presented in Ta-
ble 5. Job tenure and organizational tenure were only significant
for the personal-income criterion. At the second step of the hi-
erarchical regression, the six socialization measures were en-
tered. For all five dependent variables, the socialization mea-
sures were able to account for significant portions of variance
beyond the amount accounted for by tenure. The amount of
variance uniquely accounted for by the socialization measures
ranged from 12% for Personal Income to 29% for Job Satisfac-
tion. For all criteria of career effectiveness, the socialization
measures were able to account for significant portions of vari-
ance and were able to account for more variance than tenure
alone. Thus, both hypotheses were supported.
A closer examination of the specific socialization content ar-
eas that proved to be significant predictors of the dependent
variables are also presented in Table 4. Organizational Goals
and Values proved to be a significant predictor for three of the
five dependent variables. History was a significant predictor for
two dependent measures, and Politics, Language, and Perfor-
mance Proficiency were significant predictors for one depen-
dent measure. Finally, People was not found to significantly pre-
dict any of the five measures.
Results testing Hypotheses 4 and 5 also showed most of the
explained variance in the outcomes could be accounted for by
only one of the socialization dimensions. The highest zero-order
correlation between a socialization dimension and outcome can
be compared with the multiple correlation between that out-
come and all socialization dimensions. Squaring these corre-
lations showed the addition of other socialization dimensions
added 2% to 7% more of the explained variance on the
outcomes.
Hypothesis 6 examined relationships between changes in so-
cialization and changes in career effectiveness. These relation-
ships were explored for 1-, 2-, and 3-year time periods. In order
to test this hypothesis, change was operationalized as the resid-
ual score of a 1989, 1990, or 1991 variable with the 1988 vari-
able removed (Cohen & Cohen, 1983). To illustrate, the 1-year
change score for the socialization History dimension was calcu-
lated by regressing the 1989 History score on the 1988 History
score. The residual score from this regression represents the
change in History socialization between 1988 and 1989. This
score and the residual scores from the other socialization di-
mensions were then used as predictors in a hierarchical regres-
sion predicting changes in career outcomes for the correspond-
ing time period.
Hierarchical regressions were conducted by first regressing
the 1988 outcome measure on the dependent variable of interest
and then entering the socialization residual scores at the second
step. An outcome measure's remaining variance, after entering
the 1988 outcome measure at the first step of the hierarchical

Table 5
Hierarchical Regression Analyses Comparing Job and Organizational Tenure with
Socialization Scales in the Prediction of Career Effectiveness
Dependent variable/ Significant
Step Variable R R2 AK2 FforA*
2
predictors (3
Personal Income
1 Tenure .18 .03 .03 2.99*
2 Soc. Scales .39 .15 .12 4.12** Politics .35**
Career Involvement
1 Tenure .10 .01 .01 0.89
2 Soc. Scales .48 .23 .22 8.26** Goal/Values .44**
Job Satisfaction
1 Tenure .12 .01 .01 1.35
2 Soc. Scales .55 .30 .29 12.03** History -.22*
Goal/Values .42**
Identity Resolution
1 Tenure .12 .01 .01 1.28
2 Soc. Scales .51 .26 .25 9.64** Perf. Prof. .29**
History -.30**
Language .25**
Adaptability
1 Tenure .16 .03 .02 2.48
2 Soc. Scales .42 .17 .15 5.11** Tenure -.20**
Goal/Values .18*
Note. 1988 socialization scores used to predict 1991 outcomes for respondents who held the same jobs
during this time period, N = 182. Tenure = Job and Organizational tenure; Soc. Scales = Socialization
Scales; Perf. Prof. = Performance Proficiency; Goal/Values = Organizational Goals and Values.
*/><.05. **p<.01.
