‘scripting” the organization: new hire learning during organizational encounter

This article was downloaded by: [University of California, Riverside Libraries]On: 08 October 2014, At: 21:07Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Communication Research ReportsPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rcrr20

‘Scripting” the organization: New hire learning duringorganizational encounterJC. Bruno Teboul aa Assistant Professor at DePaul University , Chicago, IL, 60614Published online: 06 Jun 2009.

To cite this article: JC. Bruno Teboul (1997) ‘Scripting” the organization: New hire learning during organizational encounter,Communication Research Reports, 14:1, 33-47, DOI: 10.1080/08824099709388643

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08824099709388643

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in thepublications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representationsor warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Anyopinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not theviews of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should beindependently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses,actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoevercaused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rcrr20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/08824099709388643

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08824099709388643

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

'Scripting" the Organization: New Hire LearningDuring Organizational Encounter

JC. Bruno TeboulDePaul University

This exploratory study extends organizational encounter research by documentingwhat new hires learn as they strive to cope with uncertainty during early tenure. ANewcomers Learning Typology was developed from two hundred new hires' descriptions ofwhat they had ascertained from coping with an uncertain event at work. Also sought herewere new hires' recollections of applied "learnings." Study participants reported usingwhat they had learned to cope with another uncertain situation, to advise a colleague andto recommend "policy" change in their organization. In sum, findings strengthen the linkbetween uncertainty, proactive coping and learning, an outcome variable all too oftenignored in organizational socialization research.

Organizational socialization scholars have, of late, devoted increasing attention toinvestigating the processes by which newcomers proactively cope with the exigencies of anew workplace culture (Morrison, 1993a). Recent "encounter" research has beenparticularly mindful of documenting the forms of uncertainty new hires experience(Teboul, 1994), the types of information they procure (Comer, 1991; Miller, 1989; Morrison,1991, 1993a, 1995), as well as describing new hire feedback (Morrison, 1991, 1993a),information acquisition (Comer, 1991; Morrison, 1995; Ostroff & Kozlowski, 1992), andinformation-seeking strategy (Miller, 1989; Miller & Jablin 1991; Teboul, 1994,1995) andtarget reliance patterns (Teboul, 1994). Often enough, outcome variables punctuate"proactive" encounter inquiry. Job satisfaction (Morrison, 1993a; Ostroff & Kozlowski,1992), commitment, stress (Ostroff & Kozlowski, 1992), intention to quit (Morrison, 1993a;

JC. Bruno Teboul (Ph.D., Ohio State University, 1992) is an Assistant Professor at DePaul Univer-sity, Chicago, IL 60614. The author wishes to express appreciation to Helena Correia and Rick Sollerfor assistance with this project. Thanks also go to Don Cegala, Tim Cole, Patrick diBattista and theReviewers at CRR for their comments to earlier drafts of this manuscript.

COMMUNICATION RESEARCH REPORTS, Volume 14, Number 1, pages 33-47

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a, R

iver

side

Lib

rari

es]

at 2

1:07

08

Oct

ober

201

4

4 - Communication Research Reports/Winter 1997

Ostroff & Kozlowski, 1992), performance (Morrison, 1993a), social integration,acculturation, task mastery (Morrison, 1993b; Ostroff & Kozlowski, 1992), role ambiguity/clarity (Miller, 1989; Miller & Jablin, 1991; Morrison, 1993b), and role conflict (Miller, 1989;Miller & Jablin, 1991) all afford us a broad view of where the newcomer stands in thesocialization process as a result of uncertainty coping initiatives. For instance, a newemployee's degree of job satisfaction and/or his/her intention to quit provide dues aboutthe quality of the organization-employee fit (e.g., Jones, 1986). Likewise, one has come toexpect role ambiguity to be high among "rookies" but not "old hands" (e.g., Miller, 1989).

Yet, while "proactive" encounter research affords us an impression of how the new hireprogresses throughout early tenure, it generally tells us little about what new hires actuallylearn from coping initiatives. An emphasis on learning as an "outcome" of organizationalencounter, and a move away from the singular interest in documenting the processes bywhich recruits arrive at the accumulation of knowledge that makes them "veterans," mightfurther sodalization scholars' understanding of newcomers' workplace adaptationdifficulties. Moreover, such research could provide managers with an idea of how to betterfacilitate the new hire's transition into the workplace. Consequently, the primary purposeof this exploratory study is to document what new hires learn as they strive to cope with theuncertain events they experience during early organizational tenure. Of secondary interestto this investigation is the further documentation of how new hires go about learningduring organizational encounter.

NEW HIRE LEARNING IN ORGANIZATIONSResearch in organizational social cognition is suggestive of how new hires in

