running head: social validation and coping …301873/uq301873oa.pdf · callan, victor j. and terry,...

SOCIAL VALIDATION AND COPING MODEL OF IDENTITY DEVELOPMENT 1

This is a post-print version of the following article: Smith, Laura G. E., Amiot, Catherine E., Smith, Joanne R.,

Callan, Victor J. and Terry, Deborah J. (2013) The social validation and coping model of organizational identity

development: a longitudinal test. Journal of Management, 39 7: 1952-1978.

The social validation and coping model of organizational identity development: A

longitudinal test

Journal of Management (2013), volume 39, pp.1952-197

Laura G. E. Smith University of Bath

Catherine E. Amiot

Université du Québec à Montréal

Joanne R. Smith University of Exeter

Victor J. Callan

The University of Queensland

Deborah J. Terry The University of Queensland

Acknowledgements: The authors would like to acknowledge the Australian Research Council (ARC) for providing the funding for this project (ARC project number LP0775277). Corresponding author: Laura G. E. Smith, School of Psychology, University of Bath, Claverton Down, Bath. BA2 7AY. Email: [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]





ABSTRACT

Considerable research has explored the variables that affect the success of newcomer on-

boarding, socialization, and retention. We build on this research by examining how

newcomer socialization is affected by the degree to which a newcomer’s peers and leader

provide them with positive feedback. We refer to newcomers’ perceptions of this feedback as

“social validation”. This study examined the impact of social validation from peers and

leaders on the development of organizational identification over time and the turnover

attitudes of new employees. We found that perceptions of social validation significantly

predicted how new employees used coping strategies to adapt to their new role over time, and

consequently the development of identification and turnover intentions. Specifically,

increased peer social validation predicted a greater use of positive coping strategies to engage

with the new organization over time, and less use of disengagement coping strategies. In

contrast, initial leader validation decreased newcomers’ disengagement from the organization

over time. These results highlighted the role of the social environment in the workplace in

temporally shaping and validating newcomers’ adaptation efforts during transitions.

Keywords: social validation, socialization, organizational identification





THE SOCIAL VALIDATION AND COPING MODEL OF ORGANIZATIONAL

IDENTITY DEVELOPMENT: A LONGITUDINAL TEST

Encouragement is incredibly underrated and that’s probably one of the most critical

factors that’s helped me adjust to [the new organization]. I’m sure if […] I hadn’t

received a lot of praise and a lot of good feedback, I’d probably be in a completely

different place, you know that would affect my functioning at work. (Female

newcomer describing to the researchers how validating feedback from existing staff

helped her to adjust to her new organization).

As illustrated by the opening quote, new staff are affected by the degree to which their

peers and manager provide positive feedback about how effectively they are carrying out

their role. This feedback is known as social validation, and is defined as the perception of

positive social feedback from colleagues that affirms behaviors that are considered desirable

and appropriate (Gioia & Chittipeddi, 1991). To date, no research has examined how

newcomers’ perceptions of the validation received from their work colleagues influence their

adaptation efforts throughout the transition into a new organization. Instead, the socialization

literature has focused on the effectiveness of ‘on-boarding’ practices that emphasize

providing knowledge and resources to support employees in learning their role as quickly as

possible, or that help to build relationships with employees (Cashman & Smye, 2007; Conger

& Fishel, 2007; Dai, De Meuse & Gaeddert, 2011). To our knowledge, none of these on-

boarding practices focus on encouraging peers and leaders to provide validating feedback to





new hires that emphasizes that they are an important part of the organization.

To fill this gap, we develop and test a longitudinal model (illustrated in Figure 1) that

investigates how newcomers’ developing perceptions of social validation from other

employees predict those newcomers’ increased efforts to cope with the transition into their

new workplace. These coping processes then predict the development of the newcomers’

organizational identification (Amiot, de la Sablonnière, Terry, & Smith, 2007) and turnover

intentions. The model also directly captures the dynamic temporal processes that operate over

time during the socialization period (Bauer & Green, 1994; Fisher, 1986). The current

research thus makes a significant contribution to the literature by modeling the effect of the

changes experienced in social validation received from work colleagues on the development

of newcomers’ organizational identification and commitment over time through the process

of coping. In doing so, we highlight that how people cope with transitions depends heavily on

the relationships that develop over time within the group that they have joined (cf. DeRue &

Ashford, 2010).

The Effect of Social Validation on the Development of Organizational Identification

through Coping Processes

Coping with a Transition. Upon moving into a new group, newcomers use coping

strategies to adjust to the unfamiliar environment (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). Coping

processes operate during a variety of life transitions, including starting a new job (Feldman &

Brett, 1983), redundancy (Leana & Feldman, 1988, 1995; McKee-Ryan, Song, Wanberg, &

Kinicki, 2005) and recovering from serious illness (Scrignaro, Barni, Magrin, 2011).

Newcomers can choose to cope by actively engaging with a new group via engagement

coping. Engagement coping strategies are directed toward the active management of the





transition into a new organization. These coping strategies include taking action and

developing strategies to improve the situation, seeking emotional and instrumental social

support, and positive reframing of the situation. This represents a constructive engagement

with the transition into the new group. Therefore, increasing use of engagement coping

strategies should have a positive effect on adjustment to the change over time (i.e.,

development of identification and commitment). For instance, during organizational mergers,

these active coping processes positively predict employees’ adjustment and identification

(e.g., Amiot, Terry, Jimmieson & Callan, 2006; Terry, Callan, & Sartori, 1996).

On the other hand, newcomers may come to distance themselves from the group via

disengagement coping. Disengagement or “avoidance” coping strategies involve a failure to

address the problems associated with moving to a new organization. As these strategies

involve disengagement from the new organizational context, this type of coping should have

a negative impact on the development of organizational identification. Extending the Lazarus

and Folkman (1984) model, we propose that perceptions of the social environment that the

newcomer enters are an important determinant of newcomers’ use of engagement and

disengagement coping strategies. Specifically, we propose that increased perceptions of

social validation (cf. Festinger, 1954) from leaders and peers that develop throughout the

socialization period are a unique and underexplored intragroup antecedent of the process of

coping with workplace transitions over time.

Social Validation During a Workplace Transition. Social validation is the

perception of positive social feedback from colleagues that affirms appropriate behaviors.

Social validation provides identity cues (Ashforth, Harrison & Corley, 2008) that are

“descriptive and normative information about the group (i.e. organizational) identity; about





what the prototypical group member thinks, feels and does” (Smith, Amiot, Callan, Terry &

Smith, 2012; p. 332). Cues include reactions from existing staff about the validity of the

newcomers’ actions (Ibarra, 1999). These may be explicit (e.g., “You did a great job today”)

or implicit (e.g., non-verbal cues such as positive facial expressions in response to a task

being completed satisfactorily; or a “slap on the back”). The cues provide information about

the appropriateness of particular behaviors as judged by specific group norms and group

standards (Smith et al., 2012). This feedback is important because we rely on the opinions of

other people to evaluate the validity of our own opinions, behaviors or abilities (Festinger,

1954). The opinions of colleagues are especially important to newcomers when they enter a

new organization (Louis, 1980; Moreland & Levine, 2001) given that newcomers have a

relatively insecure and incomplete understanding of the new organization and its norms

(Ashforth et al., 2008). Over time, it is critical that newcomers develop insights into their

colleagues’ perspectives about the nature of the organization so that they engage and cope

more effectively in their new work context (Ashforth et al., 2008). Receiving increased

positive feedback over time assures newcomers that they are learning to behave appropriately

within the organization, and motivates further positive engagement with the new context and

work tasks. In turn, this facilitates the development of attachment to the new organization

(Smith et al., 2012).

The social validation perceived from the new group should dictate, at least in part, the

extent to which newcomers increasingly use engagement coping strategies to deal with the

transition. The more validating feedback the newcomer receives over time, the more group

insight they will have to engage constructively and appropriately with the tasks at hand.

Therefore, we propose that increased perceptions of social validation contribute to the





development of organizational identification and commitment by increasing newcomers’

confidence that they are conducting themselves appropriately (cf. McGarty, Turner, Oakes, &

Haslam, 1993), and confirming that it is worth investing efforts in adapting to the new social

context. However, if new employees do not receive positive feedback, or if this feedback

decreases, they are unlikely to engage in adaptation efforts. Instead, they are likely to

increasingly disengage from the new group (Wrosch, Scheier, Miller, Schulz, & Carver,

2003). The resulting motivational downturn may lead to dis-identification with the

organization over time (Amiot et al., 2006; Terry et al., 1996) and ultimately, greater

intentions to leave the organization (Hausknecht & Trevor, 2011).

Sources of Social Validation. In the proposed model, we separate two sources of

validation: Social validation from one’s peers and social validation from a leader. Although

the perception of validation from leaders and peers is likely to influence coping in a similar

way by increasing the use of engagement coping responses and decreasing disengagement

coping over time, social validation may act in this way for different reasons. Leaders and

peers hold roles of different status within the organization, and feedback from colleagues of

different status is perceived differently (e.g., Ullrich, Wieseke, Christ, Schulze, & van Dick,

2007). Leaders are more likely than peers to be viewed as qualified to provide formal

feedback about how well the individual is performing and adjusting to the new work

environment (Ullrich et al, 2007). In contrast, feedback from equal-status peers is more likely

to focus on developing task-relevant abilities and competences (Klimoski & London, 1974;

Tucker, Cline, & Schmitt, 1967) rather than on overall performance (Borman, 1974;

Zammuto, London, & Rowland, 1982).

As leaders are also representatives of the organizational identity, planned performance





appraisals by leaders are an important socialization tool that provides employees with

information about their standing within the organization (Ardts et al., 2001; Jokisaari &

Nurmi, 2009). Leader validation provides a cue not simply of the leader’s opinion of the

newcomer’s actions, but also of the newcomer’s actions as evaluated by the organization’s

standards and guidelines. Further, when leaders validate group members’ identity, they are

more able to engender followership (Haslam & Platow, 2001). This validation is likely to

help newcomers to remain committed to the organization, and should lead to a lesser use of

disengagement and lower turnover intentions over time.