740 CHAO, O'LEARY-KELLY, WOLF, KLEIN, GARDNER

Table 6
Hierarchical Regression Analyses Examining Changes in Socialization Scale Scores in the
Prediction of Changes in Career Effectiveness
1-year 2-year 3-year
prediction prediction prediction
1988-1989 1988-1990 1988-1991

Step Variable A*2 A/?2 AF AR2 AF

Personal Income
1 1988 Income .88 1,298.50** .85 1,004.24** .68 384.24**
2 Soc. Residuals .00 0.98 .00 0.03 .03 2.60*
Career Involvement
1 1 988 Car. In v. .59 259.93** .59 261.56** .55 223.73**
2 Soc. Residuals .08 7.38** .05 3.99** .06 5.04**
Job Satisfaction
1 1988Satisfac. .45 145.46** .48 169.27** .35 98.58**
2 Soc. Residuals .12 8.02** .18 14.94** .16 9.18**
Identity Resolution
1 1988 Identity .46 156.11** .46 152.84** .34 94.38**
2 Soc. Residuals .06 4.03** .06 3.55** .10 5.26**
Adaptability
1 1988 Adapt. .56 229.29** .49 174.65** .46 150.90**
2 Soc. Residuals .02 1.39 .07 4.58** .04 2.57*

Note. N = 182, dffor F at Step 1 = (1, 180); at Step 2, df = (7, 174). Soc. Residuals = socialization
residuals; Car. Inv. = career involvement; Satisfac. = job satisfaction; Identity = identity resolution; Adapt.
= adaptability.
*p<.05. **;?<.01.

regression, represents change in the dependent variable since
1988. The second step of the hierarchical regression then used
changes in socialization (i.e., residual scores) to predict change
in career effectiveness. Results from the hierarchical regressions
are presented in Table 6.
Results from the regressions provide support for Hypothesis
6. Socialization changes were able to predict changes 1 year later
for three outcomes, 2 years later for four outcomes, and 3 years
later for all five outcomes. The amount of variance accounted
for by socialization changes was relatively small for personal in-
come and adaptability changes, ranging from 0% to 7%. How-
ever, socialization changes were found to account for 5% to 18%
of the variance for changes in career involvement, identity res-
olution, and job satisfaction.
Further examination of the hierarchical regression results
showed changes in the Organizational Goals and Values dimen-
sion to be significant predictors of changes in Career Involve-
ment and Job Satisfaction. These findings were consistent in the
analyses examining 1-, 2-, and 3-year predictions. Results for
Income, Identity Resolution, and Adaptability were less consis-
tent, with changes in different socialization dimensions identi-
fied as significant predictors for change in these criteria.
General Discussion
Results from the factor analysis in Phase 1 showed that the
construct of organizational socialization can be composed of six
content areas: Performance Proficiency, People, Politics, Lan-
guage, Organizational Goals and Values, and History. The iden-
tification and measurement of these content areas can advance
the empirical research on organizational socialization by mov-
ing away from secondary measures such as job or organizational
tenure and focusing on the content for learning during intense
socialization episodes.
Results from Phase 2 showed significant differences in the so-
cialization dimensions as some people made no job change, oth-
ers made a moderate change by obtaining a new job within the
same organization, and still others made major changes by mov-
ing to a different job and organization. These changes may be
viewed as movement along different organizational dimensions
(Schein, 1971) or as crossing a major organizational boundary.
For those individuals who did not make significant changes, re-
sponses to all six socialization dimensions showed small in-
creases from Time 1 to Time 2. These findings most likely indi-
cate a continued learning and/or socialization process that oc-
curs within jobs. Thus, the socialization process continues as
one matures on the job. This finding provides empirical support
for an original hypothesis of Schein's (1971) socialization the-
ory—socialization occurs at all stages of an individual's career.
Movement along Schein's (1971) inclusionary dimension (i.e.,
the extent to which an individual is central to a work group's
functions) would be an example of further socialization within
a job.