Outcomes of the Identity Formation Process. According to the theory above, social

validation should influence identification with the organization by affecting coping

mechanisms, and increased identification should in turn be associated with decreased

turnover intentions over time (e.g., Ashforth & Mael, 1989; Riketta & Van Dick, 2005; Smith

et al., 2012; van Knippenberg & van Schie, 2000). Additionally, in the process of joining the

new organization, the newcomer needs to integrate the new organizational identity with

existing identities in the self-concept (e.g., being a family member; Amiot et al., 2007). As

identification with the new organization develops over time and is integrated with other

identities the person already endorses, the individual should experience an increasingly

coherent sense of self. This should be associated with a decrease in identity conflict (Amiot et

al., 2007; Benet-Martinez, Leu, Lee, & Morris, 2002; Settles, 2004).

The Proposed Model

Our model (illustrated in Figure 1) is specifically focused on the development of

organizational identification. Therefore, in our model all variables represent change over

time. The longitudinal design enabled us to model the variance in participants whose scores





both increased and decreased on each variable throughout their first few months in a new

organization and to hence capture their patterns of intraindividual change. Overall, we

hypothesized that changes in newcomers’ perceptions of social validation and in their use of

coping strategies throughout the socialization period would predict changes in organizational

identification, in identity conflict, and in turnover intentions over time.

------------------------------

Insert Figure 1 about here

------------------------------

Hypotheses. Increased perceptions of social validation from peers and leaders

throughout the socialization period should predict an increase in organizational identification

through increasing the use of engagement coping during the transition process (H1a).

Inversely, increased perceptions of social validation from peers and leaders should predict an

increase in identification through reducing disengagement coping (H1b). Increased

engagement coping strategies should predict increased organizational identification (H2a).

Conversely, an increased reliance on disengagement coping should predict decreased

organizational identification (H2b). Finally, increased organizational identification should

predict decreases in identity conflict (H3a) and in turnover intentions (H3b).

The Present Study

The Organizational Context. This research tracked the experiences of new staff

who joined a large public sector organization over a 12 month period. At the time of this

research, the organization employed over 7,500 full-time permanent staff, with an intake of

around 500 new staff per annum recruited from outside the organization. The organization

was divided into 10 business divisions that included for example, city infrastructure, city





business, city transport and corporate services. Divisions were situated in several locations

across the city.

The final newcomer sample represented less than 2% of the organization’s population.

New staff were recruited individually at disparate time points and entered existing small work

teams (n<8) within their division. The size of the teams and how often they met were

dependent upon the newcomer’s division and role. In general, the team structure consisted of

a team leader with no more than 8 team members. This structure was very consistent across

this large organization. We did not ask participants to disclose their team membership or

leader details because this would require them to provide potentially identifying information

and therefore violate the assurance of anonymity. We requested only divisional membership

data. Only between 0.5 and 2.6% of any one division was comprised of newcomers.1

According to organizational policy, we know that newcomers were distributed into different

teams with different leaders to reduce disruption to team functioning. Once in a team,

newcomers did not change teams during probation and all participants were in the same team

at T1 and T2. Some of the new hires were team leaders, but in the survey we asked them to

respond to the leader validation items by referring to the person they themselves reported to.

All staff were able to identify their “team members” and “the person they reported to.” 2

The organization had both local induction guidelines and a centralized corporate

orientation program, in which all new permanent staff were expected to participate within 6

months of joining the organization. Local inductions were conducted in their workplace with

a team leader. In these latter inductions, on a one-to-one basis the new staff member was

introduced to the local work environment and work colleagues, and was familiarized with

organizational procedures and the code of conduct. At corporate inductions, staff were





provided with information about the organizational structure, and the role of the divisions in

supporting the city’s inhabitants and its infrastructure, within which their personal role was

contextualized.

To directly capture the dynamic processes that take during the socialization period,

the current research employed Latent Difference Score (LDS) mediation models using the

structural equation modeling framework. These analyses test how longitudinal changes in

each of the antecedent and process variables over time predict longitudinal changes in the

outcome variables of the model (e.g., Hertzog, Dixon, Hultsch, & MacDonald, 2003). These

latent change models are employed herein to identify reliable intra-individual differences in

processes associated with organizational socialization and the development of organisational

identification and commitment.

METHOD

Participants and Procedure

We invited new staff at the organization to complete two questionnaires, six months

apart within their first year at the organization. Although there is no consensus regarding the

precise length of the socialization process (Allen, 2006), this initial one year period has

traditionally served as the primary time frame for studying socialization (Bauer & Green,

1994; Fisher, 1986). Previous longitudinal research on identity development has used a

similar time frame (Amiot, Blanchard & Gaudreau, 2008; Amiot, Terry, Wirawan & Grice,

2010, Study 1). By using these two time points, we aimed to capture employees’ developing

organizational identity at a time when it was relatively flexible rather than crystallized

(Amiot et al., 2007). We administered the first survey to employees within 6 months of them

joining the organization. Participants completed the Time 2 survey 6 months after the first





survey. This time lag enabled us to model intraindividual (rather than interindividual) change

over time; it was also this specific time lag and the change that took place over this time

period (rather than the absolute time of measurement) that was of interest.

New employees were recruited to participate in this study by asking for volunteers via

email and through approaches at all corporate inductions. Inductions were organized to take

place within the first three months of the newcomer’s arrival. However, if new employees

were unable to attend the first scheduled induction, they then waited 3 months until the next

available induction. This recruitment procedure ensured that the first questionnaire of the

study was distributed to new staff (both office-based and non-office-based) within six months

of their entry into the organization (Time 1). Participants were informed that the

questionnaires were designed to give them an opportunity to express their opinions about a

range of issues associated with joining the organization. All participants were informed that

their responses to the questionnaires were anonymous and at no time they would be made

available to any personnel in the organization. Participants were recruited via email or post

for the second questionnaire (Time 2) exactly 6 months after they had completed their Time 1

questionnaire. Participants were given a time limit within which they were asked to respond.

Therefore, all responses occurred within one week of the initial recruitment email.

To preserve the anonymity and confidentiality of participants during the research

recruitment process, representatives from the Human Resources department of the

organization forwarded our recruitment email to all new employees at both Time 1 and Time

2. At Time 2, we included in this email an invitation to employees to complete the second

survey if they had completed the first survey at Time 1. However, we also received

completed surveys from participants who had not completed the Time 1 survey. Overall, the





Time 1 questionnaire was completed by 553 new employees, and 252 employees completed

the Time 2 questionnaire, 6 months later. In the final sample, we retained only the 139

participants who were matched across the questionnaires.

The final sample of 139 participants were aged 18 to 60 years (M = 33.72 years, SD =

10.23 years) and included 75 females and 48 males (14 did not report their gender).

Participants’ average tenure at T1 was 2.63 months (SD = 1.80) ranging from 0.25 to 6

months. Modal tenure was 1 month, median was 2. Therefore, on average most newcomers

had very little experience of the organization at the Time 1 sampling occasion3. Data were

collected across all levels of seniority and all divisions of the organization. This final sample

included non-office based staff (n = 16%), such as construction workers, waste disposal

workers, bus drivers and garage mechanics; and office-based staff who predominately

worked at a desk with a computer (n = 83%; 1% missing values). The nature of the

interactions with other group members differed according to role, but there was an

organization-wide policy for regular team meetings and team leader feedback. During the

probation phase for new employees, full time staff received two appraisals conducted by their

leader (at 3 months and 6 months).

To test if participants comprising the final sample, who had completed both

questionnaires (n = 139), differed from those who had completed only the first or only the

second questionnaire, two series of Bonferonni t tests were used. In the first series,

employees who had completed only the first questionnaire (n = 553) were compared with

those who had completed both questionnaires on the relevant Time 1 variables. A second

series of t tests was conducted to compare employees who had completed only the second

questionnaire (n = 252) with those who had completed both questionnaires on the Time 2





variables. On the basis of these tests, participants who completed both questionnaires were

found not to differ from those who completed only the Time 1 questionnaire or only the Time

2 questionnaire. We used several procedural techniques to reduce common method bias

(Harrison, Sluss & Ashforth, 2011; see also Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003).

First, we temporally separated our predictor and process variables. Second, to increase

psychological distance we grouped scale items together but separated the variables within

each survey.

Measures

Participants completed questionnaires at both Time 1 and Time 2, both of which

contained standardized scales. See Table 1 for means and inter-scale correlations. At both

time points, the questionnaires measured perceptions of social validation by peers and

leaders, coping strategies, identification with the organization, turnover intentions, and

identity conflict. First, a 6-item scale measured the extent to which participants felt socially

validated by their team members. This scale was developed by Smith and colleagues and

presents excellent reliability (e.g., Cronbach’s α in the current study: Time 1 α = .96; Time 2

α = .95; Smith et al., 2012; Smith & Postmes, 2011). An identical 6-item scale (Time 1 α =

.97; Time 2 α = .98) was adapted to measure perceived social validation by the person to

whom the new staff member reported directly (e.g., team leader; hereafter referred to as

“leader validation”). Items included, “My team (/The person I report to) makes me feel that

my opinions about the correct way to do my job are valid”; “My team (/The person I report

to) makes me feel that my beliefs about appropriate behavior at work are justified”; “My

team (/The person I report to) makes me feel that I conduct myself appropriately at work”;

“My team (/The person I report to) makes me feel certain that my views on how to do my





role are right”; “My team (/The person I report to) gives me confidence that I am doing my

role well”; and “I feel that my opinions about work are shared by my team (/the person I

report to).” On all of the items, participants responded on a scale of 1 (“Strongly disagree”) to

7 (‘‘Strongly agree”). Therefore, low levels of validation capture the newcomers’ perceptions

that they are not validated by their peers/leader – i.e., an absence of validating feedback,

rather than a presence of negative, invalidating feedback.

The brief COPE inventory, validated by Carver (1997) and reliably used during

various life transitions (e.g., Rosenberger, Ickovics, Epel, D'Entremont, & Jokl, 2004;

Scrignaro, Barni & Magrin, 2011), was employed to measure the engagement and

disengagement coping strategies used by newcomers at Time 1 and Time 2. The COPE

inventory is similar to other measures in that it assesses coping responses that seem

potentially dysfunctional as well as adaptive responses (e.g. Folkman & Lazarus, 1985;

Billings & Moos, 1984). The COPE has the additional advantage that the scales are more

theoretically based and diverse than other measures so the items used for engagement and

disengagement coping are drawn from a larger sample of coping options or subscales. When

completing the COPE, participants rated how often they used each action to deal with the

problems and stress associated with adjusting to the organization (1 = never; 6 = always).

In accordance with prior research and at both time points, these items were divided

into two scales to measure use of engagement coping strategies and the use of disengagement

coping (Carver & Connor-Smith, 2010). This distinction also complements Morling and

Evered’s (2006) discussion of primary and secondary control strategies. The COPE subscales

used to assess engagement coping (12 items, Time 1 α = .93; Time 2 α = .91) included active

coping (“I concentrate my efforts on doing something about the situation I'm in”; “I take





action to try to make the situation better”), planning (“I try to come up with a strategy about

what to do”; “I think hard about what steps to take”), seeking emotional social support (“I get

emotional support from others”; “I get comfort and understanding from someone”), seeking

instrumental social support (“I try to get advice or help from other people about what to do”;

“I’ve been getting help and advice from other people”), positive reframing (“I try to see it in a

different light, to make it seem more positive”; “I look for something good in what is

happening”), and acceptance (“I accept the reality of the fact that it has happened”; “I learn to

live with it”). The COPE subscale measuring behavioral disengagement was used to assess

disengagement coping (2 items, Time 1 α = .90; Time 2 α = .92) “I give up trying to deal with

it” and “I give up the attempt to cope”).

A 10-item scale adapted from Leach et al. (2008) measured the extent to which

participants identified with the organization (Time 1 α = .97; Time 2 α = .98). Items included,

‘ I feel a bond with [the organization]; ‘I feel committed to [the organization]; ‘I think that

[the organization] has a lot to be proud of’; ‘Being part of [the organization] gives me a good

feeling’; ‘The fact that I am part of [the organization] is an important part of my identity’; ‘I

feel solidarity with [the organization]; ‘I am glad to be [the organization’s] employee’; ‘It is

pleasant to be part of [the organization]; ‘I often think about the fact that I am part of [the

organization], and ‘Being an employee of [the organization] is an important part of how I see

myself’. Participants responded to all items on a scale of 1 (“Strongly disagree”) to 7

(‘‘Strongly agree”).

A single item measure was adapted from Bozeman and Perrewe (2001) to measure

turnover intentions at Time 1 and Time 2: “I will probably look for a new job in the near

future” (1 = Strongly disagree; 7 = Strongly agree). A 5-item scale was adapted from the





vignettes developed by Benet-Martinez, Leu, Lee, and Morris (2002; see also Downie,

Koestner, ElGeledi, & Cree, 2004) to measure identity conflict at both phases (Time 1 α =

.90, Time 2 α = .87; 1 = Strongly disagree; 7 = Strongly agree). Items included, “I feel that

being an employee of [the organization] conflicts with some other aspects of myself (e.g.,

being a friend, sport)”; “It makes me uneasy to think about how different I am at work vs.

outside of work”; “I cannot yet reconcile the fact that I’m an employee of [the organization]

with other important parts of my personality”; “I don’t feel that being an employee of [the

organization] brings anything more to who I already am: in fact it probably makes things

more complicated” and “Being an employee of [the organization] clashes with who I consider

myself to really be.

------------------------------

Insert Table 1 about here

------------------------------

Analytic Strategy

Preliminary Analyses. Prior to the main analyses, missing values (representing less

than 5% of the sample on each measure) were estimated and replaced using an expectation-

maximization method. Next, in our preliminary analyses we assessed the percentages of

participants who exhibited change on the variables from Time 1 to Time 2 using the reliable

change index (RCI; Christensen & Mendoza, 1986). The RCI statistic, not used in later

modeling analyses, provides descriptive information about the proportion of participants who

exhibited significant increases or decreases in their scores for each substantive variable over

time (e.g., perceptions of peer validation from Time 1 to Time 2). We calculated the RCI

using a procedure that has been employed to assess the psychological changes occurring





during life transitions among normal populations (e.g., Amiot et al., 2008; Amiot et al., 2010;

Roberts, Caspi, & Moffitt, 2001). The RCI provides a useful estimation of the percentages of

participants who changed reliably over time. The RCI is also informative for non-intervention

or natural history studies (Roberts et al., 2001), such as in the current study. Given our focus

on changes over time, this statistical technique was considered useful at the conceptual level.

Main Analyses. For our main analyses, we examined whether changes in the

antecedent variables – social validation and coping – predicted changes in organizational

identification and in identity conflict and turnover intentions from Time 1 to Time 2. To do

this, we tested Latent Difference Score (LDS) mediation models in Mplus version 5.1

(Muthén & Muthén, 2007). While RCIs are descriptive and illustrate the amount of change

displayed by our participants over time, LDS models allow us to capture how intraindividual

change in one variable per se is associated with the change in another. Therefore, LDS

mediation models explicitly represent the direction and magnitude of the individual

differences in change that existed in the targeted variables measured at Time 1 and Time 2

(Roberts et al., 2001; Selig & Preacher, 2009). Recently, LDS models have become more

popular in applied research (See Selig & Preacher, 2009; Hamagami & McArdle, 2007;

Hertzog et al., 2003; King et al., 2006; McArdle, 2001; McArdle & Nesselroade, 1994).

In our LDS models, the change in variables from Time 1 to Time 2 were latent

variables embedded into the structural model. We included each construct measured at both

Time 1 and Time 2, thus resulting in a total of 7 latent change factors. Using this LDS

approach allowed us to focus on change in each of these constructs as well as absolute scores

at each time point. Therefore, we could assess whether a change in one of the constructs (e.g.,

change in peer validation from Time 1 to Time 2) may be equally or more important than the





absolute scores at each time point per se (e.g., Time 1 peer validation) in predicting the

process and outcome variables. The absolute scores at each time point were also latent

variables each constructed from two parcels of observed items (see below). In other words,

the LDS model treats the indicators exactly like structural equation modeling (SEM) does. It

removes the error and leaves the true score in the latent variable. The residual variance is

considered measurement error. In addition, we correlated the residual variances for each

identical scale at each time point (e.g., the residual variance of parcel 1 of peer validation at

T1 was correlated with the residual variance of parcel 1 of peer validation at T2). This

ensured that any systematic measurement error in a particular scale was accounted for

between time points.

LDS modeling was considered appropriate in light of sample size requirements. Prior

researchers have found reliable correlations of change between latent variables using the LDS

technique with small samples (Hertzog et al., 2003 – sample of 302 but including many more

parameters to estimate than the current model; Raz et al., 2005 – sample size of 72). When

modeling covariance in change between latent constructs, smaller sample sizes are not a

significant issue (Hertzog, Lindenberger, Ghisletta, & von Oertzen, 2006). Furthermore, this

technique uses bootstrapped confidence intervals for the indirect effects, and multiple

covariates in the change analysis. These methods are stable with a sample that includes less

than 200 participants.

In Figure 2, the constructs ‘∆PVal’, ‘∆ECoping’, and ‘∆DCoping’ represent the latent

factors for changes in peer validation, changes in engagement coping and changes in

disengagement coping from Time 1 to Time 2, respectively. In addition, in Figure 3 the

construct ‘∆LVal’ represents the latent factor for changes in leader validation from Time 1 to





Time 2. In both figures, the constructs ‘∆OI’, ‘∆Turnover Intentions’ and ‘∆IdentConf’

represent the latent factors for changes in organizational identification, changes in turnover

intentions and changes in identity conflict from Time 1 to Time 2, respectively. Each LDS

model included the absolute scores at Time 1 and Time 2 (each created via two parcels of

observed variables) to create each latent change factor, although these are not represented in

Figures 2 and 3 in order to simplify the graphical depiction.

The models’ goodness of fit was tested by using the chi-square ratio, the comparative

fit index (CFI; Bentler, 1990), the Tucker Lewis Index (TLI; Hu & Bentler, 1995), the

standardized root mean residual (SRMR), and the root mean square error of approximation

(RMSEA; Browne & Cudeck, 1993). The TLI is relatively independent of sample size

(Marsh, Balla, & McDonald, 1988) and thus was particularly useful in the current context.

To test for the mediating roles of changes in engagement coping and disengagement

coping in the associations between change in peer and leader social validation and change in

organizational identification, and the mediating role of change in identification between

change in coping strategies and the outcomes of change in identity conflict and change in

turnover intentions, we calculated the bias-corrected bootstrap 95% confidence intervals in

MPlus using the unbiased estimates of mediation effects provided by the LDS modeling. This

is a robust method of testing for multiple mediation that also directly tests the significance of

the indirect effects (MacKinnon, 2008; Selig & Preacher, 2009).

Parceling of Items. Scale items were aggregated into two parcels for each Time 1 and

Time 2 variable (in other words, each Time 1 and Time 2 latent variable had two observed

indicators). This enabled us to avoid under-identification of the model (Little, Cunningham,

Shahar, & Widaman, 2002), and to create more parsimonious models with less various sources of

systematic measurement or sampling error (Bandalos, 2002; Little et al., 2002). To construct the





parcels, we used an internal consistency approach (Kishton & Widaman, 1994). First, we

conducted an exploratory factor analysis on each scale to identify whether the scale was uni- or

multidimensional. We then parceled the items to ensure that each parcel had a Cronbach’s alpha

score of >.50 and items within the parcel loaded onto only one factor. Therefore, each parcel was

reliable and unidimensional.