For individuals who did change jobs within the organization,
responses to three socialization dimensions, Performance Pro-
ficiency, Language, and History, showed significant decreases
between Times 1 and 2, suggesting that a learning process was
associated with this job change. However, responses to People
and Politics scales showed nonsignificant changes between time
periods. Because the job change occurred within the same orga-
nization, there may have been no need to learn or radically ad-
just to the work environment because organizational policies
and personnel could be relatively constant. It is argued here that
 ORGANIZATIONAL SOCIALIZATION
the degree of job change (e.g., small changes within an individ-
ual's department versus large changes involving movement to
another division) will affect the extent to which new socializa-
tion along organizational dimensions will be required. A sig-
nificant increase was found for this group in the Organizational
Goals and Values dimension. If one can assume that most of the
job changes were positive, the observed increase may indicate
greater congruence between the individual and the organiza-
tion's goals and values.
Finally, for those individuals who crossed a major organiza-
tional boundary, five socialization dimensions—Performance
Proficiency, Language, People, Politics, and History—showed a
significant decrease, as these people left one organization to be-
gin different jobs in another. It appears that a major job/organi-
zational change demands resocialization in these content areas.
Moreover, with regard to the Organizational Goals and Values
and History dimensions, the low ratings at Time 1 may signal
readiness to move to another organization. This finding is con-
sistent with the attraction-selection-attrition (ASA) approach
to the etiology of organizational climate (Schneider, 1987). Per-
ceived mismatches between the individual's and organization's
goals and values may be the impetus for organizational with-
drawal. In addition, the selection process may explain why the
mean ratings for the Organizational Goals and Values scales at
Time 2 are comparable across groups. If one assumes that the
individual is selecting an organization at the same time that the
organization is selecting prospective employees, one of the is-
sues that may enhance the likelihood that the individual will
accept an organization's job offer is the perceived congruence
between the organization's and the individual's goals and val-
ues. Thus, the Organizational Goals and Values dimension may
be most salient in the personnel selection process.
These results provide evidence of construct validity for the
socialization scales. Theoretically, organizational newcomers
have the greatest need for organizational socialization, and the
organizational changers in Phase 2 demonstrated changes in all
six socialization dimensions. Thus, this study linked the social-
ization process (e.g., change along organizational dimensions
and changing needs for socialization) with specific dimensions
of socialization content. Phase 3 extended the examination of
socialization content areas by testing their relationships with
career effectiveness, while controlling for secondary measures
of socialization—job and organizational tenures.
The results showed that socialization content areas can ac-
count for significant portions of variance in all four criteria of
career effectiveness. Furthermore, the amount of variance ac-
counted for by the socialization dimensions was greater than
the variance accounted for by job and organizational tenures.
Generally, people who are well socialized in their organizational
roles have greater personal incomes, are more satisfied, more
involved with their careers, more adaptable, and have a better
sense of their personal identity than people who are less well
socialized.
Correlations between socialization and career effectiveness
measures varied greatly, providing evidence that dimensions of
socialization are differentially related to these outcomes. Over-
all, the Organizational Goals and Values dimension had the
strongest relationships with measures of career effectiveness.
When the six socialization dimensions were considered together
741
in regression analyses, different socialization content areas were
found to be significant predictors for the four criteria, thus pro-
viding support for the discriminant validity of the socialization
dimensions.
Results examining changes in socialization across 1, 2, and
3 years showed that these changes were significantly related to
changes in all criteria for career effectiveness. Results were
strongest for identity resolution, career involvement, and job
satisfaction, indicating that individuals who became better so-
cialized in the organization's goals and values also had more
positive changes in these outcomes than individuals who re-
ported less change. These results were based on a sample of job
incumbents who, with a mean job tenure of 6.1 years, were not
newcomers to their jobs. The significant relationships between
socialization change and career effectiveness change among ma-
ture job incumbents provide empirical evidence to extend so-
cialization theory beyond organizational newcomers.
Limitations of the Present Research
The results presented in this study support a six-factor con-
ceptualization of organizational socialization. However, they do
not conclusively show that the six content areas completely de-
fine this construct. The existence of other content areas of orga-
nizational socialization remains a possibility. In addition, mod-
erate correlations among some of the socialization content areas
may restrict their discriminant validity.