RESULTS

Preliminary Analyses

First, we calculated RCI scores to assess the magnitude of increase or decrease in

identification and identity conflict exhibited by each individual over time. Higher RCI scores

indicate an increase in the measure from Time 1 to Time 2. The specific formula used to

obtain RCI scores is as follows (Christensen & Mendoza, 1986): RC = X2 - X1 / Sdiff, where X1

represents a person’s score at Time 1, X2 represents that same person’s score at Time 2, and

Sdiff is the standard error of difference between the two test scores, which can be computed

using the standard error of measurement: Sdiff = (2(SE)2)1/2. The standard error of the

difference score represents the spread of the distribution of change scores that would be

expected if no actual change has occurred. RCI scores smaller than -1.96 or larger than 1.96

are unlikely to occur without true change and are thus considered reliable. Furthermore, if

change were random, then we would expect the distribution of RCI scores to be normal, with

approximately 2.5% below -1.96, 2.5% above 1.96, and 95% of the participants remaining

the same. Based on this formula, we can then use the RCI to identify the proportions of

participants from our sample who significantly increased, significantly decreased, or showed

no appreciable change in each of the variables over time (Christensen & Mendoza, 1986;

Roberts, et al., 2001).

For perceptions of peer validation, 40.2% of participants perceived an increase over





time, 23.5% perceived that it stayed the same, and 36.4% perceived a decrease. Chi-squared

statistics revealed that the percentage of newcomers whose perceptions of peer validation

significantly changed over time differed significantly from the percentage expected by

chance, χ2 (1) = 132.00, p < .001. For perceptions of leader validation, again 40.2% of

participants reported that they perceived an increase, 26.2% perceived that it stayed the same,

and 33.6% reported a decrease, again representing significant intra-individual change, χ2 (1) =

122.00, p < .001. For engagement coping, for 47.1% of participants we observed increased

scores, for 15.2% scores remained the same, and for 37.7% scores decreased over time; χ2 (1)

= 138.00, p < .001. For disengagement coping, for 24.1% of participants we observed

increased scores, for 29.2% scores remained the same, and for 46.7% scores decreased over

time; χ2 (1) = 137.00, p < .001. We observed that 33.8% of participants experienced an

increase in organizational identification from Time 1 to Time 2, whereas 46.6% of

newcomers experienced decreased identification, and 19.5% stayed the same, χ2 (1) = 133.00,

p < .001. On the identity conflict variable, 29.8% of participants experienced a decrease,

54.2% reported an increase in conflict, and 16.0% stayed the same, χ2 (1) = 131.00, p < .001.

Finally, for turnover intentions, 49.6% of participants reported an increase, 20.3% reported

no change, and 30.1% reported a decrease, χ2 (1) = 93.000, p < .001. These results suggest

that significant proportions of participants displayed reliable intra-individual changes over

time on each variable.

Given the reliable variance in change on each variable, the correlations of the latent

change factors were both meaningful and interpretable. In Table 2, we report the correlations

between the latent change factors. Means, standard deviations and correlations between Time

1 and 2 variables are displayed in Table 1.





------------------------------


------------------------------

Latent Difference Score Modeling

There was a moderately high zero-order correlation of .64 between changes in leader

and peer validation that suggested these variables might be multicollinear. This suggested

that there was some multicollinearity. Such high associations among variables can create

instability in the LDS findings and lower model fit. Therefore, in order to avoid statistical

instability in the parameter estimates, team and team leader levels of validation were

investigated in separate LDS models.

Figure 2 shows the significant paths in the LDS mediation model for change in peer

validation. Fit indices for the model were: χ2 (149)= 192.514, p = 0.009; RMSEA = 0.046

(90% confidence interval: 0.024, 0.063); CFI = .983; TLI = .974; SRMR = 0.046.

------------------------------


------------------------------

Figure 3 shows the significant paths in the LDS mediation model for change in leader

validation. Fit indices for the model were: χ2 (149)= 210.551, p<.001; RMSEA = 0.055 (90%

confidence interval: 0.036, 0.071); CFI = 0.977; TLI = 0.965; SRMR = 0.055. Therefore,

both models had excellent fit.

------------------------------


------------------------------





The paths between the latent change factors (Figures 2 and 3) can be interpreted as

follows. Based on the distribution of change scores observed in the current study (see section

on the reliable change index), the positive relationship between change in peer validation and

change in engagement coping meant that as perceptions of peer validation increased over

time, so did use of engagement coping, β=.220, p<.001. A similar positive relationship

existed for change in leader validation and change in engagement coping, β=.154, p<.001.

The negative relationship between change in peer validation and change in disengagement

coping meant that as peer validation increased over time, disengagement decreased, β=-.189,

p=.034. The path between change in leader validation and change in disengagement coping

was non-significant, β=-.065, p=.354. However, examination of the full LDS model that

included the absolute scores for leader validation at each time point indicated there was a

significant negative relationship between T1 leader validation scores and change in

disengagement coping, β=-.243, p=.003; and a significant positive relationship between T1

leader validation scores and change in engagement coping, β=.128, p=.002. This suggested

that T1 leader validation was related to decreased disengagement and increased engagement

coping over time.

The negative relationships between change in disengagement coping and change in

organizational identification indicated that increases in disengagement were related to

decreases in identification (β=-.420, p=.001 for the peer validation model and β=-.444,

p<.001 for the leader validation model). There was a marginally significant positive

relationship between changes in engagement coping and changes in identification for the peer

validation model, β=.332, p=.082, indicating that as engagement coping increased, so did

identification. No such relationship was found in the leader validation model, β=.231, p=.306.





The negative relationship between change in identification and change in turnover

intentions meant that as identification increased over time, turnover intentions were reduced

over time (β=-.526, p=.009 peer validation model; β=-.397, p=.066 leader validation model).

Similarly, a negative relationship between change in identification and change in identity

conflict indicated that as identification increased over time, identity conflict was reduced (β=-

.325, p=.027 peer validation model; β=-.349, p=.020 leader validation model). There was also

a marginally significant positive path in the leader validation model between changes in

disengagement coping and changes in identity conflict, β=.246, p=.084, whereby increased

disengagement predicted increased identity conflict. Finally, we also found a significant

negative path between changes in leader validation over time and changes in turnover

intentions, β=-.510, p<.001, indicating that as leader validation increased, turnover intentions

decreased over time.

Tests of Indirect Effects. Table 3 shows the results for the tests of indirect effects

and the associated 95% bias-corrected bootstrap confidence intervals. Results indicated that

increases in peer validation had a significant positive indirect effect on change in

identification through both increased use of engagement coping strategies and decreased use

of disengagement strategies over time. Increases in leader validation did not have these same

effects; however, absolute T1 leader validation was related to increased organizational

identification through decreased disengagement coping over time (but not through increased

engagement coping). Decreased use of disengagement coping strategies had significant

positive indirect effects on both decreased identity conflict and decreased turnover intentions

through increased organizational identification over time.

------------------------------






------------------------------

DISCUSSION

This research represents the first test of a validation and coping model of newcomer

organizational identity development. Our model uniquely combines insights on coping

processes in organizations (Amiot et al., 2006; Terry et al., 1996), with Amiot et al.’s (2007)

cognitive-developmental model of social identity integration, and recent findings on

perceptions of social validation as an intragroup antecedent of identity formation (Smith et

al., 2012). Our results showed that increased peer validation was related to increased

organizational identification through increased use of engagement coping strategies and

decreased use of disengagement coping strategies over time, providing partial support for

H1a and H1b. This supports research reported elsewhere (Amiot et al., 2006, 2008, 2010),

that active engagement coping increases individuals’ adjustment to a life transition and

facilitates the integration of the new organizational identity into the self-concept. However,

changes in perceptions of leader validation did not have the same effect. Instead, we found

that initial (rather than changes in) perceptions leader validation were related to increased

organizational identification through reducing disengagement coping over time. We explore

this finding further below.

We also found tentative support for H2a: in the peer validation model, there was a

trend towards a positive relationship between increases in engagement coping and increases

in organizational identification. The data fully supported H2b: increased disengagement

coping was related to decreased organizational identification. Our findings also fully

supported H3a and H3b: increased identification was related to decreased identity conflict





and decreased turnover intentions. Further, an increased use of disengagement coping

strategies predicted an increase in both identity conflict and in turnover intentions through

decreasing organizational identification over time. There was also evidence for a direct

relationship between increased disengagement and increased identity conflict:

Disengagement coping appeared to impede identity integration. Taken together, these

findings provide support for our proposition that coping strategies are an important

mechanism by which a new organizational identity develops and becomes integrated into the

self-concept over time.

One of the main novelties of the current research was to investigate the role played by

social validation in the process of newcomer socialization. Our findings suggest that

increased perceptions of social validation from peers contributes to the development of

organizational identity through facilitating engagement coping and reducing disengagement

coping. In addition, initial perceptions of social validation from leaders predicted the

development of organizational identity, but only through reducing disengagement coping.

One explanation for this pattern of relationships is that social validation from peers provides

an “identity echo” from existing ingroup members (Ashforth et al., 2008; Gioia &

Chittipeddi, 1991; Ibarra, 1999; Pratt & Rafaeli, 2001; Smith et al., 2012; Weick, 1995), that

increases newcomers’ confidence that they are conducting themselves normatively (McGarty

et al., 1993), motivates engagement coping, and encourages the formation of a positive

attachment to the group (Leach et al., 2008; Smith, Murphy, & Coats, 1999). A reduction in

such validation from peers may increase the likelihood that employees disengage from the

new group (Wrosch, Scheier, Miller, Schulz, & Carver, 2003). The resulting motivational

downturn may lead to dis-identification with the organization over time (Amiot et al., 2006;





Terry et al., 1996).

Peer, rather than leader validation may have motivated the development of identity

through the use of engagement coping strategies because of the relative proximity of peers to

newcomers in daily work and the fact that peers are proximal role models for organizational

norms and culture (see Ning Li et al., 2011). Leader validation may not have facilitated the

same process because most employees will expect their leaders and managers to give them

feedback as part of their leadership role. In contrast, peer feedback is not always an

“expected” act from coworkers. Employees hence may respond more proactively to

validating feedback from peers than from their leader since it is something their peers are not

expected to do, and nor are they compensated for doing so. In other words, voluntarily

displayed socialization behaviors from coworkers are extra-role and as such may be

particularly valued, appreciated, and beneficial to engagement coping-based identity

development.

In contrast, initial leader validation played a different role in the development of

identity by more specifically reducing the newcomers’ use of disengagement coping. This

validation from leaders early in the socialization period may act as a relational cue, providing

a meta-perspective (“my organization’s view of me”), as well as a performance cue (cf.

DeRue & Ashford, 2010). This is because leaders who are generally higher status

organizational members than peers are more likely than peers to be viewed as representatives

of the wider organization (Ullrich et al., 2007). Leader validation hence provides insight into

both the leader’s opinion of the newcomer’s actions and how the newcomer is evaluated by

the organization’s standards and guidelines. As leaders have authority in newcomers’ role

negotiations and the power to influence organizational rewards and punishments (Graen,





1976), if newcomers receive low levels of social validation via their leader early in the

socialization process, this is likely to be particularly discouraging (possibly more

discouraging than a lack of feedback from peers) and to lead newcomers to disengage from

the process of adjustment and of developing organizational identification.

In combination with the effect of initial leader validation on identity development

through decreasing disengagement coping, we found that increasingly validating leadership

was associated with reduced turnover intentions over time. This result is in line with research

that has found a negative relationship between the quality of leadership and turnover. For

example, Peterson and Luthans (2006) found that improving managers’ performance

feedback and social recognition skills had a negative relationship with turnover rate.

Similarly, George and Bettenhausen (1990) found a negative association between turnover

and the extent to which leaders felt active, enthusiastic and optimistic. Given this past

research and the findings we present here, it is possible that increasingly validating leadership

provides employees with a form of psychological empowerment that improves their

organizational commitment and reduces their turnover intentions (cf. Seibert, Wang &

Courtright, 2011).

We found that change in leader validation and change in peer validation were

relatively highly correlated. This could be due to the fact that peer and leader validation were

assessed with the same scale items (i.e., adapted for each source of validation), and also by

the conceptual overlap that could be expected among these variables. However, the

correlation does not denote complete conceptual overlap: our results show that each source of

validation was associated with different coping processes, attesting to the utility of

distinguishing these two sources.





It is possible that the correlation may also reflect the fact that change in one source of

validation produces change in the other source of validation. That is, if a leader provides

increasing validation to the newcomer, then this might change the norm of social validation

within the team, so that the practice of providing increased (or decreased) validation spreads

from the leader to members of the team. Similarly, changes in peer validation might spread

from the team to the leader – if the leader observes the team providing more validation, s/he

might change his/her behavior so as to reflect the norms of the team. It would be interesting

to investigate the nature of how the norm of social validation might spread and develop in

future research. The implications are that there is a necessarily dynamic relationship between

leaders and teams – leaders need to set the norms for their team, but they also need to reflect

the wishes and actions of their team in order to be able to lead effectively (cf. Haslam,

Reicher & Platow, 2011).

The inclusion of multiple sources of validation was a unique feature of this research.

This is timely as it resonates with recent research on developmental feedback to newcomers

by different sources (Li, Harris, Boswell & Xie, 2011), and also with developmental

approaches to leadership that promote the use of multiple sources of data about the leader’s

performance (Day & Harrison, 2007).

Our findings have significant implications for onboarding. Specifically, actions by co-

workers and managers may have a differential impact on the development of new hire

commitment. While our data provide information as to the relative contributions of peers and

leaders as socialization agents, these interpretations are speculative and need to be tested in

future research.

As another contribution, the current research investigated the changes taking place in





organizational identification over time. Findings uncovered using the reliable change index

revealed that a significant proportion of participants displayed reliable intra-individual

change in all of the variables over time. Interestingly, more participants reported decreased

than increased organizational identification. This finding is consistent with prior research

showing that during life and organizational transitions, a positively anticipated new

organizational identity is likely to be revised in light of the reality (Amiot et al., 2010;

Fichman & Levinthal, 1991). Initially, upon or even before entry, newcomers may develop a

sense of identification with this new group, even if they have very little information about the

group (Amiot et al., 2010). After newcomers discover the stress and problems associated with

adjusting to an imperfect organizational environment, they may experience some

disillusionment and a clash between their prior expectations and the organizational reality.

However, a substantial proportion of participants in our sample also reported an increase in

identification over time. This demonstrates that our data capture the variety of intra-

individual changes that occurred during this time period, and therefore we were able to model

the processes leading to identity development for the newcomers.

Coping strategies also changed as participants adapted (or failed to adapt) to the new

workplace. Results showed there was intraindividual variability in coping strategies over the

entire socialization period, with nearly half the participants using more engagement coping

strategies over time, and less disengagement. In the coping literature, it is possible to consider

coping as a trait (dispositional, in that individuals prefer using a stable and consistent set of

coping actions regardless of the situations; e.g., Amirkhan, 1990; Long & Schutz, 1995) and

also as a state (individuals change their coping utilization across time and throughout

different situations; e.g., Carver & Scheier, 1994; Folkman & Lazarus, 1985; Raffety, Smith,





& Ptacek, 1997; Terry & Hynes, 1998). The intraindividual change in coping that we

witnessed in the present research provides evidence to support this latter view of coping as a

state-based mechanism.

Implications for Theory. The current model represents a novel integration of insights

from literatures into coping processes, perceptions of the intragroup environment, newcomer

socialization, and identity development. Using novel statistical techniques, it also allowed us

to capture the temporal processes that took place over time during the socialization process.

While psychologists are well-equipped to predict and understand short term contextual

changes in identity, there is little research that has investigated the intra-individual identity

change processes that newcomers experience over time (Ethier & Deaux, 1994), and how

perceptions of the social environment in the workplace impact on coping and adaptation

efforts to facilitate work transitions (cf. Amiot et al., 2006). Here, we present the first

longitudinal data that provide support for the idea that peers and leaders play a role in the

development of organizational identification via coping mechanisms (cf. Amiot et al., 2007;

Harter, 1999; Mascolo & Fischer, 1998). We present evidence that organizational identity

development is founded in developing intragroup relationships and interdependence

(Gaertner, Iuzzini, Witt, & Orina, 2006; Gaertner & Schopler, 1998).

Implications for Practice. Peers have long been recognized as important players in

the socialization process (Louis, 1980). Work on online communities and social networks

shows that unstructured interactions with peers can sustain and organize activities on a large

scale (Faraj & Johnson, 2011; Wasko & Faraj, 2005), highlighting the need to rethink

traditional structured approaches to employee socialization and onboarding. In contrast,

socialization programs (e.g., onboarding tactics such as new staff inductions) are often





organized and administered by staff in the human resources department in organizations

rather than by team members (e.g., Allen, 2006; Ashforth & Saks, 1996; Morrison, 1993a).

Our findings and other studies that show that peers are an important part of a network of

socializing agents (e.g., Ashforth et al., 2008; Louis, 1980; Morrison, 1993a, b), bring into

sharp focus the importance of developing organizational interventions that encourage day-to-

day interactions of newcomers with existing group members and their leaders during the

socialization process.

Limitations. The current research examined intra-individual change using two time

points within the newcomers’ first 12 months at the new organization. However, some

researchers have called for using three time points in longitudinal research, in order to ensure

the difference between time points is not due to measurement error (see Ployhart &

Vandenberg, 2010). We acknowledge that measuring change at three time points is useful in

reliably disattenuating relationships among key variables. However, theory and previous

research on identity development suggests that we sampled the variables at appropriate points

in time, which allowed us to capture how newcomers’ developing perceptions of the social

environment came to predict changes in their coping responses over time (see Cole &

Maxwell, 2003; Selig & Preacher, 2009). Given that the socialization period is relatively

short, time points beyond the first 12 months at a new organization would perhaps not capture

the process of interest, which is identity development in newcomers, but would rather capture

identification change in more established employees. Further, our integration of the Reliable

Change Index (RCI) in our research adds value to the two-wave design we employed and is

methodologically innovative in this discipline. We hope the use of this statistical procedure in

the current research provides an example of how the RCI can capture the extent to which





employees changed during one of many important organizational transitions.

Future Directions. In this research, we focused on the development of one particular

work identity (i.e., the organizational identity). Yet there are additional workplace identities

that may develop in the work context over time. For example, research shows that within a

workplace, employees may identify with their team, division, organization, and also with

their role and profession (Ibarra, 1999; Riketta & van Dick, 2005). Indeed, as we speculated

above, long-term disengagement with the process of adapting to one specific group (e.g., the

work team) may facilitate the development of an alternative identity. Unfortunately, the

present data do not speak to the long-term effect of disengagement, but future research should

directly investigate the possibility that disengagement can help develop alternative identities.

Future research should also examine the interplay between the development of

different work identities. Research in other domains investigates the relationship between

multiple identities and how they are integrated and interrelated within the self-concept

(Roccas & Brewer, 2002) and how these different identities affect organizational outcomes

(Smith et al., 2012). A next stage for this research would be to investigate the processes

underlying the development of multiple interrelated identities throughout the socialization

period.