The current research may also be restricted by the subject
sample. All respondents were taken from a population of col-
lege-educated graduates. How these results may generalize to
non-college-trained employees or graduates in fields other than
engineering is uncertain. Finally, all data were collected from
self-reports. Method variance cannot explain all the results
from Phases 1 and 2, and it may be problematic for Phase 3.
Although the longitudinal nature of the research can alleviate
the potential for method variance, the single source for data
remains a concern.
Future Research Directions
More research needs to be focused on the content of organi-
zational socialization. The research presented here was limited
by self-reports and represents a beginning in the development
of a primary measure of socialization. Replication of the six
dimensions and their relationships with socialization processes
and outcomes is needed. This study found the Organizational
Goals and Values dimension to significantly differ from other
socialization dimensions in its ability to predict organizational
turnover and career effectiveness. Future research should ad-
dress these differences.
Improvements to self-report measures and more objective
measures from other sources can be integrated to better define
organizational socialization and its relationships with other
constructs. Additional content areas of socialization should be
explored to better define the socialization domain. Content ar-
eas linking work with nonwork or personal identity deserve em-
pirical investigation within a socialization context. Such mea-
sures could prove to be valuable dependent variables when eval-
uating the effectiveness of socialization strategies (Jones, 1986;
742 CHAO, O'LEARY-KELLY, WOLF, KLEIN, GARDNER
Van Maanen, 1978), and career development tools (London &
Stumpf, 1982).
Future research should be aimed in both theoretical and ap-
plied directions. Advances in socialization theory can be
achieved by understanding the different relationships between
socialization content areas and their antecedents and outcomes.
In addition, the content and process of socialization need to be
better integrated to understand how particular subject areas are
learned. It is speculated here that socialization may be a critical
mediator of many human resource practices and organizational
behavior outcomes. Thus, the relationship between training or
mentoring practices and outcomes such as satisfaction and per-
formance may depend on how well these practices socialized an
individual to his or her role within the organization.
Reichers (1987) takes an interactionist perspective and points
out how socialization practices can affect the rate of adjustment
to a new job. The rate of socialization may also vary for partic-
ular content areas. If personal and organizational rewards are
associated with individuals who are quickly socialized, the so-
cialization content areas reported in this article can be used to
evaluate the effectiveness of specific organizational practices
proposed by Van Maanen and Schein (1979). Results from this
research could help organizations design efficient socialization
programs that would help people learn about the most essential
content areas.
Finally, the identification of these and other content dimen-
sions of organizational socialization can be used to assess its
relationship with mainstream topics of organizational behavior.
Recent articles have described ties between organizational so-
cialization and leadership (Kozlowski & Doherty, 1989; Schein,
1985), mentoring (Ostroff & Kozlowski, 1993), group develop-
ment (Hackman, 1992), organizational climate (Schneider &
Reichers, 1983), learning theory (R. F. Morrison & Brantner,
1992; H. M. Weiss, 1990), accountability and decision making
(Sherman, Ezell, & Odewahn, 1987), and strategic staffing (Son-
nenfeld, 1989). The content and process of organizational so-
cialization can establish the relevant background for under-
standing current behavior and can also serve as the focal point
for changing organizational behavior. Thus, the manner in
which an individual learns and assumes a specific role within an
organization can serve as a fundamental building block
for understanding that individual's behavior and future
performance.
Conclusion
Research in organizational socialization is currently in a
young and developing stage. Much of the literature is focused
on the process or context of socialization, addressing the ques-
tion of how an individual learns an organizational role. This
article differs from that perspective by focusing on the content
or multidimensionality of the socialization domain. The two ap-
proaches were integrated in Phase 2, in which we demonstrated
that specific content areas were differentially affected as people
crossed different boundaries of organizational structure.