Another aspect of this research that is worth exploring in future research is the nature

of the intragroup validation environment. It is possible that perceptions of validation are less

important in contexts in which newcomers work relatively independently of others, and thus

validation is less available and/or expected; or in situations where a newcomer offers

complementary fit (cf. Kristof, 1996). Further, in the workplace, certain coworkers may

engage in validation of newcomers more than others (i.e., there is inter-individual variation in





validation of newcomers). If newcomers relied on the social validation efforts of one team

member (for example in dyadic mentoring), then that individual group member would have

disproportionate influence over the newcomer’s understanding of the workplace. In group-

based mentoring, any negative effect of one individual member would be diluted, especially

if combined with a leader who is validating and creating norms of validation. In the present

research, the way in which we measured social validation provided an indication of this

group norm for social validation within the newcomer’s workplace environment rather than

individual member’s contributions to this environment. This is a strength of the current

research, as validation needs to provide group-level identity cues rather than individual-level

cues to be maximally informative for the newcomer. It would be valuable, in future research,

to explore diversity in coworker validation in order to understand the impact of such

variability on coping and adaptation.

Conclusion. This research focuses on the processes involved in coming to see

oneself, and being seen by others, as an organizational ingroup member. As most people will

make several of these significant work transitions in their lifetime, they are likely to

experience the identity challenges we highlight and capture in this research. However, while

this psychological process is commonly experienced, it is seldom studied. In acknowledging

the necessary role of perceptions of other people around us in shaping and validating our

adaptation efforts, here we emphasize the very interdependent and dynamic nature of our

wellbeing and social cognition during these transitions from one workplace to another.





REFERENCES

Allen, D. G. 2006. Do organizational socialization tactics influence newcomer embeddedness

and turnover? Journal of Management, 32(2): 237-256. doi:

10.1177/0149206305280103

Amiot, C. E., Blanchard, C. M., & Gaudreau, P. 2008. The self in change: A longitudinal

investigation of coping and self-determination processes. Self and Identity, 7(2): 204-

224. doi: 10.1080/15298860701580793

Amiot, C. E., De La Sablonniere, R., Terry, D. J., & Smith, J. R. 2007. Integration of social

identities in the self: Toward a cognitive-developmental model. Personality and

Social Psychology Review, 11(4): 364-388. doi: 10.1177/1088868307304091

Amiot, C. E., Terry, D. J., Jimmieson, N. L., & Callan, V. J. 2006. A longitudinal

investigation of coping processes during a merger: Implications for job satisfaction

and organizational identification. Journal of Management, 32(4): 552-574. doi:

10.1177/0149206306287542

Amiot, C. E., Terry, D. J., Wirawan, D., & Grice, T. A. 2010. Changes in social identities

over time: The role of coping and adaptation processes. British Journal of Social

Psychology, 49(4): 803-826. doi: 10.1348/014466609x480624

Amirkhan, J. H. 1990. A factor analytically derived measure of coping: the Coping Strategy

Indicator. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59: 1066–1074.

Ardts, J., Jansen, P., & Velde, M. v. d. 2001. The breaking in of new employees:

effectiveness of socialisation tactics and personnel instruments. Journal of

Management Development, 20(2): 159-167.

Ashforth, B. E., Harrison, S. H., & Corley, K. G. 2008. Identification in organizations: An





examination of four fundamental questions. Journal of Management, 34(3): 325-374.

doi: 10.1177/0149206308316059

Ashforth, B. E., & Mael, F. 1989. Social identity theory and the organization. Academy of

Management Review, 14(1): 20-39.

Ashforth, B. E., & Saks, A. M. 1996. Socialization tactics: Longitudinal effects on newcomer

adjustment. Academy of Management Journal, 39(1): 149-178.

Bandalos, D. L. 2002. The effects of parceling on goodness-of-fit and parameter estimate bias

in structural equation modeling, Structural Equation Modeling, 9: 78–102.

Bauer, T. N., & Green, S. G. 1994. Effect of newcomer involvement in work-related

activities: A longitudinal study of socialization. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79(2):

211-223.

Benet-Martnez, V., Leu, J., Lee, F., & Morris, M. W. 2002. Negotiating biculturalism.

Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 33(5): 492-516. doi:

10.1177/0022022102033005005

Bentler, P. M. 1990. Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin,

107(2): 238-246.

Billings, A. G., & Moos, R. H. 1984. Coping, stress, and social resources among adults with

unipolar depression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46: 877–891.

Borman, W. C. 1974. The rating of individuals in organizations: An alternate approach.

Organizarional Behavior and Human Performance, 12: 105-124.

Bozeman, D. P., & Perrewe, P. L. 2001. The effect of item content overlap on organizational

commitment questionnaire-turnover cognitions relationships. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 86(1): 161-173.





Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. 1993. Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In A. Bollen &

J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models: 136-162. Newbury Park, CA:

Sage.

Carver, C. 1997. You want to measure coping but your protocol’ too long: Consider the brief

cope. International Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 4(1): 92-100. doi:

10.1207/s15327558ijbm0401_6

Carver, C. S., & Connor-Smith, J. 2010. Personality and coping. Annual Review of

Psychology, 61: 679-704.

Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. 1994. Situational coping and coping dispositions in a stressful

transaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66: 184–195.

Cashman, K., & Smye, M. 2007. Onboarding: Go beyond providing a ramp-up method.

Leadership Excellence, 24(4): 5-5.

Christensen, L., & Mendoza, J. L. 1986. A method of assessing change in a single subject -

An alteration of the RC index. Behavior Therapy, 17(3): 305-308.

Cole, D. A. & Maxwell, S. E. 2003. Testing mediation models with longitudinal data:

Questions and tips in the use of structural equation modelling. Journal of Abnormal

Psychology, 112: 558-577.

Conger, J. A., & Fishel, B. 2007. Accelerating leadership performance at the top: Lessons

from the Bank of America's executive on-boarding process. Human Resource

Management Review, 17(4): 442-454. doi: 10.1016/j.hrmr.2007.08.005

Dai, G. R., De Meuse, K. P., & Gaeddert, D. 2011. Onboarding externally hired executives:

Avoiding derailment - accelerating contribution. Journal of Management &

Organization, 17(2): 165-178.





Day, D. V., & Harrison, M. M. 2007. A multilevel, identity-based approach to leadership

development. Human Resource Management Review, 17: 360-373.

DeRue, D. S., & Ashford, S. J. 2010. Who will lead and who will follow? A social process of

leadership identity construction in organizations. Academy of Management Review,

35(4): 627-647.

Downie, M., Koestner, R., ElGeledi, S., & Cree, K. 2004. The impact of cultural

internalization and integration on well-being among tricultural individuals.

Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30(3): 305-314. doi:

10.1177/0146167203261298

Ethier, K. A., & Deaux, K. 1994. Negotiating social identity when contexts change -

Maintaining identification and responding to threat. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 67(2): 243-251.

Faraj, S., & Johnson, S. L. 2011. Network exchange patterns in online communities.

Organization Science, 22(6): 1464-1480. doi: 10.1287/orsc.1100.0600

Feldman, D. C., & Brett, J. M. 1983. Coping with new jobs: A comparative study of new

hires and job changers. The Academy of Management Journal, 26(2): 258-272.

Festinger, L. 1954. A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7(2): 117-

140.

Fichman, M., & Levinthal, D. A. 1991. Honeymoons and the liability of adolesence - A new

perspective on duration dependence in social and organizational relationships.

Academy of Management Review, 16(2): 442-468.

Fisher, C. D. 1986. Organizational socialization: An integrative review. Research in

personnel and human resources management, 4: 101.





Folkman, S., & Lazarus, R. S. 1985. If it changes it must be a process: Study of emotion and

coping during three stages of a college examination. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 48: 150–170.

Gaertner, L., Iuzzini, J., Witt, M. G., & Orina, M. M. 2006. Us without them: Evidence for an

intragroup origin of positive in-group regard. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 90(3): 426-439. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.90.3.426

Gaertner, L., & Schopler, J. 1998. Perceived ingroup entitativity and intergroup bias: an

interconnection of self and others. European Journal of Social Psychology, 28(6):

963-980.

George, J. M., & Bettenhausen, K. 1990. Understanding prosocial behavior, sales

performance, and turnover: A group-level analysis in a service context. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 75: 698-709.

Gioia, D. A., & Chittipeddi, K. 1991. Sensemaking and sensegiving in strategic change

initiation. Strategic Management Journal, 12(6): 433-448.

Graen, G. B. 1976. Role-making process within complex organizations. In M. Dunnette (Ed.),

Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology: 1201-1245: Chicago:

McNally.

Hamagami, F., & McArdle, J. J. 2007. Dynamic extensions of latent difference score models.

In M. J. Wenger & S. M. Boker (Eds.), Data analytic techniques for dynamical

systems (pp. 47–85). Florence, KY: Routledge.

Harrison, S. H., Sluss, D. M., & Ashforth, B. E. 2011. Curiosity adapted the cat: The role of

trait curiosity in newcomer adaptation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(1): 211-

220. doi: 10.1037/a0021647





Harter, S. 1999. Symbolic interactionism revisited: Potential liabilities for the self constructed

in the crucible of interpersonal relationships. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly-Journal of

Developmental Psychology, 45(4): 677-703.

Haslam, S. A., & Platow, M. J. 2001. The link between leadership and followership: How

affirming social identity translates vision into action. Personality and Social

Psychology Bulletin, 27(11): 1469-1479.

Haslam, S. A., Reicher, S. D. & Platow, M. J. 2011. The new psychology of leadership:

Identity, influence and power. Hove: Psychology Press.

Hausknecht, J. P., & Trevor, C. O. 2011. Collective turnover at the group, unit, and

organizational levels: evidence, issues, and implications. Journal of Management,

37(1): 352-388. doi: 10.1177/0149206310383910

Hertzog, C., Dixon, R. A., Hultsch, D. F. & MacDonald, S. W. S. 2003. Latent change

models of adult cognition: Are changes in processing speed and working memory

associated with changes in episodic memory? Psychology and Aging, 18(4): 755-769.

Hertzog, C., Lindenberger, U., Ghisletta, P., & von Oertzen, T. (2006). On the power of

multivariate latent growth curve models to detect correlated change. Psychological

Methods, 11: 244–252

Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. 1995. Evaluating model fit. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Structural

equation modeling: Concepts, issues, and applications (pp. 76-99). Thousand Oaks,

CA: Sage.

Ibarra, H. 1999. Provisional selves: Experimenting with image and identity in professional

adaptation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(4): 764-791.

Jokisaari, M., & Nurmi, J. E. 2009. Change in newcomers' supervisor support and





socialization outcomes after organizational entry. Academy of Management Journal,

52(3): 527-544.

King, L. A., King, D. W., McArdle, J. J., Saxe, G. N., Doron-LaMarca, S., & Orazem, R. J.

2006. Latent difference score approach to longitudinal trauma research. Journal of

Traumatic Stress, 6: 771–785.

Kishton, J. M. & Widaman, K. F. 1994. Unidimensional versus domain representative

parceling of questionnaire items: an empirical example, Educational and

Psychological Measurement, 54: 757–765.

Klimoski, R. J., & London, M. 1974. Role of rater in performance appraisal. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 59(4): 445-451.

Kristof, A. L. 1996. Person-organization fit: An integrative review of its conceptualizations,

measurement, and implications. Personnel Psychology, 49(1): 1-49. doi:

10.1111/j.1744-6570.1996.tb01790.x

Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. 1984. Stress, appraisal, and coping. New York: Springer.

Leach, C. W., van Zomeren, M., Zebel, S., Vliek, M. L. W., Pennekamp, S. F., Doosje, B.,

Spears, R. 2008. Group-level self-definition and self-investment: A hierarchical

(multicomponent) model of in-group identification. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 95(1): 144-165. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.95.1.144

Leana, C. R., & Feldman, D. C. 1988. Individual responses to job loss: perceptions, reactions,

and coping behaviors. Journal of Management, 14(3): 375-389. doi:

10.1177/014920638801400302

Leana, C. R., & Feldman, D. C. 1995. Finding new jobs after a plant closing: antecedents and

outcomes of the occurrence and quality of reemployment. Human Relations, 48(12):





1381-1401. doi: 10.1177/001872679504801201

Li, N., Harris, T. B, Boswell, W. R., & Xie, Z. 2011. The role of organizational insiders'

developmental feedback and proactive personality on newcomers' performance: An

interactionist perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(6): 1317-1327. doi:

10.1037/a0024029

Little, T. D., Cunningham, W. A., Shahar, G. & Widaman, K. F. 2002. To parcel or not to

parcel: exploring the question, weighing the merits, Structural Equation Modeling, 9:

151–173.

Long, B. C., & Schutz, R. W. 1995. Temporal stability and replicability of a workplace stress

and coping model for managerial women: a multiwave panel study. Journal of

Counseling Psychology, 42: 266–278.

Louis, M. R. 1980. Surprise and sense making - what newcomers experience in entering

unfamiliar organizational settings. Administrative Science Quarterly, 25(2): 226-251.

doi: 10.2307/2392453

MacKinnon, D. P. 2008. Introduction to statistical mediation analysis. Mahwah, NJ:

Erlbaum.

Marsh, H. W., Balla, J. R., & McDonald, R. P. 1988. Goodness-of-fit indexes in confirmatory

factor analysis: The effect of sample size. Psychological Bulletin, 103: 391-410.

Mascolo, M. F., & Fischer, K. W. 1998. The development of self through the coordination of

component systems. In M. D. Ferrari & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), Self-awareness: Its

nature and development: 332-384. New York: Guilford.

McArdle, J. J. 2001. A latent difference score approach to longitudinal dynamic structural

analyses. In R. Cudeck, S. du Toit, & D. Sorbom (Eds.), Structural equation





modeling: Present and future (pp. 342–380). Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software

International.

McArdle, J. J., & Nesselroade, J. R. 1994. Using multivariate data to structure developmental

change. In S. H. Cohen & H. W. Reese (Eds.), Life-span developmental psychology:

Methodological contributions (pp. 223–267). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

McGarty, C., Turner, J. C., Oakes, P. J., & Haslam, S. A. 1993. The creation of uncertainty in

the influence process: The roles of stimulus information and disagreement with

similar others. European Journal of Social Psychology, 23(1), 17-38.

McKee-Ryan, F., Song, Z., Wanberg, C. R., & Kinicki, A. J. 2005. Psychological and

physical well-being during unemployment: a meta-analytic study. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 90(1): 53-76.

Moreland, R. L., & Levine, J. M. 2001. Socialization in organizations and work groups. In M.

E. Turner (Ed.), Groups at work: Theory and research: 69–112. Mahwah, NJ:

Erlbaum.

Morling, B. & Evered, S. 2006. Secondary control reviewed and defined. Psychological

Bulletin, 132: 269–296.

Morrison, E. W. 1993a. Newcomer information-seeking: Exploring types, modes, sources,

and outcomes. Academy of Management Journal, 36(3): 557-589. doi:

10.2307/256592

Morrison, E. W. 1993b. Longitudinal study of the effects of information seeking on

newcomer socialization. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(2): 173-183. doi:

10.1037//0021-9010.78.2.173

Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. 2007. Mplus User's Guide (5th ed.). Los Angeles, CA:





Muthén & Muthén.

Peterson, S. J., & Luthans, F. 2006. The impact of financial and nonfinancial incentives on

business-unit outcomes over time. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91: 156-165.

Ployhart, R. E. & Vandenberg, R. J. 2010. Longitudinal research: The theory, design, and

analysis of change. Journal of Management, 36: 94-120.

doi:10.1177/0149206309352110

Pratt, M. G., & Rafaeli, A. 2001. Symbols as a language of organizational relationships

Research in Organizational Behavior, 23: 93-132.

Raffety, B. D., Smith, R. E., & Ptacek, J. 1997. Facilitating and debilitating trait anxiety,

situational anxiety, and coping with an anticipated stressor: a process analysis.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72: 892–906.

Raz, N., Lindenberger, U., Rodrigue, K. M., Kennedy, K.M., Head, D., Williamson, A.,

Dahle, C., Gerstorf, D. & Acker, J.D. 2005. Regional brain changes in aging healthy

adults: General trends, individual differences and modifiers. Cerebral Cortex, 15:

1676-1689. doi:10.1093/cercor/bhi044

Riketta, M., & Van Dick, R. 2005. Foci of attachment in organizations: A meta-analytic

comparison of the strength and correlates of workgroup versus organizational

identification and commitment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 67(3): 490-510. doi:

10.1016/j.jvb.2004.06.001

Roberts, B. W., Caspi, A., & Moffitt, T. E. 2001. The kids are alright: Growth and stability in

personality development from adolescence to adulthood. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 81(4): 670-683. doi: 10.1037//0022-3514.81.4.670

Roccas, S., & Brewer, M. B. 2002. Social identity complexity. Personality and Social





Psychology Review, 6(2): 88-106. doi: 10.1207/s15327957pspr0602_01

Rosenberger, P. H., Ickovics, J. R., Epel, E. S., D'Entremont, D., & Jokl, P. 2004. Physical

recovery in arthroscopic knee surgery: Unique contributions of coping behaviors to

clinical outcomes and stress reactivity. Psychology & Health, 19(3): 307-320. doi:

10.1080/0887044042000193460

Scrignaro, M., Barni, S., & Magrin, M. E. 2011. The combined contribution of social support

and coping strategies in predicting post-traumatic growth: a longitudinal study on

cancer patients. Psycho-Oncology, 20(8): 823-831. doi: 10.1002/pon.1782

Seibert, S. E., Wang, G., & Courtright, S. H. (2011). Antecedents and consequences of

psychological and team empowerment in organizations: A meta-analytic review.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(5), 981-1003. doi: 10.1037/a0022676

Selig, J. P. & Preacher, K. J. 2009. Mediation models for longitudinal data in developmental

research. Research in Human Development, 6(2-3): 144-164.

Settles, I. H. 2004. When multiple identities interfere: The role of identity centrality.

Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30(4): 487-500. doi:

10.1177/0146167203261885

Smith, E. R., Murphy, J., & Coats, S. 1999. Attachment to groups: Theory and measurement.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77: 94-110.

Smith, L. G. E., Amiot, C. E., Callan, V. J., Terry, D. J., & Smith, J. R. 2012. Getting new

staff to stay: The mediating role of organizational identification. British Journal of

Management, 23(1): 45-64. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8551.2010.00728.x

Smith, L. G. E., & Postmes, T. 2011. The power of talk: Developing discriminatory group

norms through discussion. British Journal of Social Psychology, 50(2): 193-215.





Tabachnik, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. 2007. Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). London:

Pearson.

Terry, D. J., Callan, V. J., & Sartori, G. 1996. Employee adjustment to an organizational

merger: Stress, coping and intergroup differences. Stress Medicine, 12: 105-122.

Terry, D. J., & Hynes, G. J. 1998. Adjustment to a low-control situation: reexamining the role

of coping responses. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74: 1078–1092

Tucker, M. F., Cline, V. B., & Schmitt, J. R. 1967. Prediction of creativity and other

performance measures from biographical information among pharmaceutical

scientists. Journal of Applied Psychology: An International Review, 51: 131-138.

Ullrich, J., Wieseke, J., Christ, O., Schulze, M., & van Dick, R. 2007. The identity-matching

principle: Corporate and organizational identification in a franchising system. British

Journal of Management, 18: S29-S44. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8551.2007.00524.x

van Knippenberg, D., & van Schie, E. C. M. 2000. Foci and correlates of organizational

identification. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 73: 137-147.

Wasko, M. M. & Faraj, S. 2005. Why should I share? Examining social capital and

knowledge contribution in electronic networks of practice. MIS Quarterly, 29(1): 35–

58.

Weick, K. E. 1995. What theory is not, theorizing is. Administrative Science Quarterly,

40(3): 385-390.

Wrosch, C., Scheier, M. F., Miller, G. E., Schulz, R., & Carver, C. S. 2003. Adaptive self-

regulation of unattainable goals: Goal disengagement, goal reengagement, and

subjective well-being. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29: 1494-1508.