Both approaches are essential to a full understanding of what
socialization is and how it affects organizational behavior. To-
gether, the results from Phases 2 and 3 provided empirical sup-
port that the socialization process is an ongoing process for in-
dividuals and that different levels and changes in socialization
are related to career effectiveness. Socialization is not only an
important issue for organizational newcomers, but it is impor-
tant for established organizational members as well. The need
for resocialization among organizational members may be most
salient as people experience job changes. These changes may be
formal changes such as promotions, transfers, or reassignments,
or they may be subtle changes within a formal job title. For peo-
ple who remain in their formal positions, changes in personnel,
work procedures, or organizational goals or values may trigger
a need for new learning and role adjustment. Thus, organiza-
tional socialization can be a pervasive aspect of organizational
behavior and career development.
References
Ashford, S. J. (1986). Feedback-seeking in individual adaptation: A re-
source perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 29, 465-487.
Brim, O. G., Jr. (1968). Adult socialization. In J. A. Clausen (Ed.), So-
cialization and society, (pp. 184-226). Boston: Little, Brown.
Buono, A. E, & Kamm, J. B. (1983). Marginality and the organizational
socialization of female managers. Human Relations, 36, 1125-1140.
Chao, G. T. (1988). The socialization process: Building newcomer com-
mitment. In M. London & E. Mone (Eds.), Career growth and human
resource strategies (pp. 31-47). Westport, CT: Quorum.
Cohen, J. (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educa-
tional and Psychological Measurement, 20, 37-46.
Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1983). Applied multiple regression/correlation
analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Dubinsky, A. J., Howell, R. D., Ingram, T. N., & Bellenger, D. N. (1986).
Salesforce socialization. Journal of Marketing, 50, 192-207.
Feldman, D. C. (1976). A contingency theory of socialization. Admin-
istrative Science Quarterly, 21, 433-452.
Feldman, D. C. (1981). The multiple socialization of organization
members. Academy of Management Review, 6, 309-319.
Feldman, D. C. (1989). Socialization, resocialization, and training: Re-
framing the research agenda. In I. Goldstein (Ed.), Training and de-
velopment in organizations (pp. 376-416). San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass.
Fisher, C. D. (1986). Organizational socialization: An integrative review.
Research in Personnel and Human Resource Management, 4, 101-
145.
Gomez-Mejia, L. R. (1983). Sex differences during occupational social-
ization. Academy of Management Journal, 26, 492-499.
Gould, S. (1979). Characteristics of career planners in upwardly mobile
occupations. Academy of Management Journal, 22, 539-550.
Hackman, R. J. (1992). Group influences on individuals in organiza-
tions. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of indu-
strial & organizational psychology (Vol. 3, 2nd ed., pp. 199-267).
Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Hall, D. T. (1976). Careers in organizations. Pacific Palisades, CA:
Goodyear.
Hall, D. T. (1987). Careers and socialization. Journal of Management,
13,301-321.
Howard, A., & Bray, D. W. (1988). Managerial lives in transition: Ad-
vancing age and changing times. New York: Guilford Press.
Jones, G. R. (1983). Psychological orientation and the process of orga-
nizational socialization: An interactionist perspective. Academy of
Management Review, 8, 464-474.
Jones, G. R. (1986). Socialization tactics, self-efficacy, and newcomers'
adjustments to organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 29,
262-279.
 ORGANIZATIONAL SOCIALIZATION
Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Doherty, M. L. (1989). Integration of climate
and leadership: Examination of a neglected issue. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 74, 546-553.
London, M., &Stumpf, S. A. (1982). Managing careers. Reading, MA:
Addison-Wesley.
Louis, M. R. (1980a). Career transitions: Varieties and commonalities.
Academy of Management Review, 5, 329-340.
Louis, M. R. (1980b). Surprise and sense making: What newcomers
experience in entering unfamiliar organizational settings. Admin-
istrative Science Quarterly, 25, 226-251.
Maccoby, E. E. (1984). Socialization and developmental change. Child
Development, 55, 317-328.
Manning, P. K. (1970). Talking and becoming: A view of organizational
socialization. In J. D. Douglas (Ed.), Understanding everyday life (pp.
239-256). Chicago, IL: Aldine.
Morrison, E. W. (1993). Longitudinal study of the effects of information
seeking on newcomer socialization. Journal of Applied Psychology,
78, 173-183.