Zammuto, R. F., London, M., & Rowland, K. M. 1982. Organization and rater differences in





perforformance appraisals. Personnel Psychology, 35: 643-658.





FOOTNOTES

1To establish the extent of statistical interdependence between individual-level

outcomes and differences between divisions, intraclass correlations (ρ) were computed. The

intraclass correlations ranged from: ρ=.0001 for T1 leader validation to ρ=.047 for T2

turnover intentions, indicating that only between 0.01% and 4.71% of the variability in

outcomes was associated with differences between divisions. Further investigation showed

that there was no meaningful difference between divisions on the outcome variables. This

suggests that it is unnecessary to partial out variance caused by division using multi-level

modeling (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007) and therefore the data was analyzed at the individual

level.

2 We were not able to establish differences between the newcomers who joined as

team members versus as leaders on the relevant measures, as the relevant data were not

collected.

3 To test whether associations observed in the model varied as a function of the

specific organizational tenure of participants, we explicitly modeled organizational tenure at

the time of measurement (T1) as both a predictor and a moderator of the effects of social

validation. When tenure was entered as an antecedent to the coping variables in the peer

validation model, analyses showed that tenure was not a significant predictor of engagement

coping (β = -.005, p = .354), or disengagement coping (β = .006, p = .421). In the leader

validation model, tenure was not a significant predictor of engagement coping (β = -.003, p =

.603), or disengagement coping (β = .006, p = .446). When tenure was included as an

antecedent in the model, the associations between leader validation and peer validation and

engagement / disengagement coping were still significant and in the same direction. Further,





when tenure was included in the peer validation model as an antecedent, the model fit did not

quite reach acceptable levels, χ2 (170)=290.791, p<.001; RMSEA=.071; CFI=.957; TLI=.936;

SRMR=.063 (fit indices for the leader validation model were: χ2 (170) = 234.405, p=.0008;

RMSEA=.052; CFI=.97; TLI=.963; SRMR=.054).When tenure was included as a moderator

of the associations of the models, no paths were significant. Therefore, we report our final

model without including tenure given that this final model was more parsimonious and best

suits the data.


This is a post-print version of the following article: Smith, Laura G. E., Amiot, Catherine E., Smith, Joanne R., Callan, Victor J. and Terry, Deborah J. (2013) The social

validation and coping model of organizational identity development: a longitudinal test. Journal of Management, 39 7: 1952-1978.

Table 1

Descriptive Statistics and Zero-order Correlations between Variables

M SD 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

1. T1 peer social validation 5.49 1.08 (0.96)

2. T2 peer social validation 5.59 1.09 0.29** (.95)

3. T1 leader social validation 5.29 1.34 0.69** 0.22* (0.97)

4. T2 leader social validation 5.38 1.37 0.23** 0.50** 0.34** (.98)

5. T1 Engagement coping 4.70 0.65 0.43** 0.38** 0.36** 0.18* (.93)

6. T2 Engagement coping 4.75 0.62 0.30** 0.54** 0.24** 0.39** 0.53** (0.91)

7. T1 Disengagement coping 2.07 0.93 -0.17* 0.02 -0.20* -0.18 -0.21* -0.13 (.90)

8. T2 Disengagement coping 1.81 0.92 -0. 21* -0.26** -0.31** -0.24** -0.34** -0.28** 0.35**

9. T1 organizational identification 5.38 1.07 0.39** 0.37** 0.47** 0.22* 0.36** 0.30** 0.03

10. T2 organizational identification 5.21 1.20 0.26** 0.44** 0.25** 0.38* 0.26** 0.39** 0.02

11. T1 identity conflict 2.01 1.05 -0.33** -0.21* -0.39** -0.24** -0.27** -0.22** 0.30**

12. T2 identity conflict 2.33 1.16 -0.22* -0.26** -0.19* -0.25** -0.14 -0.25** 0.20*




13. T1 turnover intentions 2.49 1.72 -0.22* -0.14 -0.34** -0.22* -0.07 -0.12 0.02

14. T2 Turnover intentions 2.89 1.91 -0.14 -0.23** -0.22* -0.43** -0.06 -0.14 -0.07

M SD 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14.

1. T1 peer social validation 5.49 1.08

2. T2 peer social validation 5.59 1.09

3. T1 leader social validation 5.29 1.34

4. T2 leader social validation 5.38 1.37

5. T1 Engagement coping 4.70 0.65

6. T2 Engagement coping 4.75 0.62

7. T1 Disengagement coping 2.07 0.93

8. T2 Disengagement coping 1.81 0.92 (0.92)

9. T1 organizational identification 5.38 1.07 -0.23** (.97)

10. T2 organizational identification 5.21 1.20 -0.38** 0.55** (.98)




11. T1 identity conflict 2.01 1.05 0.18* -0.50** -0.25** (.90)

12. T2 identity conflict 2.33 1.16 .38** -0.22* -0.43** 0.20* (.87)

13. T1 turnover intentions 2.49 1.72 0.20* -0.50** -0.28** 0.43** 0.13 ___

14. T2 Turnover intentions 2.89 1.91 0.32** -0.19* -0.39** 0.11 0.33** 0.45** ___

*p < .05

**p < .01

T1 = Time 1; T2 = Time 2

M = mean; SD = standard deviation

Cronbach’s alphas are in parentheses




Table 2

Zero-order Correlations between Latent Change Factors

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

1. ∆Peer social validation ___

2. ∆Leader social validation 0.64** ___

3. ∆Engagement coping 0.21** 0.26** ___

4. ∆Disengagement coping -0.25** -0.15 -0.10* ___

5. ∆Organizational identification 0.36** 0.49** 0.16** -0.42** ___

6. ∆Identity conflict -0.24* -0.30* -0.11* 0.35** -0.46** ___

7. ∆Turnover intentions -0.34* -0.93** -0.09 0.45** -0.66** 0.64** ___

*p < .05

**p < .01





Table 3

Standardized Coefficients for Indirect Effects

Indirect Effect 95% confidence interval

Peer validation model

∆PVal->∆ECoping->∆OI 0.000, 0.174*

∆PVal->∆DCoping->∆OI 0.011, 0.198*

∆ECoping->∆OI->∆IdentConf -0.350, 0.005

∆DCoping->∆OI->∆IdentConf 0.026, 0.335*

∆ECoping->∆OI->∆Turnover Intentions -0.483, 0.005

∆DCoping->∆OI->∆Turnover Intentions 0.054, 0.496*

Leader validation model

∆LVal->∆ECoping->∆OI -0.033, 0.119

∆LVal->∆DCoping->∆OI -0.025, 0.085

LVal1->∆ECoping->∆OI -0.026, 0.099

LVal1->∆DCoping->∆OI 0.048, 0.208*

∆ECoping->∆OI->∆IdentConf -0.329, 0.044

∆DCoping->∆OI->∆IdentConf 0.050, 0.343*

∆ECoping->∆OI->∆Turnover Intentions -0.427, 0.053

∆DCoping->∆OI->∆Turnover Intentions 0.026, 0.411*

Number of samples = 2000

*p < .05

∆PVal = changes in peer validation; PVal1 = Time 1 peer validation; ∆LVal = changes in

leader validation; LVal1 = Time 1 leader validation; ∆ECoping = changes in engagement

coping; ∆DCoping = changes in disengagement coping; ∆OI = changes in organizational

identification; ∆Turnover Intentions = changes in turnover intentions; ∆IdentConf = changes

in identity conflict.




Figure 1

Hypothesized Theoretical Model

T1 = Time 1

T2 = Time 2

Change in leader validation T1- T2

-

-

+

-

+

-

Change in peer

social validation T1 - T2

Change in

engagement coping strategies T1 – T2

Change in disengagement

coping strategies T1 – T2

Change in organizational identification over time

T1-T2

Change in identity conflict over time

T1-T2

Change in turnover intentions T1-T2

Changes in perceptions of intragroup environment

Identity change Outcomes

+

Changes in coping

-

+




Figure 2

Factors Predicting Change in Organizational Identification over Time: Peer validation

Beta coefficients appear on each path. The standard error for each path is in parentheses. ***p<.001; **p<.01; *p<.05; †p<.08. Dashed paths are non-significant at p>.10. ∆PVal = changes in peer validation; ∆ECoping = changes in engagement coping; ∆DCoping = changes in

∆PVal

∆ECoping

∆DCoping

∆OI

∆IdentConf.

∆Turnover Intentions

.220 (.054)***

-.189 (.089)*

.226 (.128)†

.332 (.191)†

-.420 (.122)***

-.026 (.259)

-.325 (.147)* .246 (.142)†

-.526 (.201)**

.469 (.242)*

-.236 (.212)

.191 (.350)

-.125 (.124)




disengagement coping; ∆OI = changes in organizational identification; ∆Turnover Intentions= changes in turnover intentions; ∆IdentConf = changes in identity conflict.




Figure 3

Factors Predicting Change in Organizational Identification over Time: Leader Validation

Beta coefficients appear on each path. The standard error for each path is in parentheses. ***p<.001; **p<.01; *p<.05; †p<.09. Dashed paths are non-significant at p>.10. ∆LVal = changes in leader validation; ∆ECoping = changes in engagement coping; ∆DCoping = changes in disengagement coping; ∆OI = changes in organizational identification; ∆Turnover Intentions = changes in turnover intentions; ∆IdentConf =

∆LVal

∆ECoping

∆DCoping

∆OI

∆IdentConf

∆Turnover Intentions

.154 (.037)***

-.065 (.070)

.217(.113)†

.231 (.226)

-.444 (.120)***

-.037 (.285)

-.349 (.150)* .227 (.151)

-.397 (.216)†

.372 (.217)†

-.510 (.145)**

.508 (.380)

-.038 (.098)




changes in identity conflict.

running head: social validation and coping …301873/uq301873oa.pdf · callan, victor j. and terry,...

Documents