Morrison, R. E, & Brantner, T. M. (1992). What enhances or inhibits
learning a new job? A basic career issue. Journal of Applied Psychol-
ogy, 77, 926-940.
Morrison, R. E, & Hock, R. R. (1986). Career building: Learning from
cumulative work experience. In D. T. Hall (Ed.), Career development
in organizations (pp. 236-274). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Ostroff, C, & Kozlowski, S. W. J. (1992). Organizational socialization
as a learning process: The role of information acquisition. Personnel
Psychology, 45, 849-874.
Ostroff, C., & Kozlowski, S. W. J. (1993). The role of mentoring in the
information gathering processes of newcomers during early organiza-
tional socialization. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 42, 170-183.
Pfeffer, J. (1981). Power in organizations. Marshfield, Massachusetts:
Pitman.
Porter, L. W, Lawler, E. E., Ill, & Hackman, J. R. (1975). Behavior in
organizations. New \brk: McGraw-Hill.
Reichers, A. E. (1987). An interactionist perspective on newcomer so-
cialization rates. Academy of Management Review, 12, 278-287.
Ritti, R. R., & Funkhouser, G. R. (1987). The ropes to skip and the ropes
to know (3rd ed.). New York: Wiley
Schein, E. H. (1968). Organizational socialization and the profession of
management Industrial Management Review, 9, 1-16.
Schein, E. H. (1971). The individual, the organization, and the career:
A conceptual scheme. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 7,401-
426.
Schein, E. H. (1985). Organizational culture and leadership. San Fran-
cisco: Jossey-Bass.
743
Schein, E. H., & Ott, J. S. (1962). The legitimacy of organizational in-
fluence. American Journal of Sociology, 67, 682-689.
Schneider, B. (1987). The people make the place. Personnel Psychology,
40, 437-453.
Schneider, B., & Hall, D. T. (1972). Toward specifying the concept of
work climate: A study of Roman Catholic Diocesan Priests. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 56, 447-455.
Schneider, B., & Reichers, A. E. (1983). On the etiology of climates.
Personnel Psychology, 36, 19-39.
Sherman, J. D., Ezell, H. E, & Odewahn, C. A. (1987). Centralization
of decision making and accountability based on gender. Group & Or-
ganization Studies, 12,454-463.
Sonnenfeld, J. A. (1989). Career system profiles and strategic staffing.
In M. B. Arthur, D. T. Hall, & B. S. Lawrence (Eds.), Handbook of
career theory (pp. 202-224). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Van Maanen, J. (1975). Police socialization: A longitudinal examina-
tion of job attitudes in an urban police department. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 20, 207-228.
Van Maanen, J. (1976). Breaking in: Socialization to work. In R. Dubin
(Ed.), Handbook of work, organization, and society (pp. 67-130).
Chicago: Rand McNally.
Van Maanen, J. (1978). People processing: Strategies of organizational
socialization. Organizational Dynamics, 7(1), 18-36.
Van Maanen, J. (1984). Doing new things in old ways: The chains of
socialization. In J. L. Bess (Ed.), College and university organization:
Insights from the behavioral sciences (pp. 211 -247). New \brk: New
York University Press.
Van Maanen, J., & Schein, E. (1979). Toward a theory of organizational
socialization. Research in Organizational Behavior, I, 209-264.
Wanous, J. P. (1980). Organizational entry: Recruitment, selection, and
socialization of newcomers. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Weiss, D. J., Dawis, R. V, England, G. W, & Lofquist, L. H. (1967).
Manual for the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire. Industrial Re-
lations Center, University of Minnesota.
Weiss, H. M. (1977). Subordinate imitation of supervisor behavior: The
role of modeling in organizational socialization. Organizational Be-
havior and Human Performance, 19, 89-105.
Weiss, H. M. (1990). Learning theory and industrial and organizational
psychology. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of
industrial & organizational psychology (Vo\. l,2nded., pp. 171-221).
Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Received August 6, 1990
Revision received February 16, 1994
Accepted February 17, 1994 •