organizations go about accumulating knowledge of their novel workplace environment.Weick (1979), for example, explains that the cycles of interaction that individuals engage inupon facing equivocality are assembled, stored and retained as rules to facilitate futureequivocality reduction. Others' descriptions of this process are quite similar. Walsh andUngson (1991), for instance, point out that "individuals typically create a cognitiveheuristic to reduce the uncertainty and equivocality in the information environment theyconfront" (p. 62). The rules Weick (1979) refers to, or the cognitive heuristics that Walsh andUngson (1991) allude to, are conceptually close to the programs (Parks, 1985), knowledgestructures (Hewes & Planalp, 1982), self-regulatory plans (Mischel, 1973), cognitive maps(Weick & Bougon, 1986), schemata (e.g., Cohen, 1981; Hastie, 1981), action theories(Argyris, 1991), or scripts (e.g., Gioia, 1986), described by others. Indeed, while subtledifferences exist between these constructs, it appears that all refer to the same basicphenomenon - that humans construct mental railings to help them traverse not-so-familiarexperiential paths. There also appears to be some consensus on how these learning"products" or "outcomes" are constructed. Argyris and Schon (1978) speak for manyresearchers when they sum up the learning process in the following way: "organizationallearning occurs when individuals, acting from their images and maps detect a mismatch ofoutcomes to expectation which confirms or disconfirms organizational theory-in-use. Inthe case of disconfirmation, individuals move from error detection to error correction.Error correction takes the form of inquiry." (p. 19). The words of Argyris, Putnam andSmith (1985) echo this view when they discuss the work of March and Simon (1958) andCyert and March (1963). They stress that those theorists "explain that when individuals [...]face situations for which routines have not been developed, they engage in search" (p. 68).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a, R

iver

side

Lib

rari

es]

at 2

1:07

08

Oct

ober

201

4

Learning during Organizational Encounter - Page 35

Cycles of search (interaction) become rules and hence, the Weickian (1979) dictum comesfull circle.

This view of learning within organizations appears to be tacitly shared by mostencounter researchers (e.g., see Miller, 1989; Teboul, 1994). The error detection that Argyrisand Schon (1978) speak of is conceptually similar to the uncertainty that newcomersexperience during organizational encounter. As Barge, Schlueter, and Hachtel (1994) pointout, "newcomers' 'scripts' are often inadequate when facing surprising events withinorganizations, and the discrepant experiences trigger a need for explanation" (p. 4), errorcorrection or information-seeking behavior. Consequently, newcomers construct new rulesor scripts from the information they obtain during uncertainty coping activities.Accumulated rules or scripts, in essence, represent what the newcomer has learned fromcoping with uncertain events. It follows that new hires are likely to use the rules theyconstruct in these situations to cope with future related (albeit possibly less) unfamiliarencounter events.1

One setting in which to find evidence for the "proactive learning" perspectivearticulated above might very well be the encounter "uncertain event." A connectionbetween newcomer proactive uncertainty coping and learning can be established, forinstance, if newcomers recall learning something from these activities. Valuableinformation about what new hires typically learn can be obtained from those who do. Onthe other hand, the value of script or rule construction in helping newcomers cope withfuture uncertainty might be found in new hires' recollections of rule or script use insubsequent uncertain situations. As such, these research questions seem pertinent:

RQ1: To what extent do newcomers learn from proactive uncertaintycoping? What do they learn?

RQ2: To what extent do newcomers apply what they learn from copingwith uncertainty to overcome difficulties in other "encounter"situations they must cope with?

METHODSubjects and Procedure

As part of another study (see Teboul, 1994), 200 organizational new hires (female = 114,male = 86) completed an Organizational Newcomers Questionnaire.2 Subjects were invitedto describe the event which had caused them most uncertainty during their first six monthsof employment. Next, they were asked to complete a revised version of Miller's (1989)information-seeking strategy scale. In this scale they expressed how they had gone aboutseeking information to cope with the uncertainty they had experienced. Of particularrelevance to this present investigation, respondents were then asked to indicate if they hadlearned anything from this experience. Those who responded negatively were directed toa section of the questionnaire containing individual, relational, organizational anddemographic measures. Those who indicated that they had learned something from thisexperience were asked to list what they had learned. Further, they were asked to prefaceeach item reflecting what they learned with "I learned that..."

Content AnalysisThe unit of analysis used to content code newcomers' reported learnings was the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a, R

iver

side

Lib

rari

es]

at 2

1:07

08

Oct

ober

201

4

Communication Research Reports/Winter 1997

learning statement. This was defined as any expression reflecting learning on the part of thenew hire.3

The number of learning statements contained in each newcomer's learning narrativewas ascertained first. Thematic similarities and differences identified across new hires'learning statements yielded the Newcomer Learning Typology described in Table 1.

TABLE 1Newcomer Learning Typology

Learning Type Definition

1. How to accomplish a task.

Exemplar:2. Norms or standards for new hires 1:Facing uncertainty, problems, mistakes.

Exemplar:

3. Norms or standards for new hires 2:Asking ouestions/for assistance.

Statements indicating that the new hire learned how toperform a task in a specific area of his/her job were codedaccording to this category. Learning units reflecting anewcomer's gained knowledge of on-the-job "geography,"work styles, formal procedures, job rationales (i.e., reasonsfor performing a task), of job parameters (i.e., descriptionsof what the job actually entailed or how much responsibilityaccompanied the job) fell under this grouping as well."I learned how to get around the plant."

Statements indicating that the newcomer learned that it wasall right, natural or expected for a new hire not to know theanswer to something, to experience problems, to take risks,and to make mistakes, were placed in this category. State-ments reflecting the new hire's realization that his/herbehavior was acceptable (by comparing him/herself tounfortunate others) also fell into this grouping. Apparent insuch learning units appears to be the newcomer's belief thats/he is/was not the only person going through a questionabletime, that others are/were in the same boat."I learned that I was not the only person who had gonethrough this questionable time."

All statements indicating that the newcomer learned that itwas all right, natural or expected for a new hire to askquestions, seek help, voice uncertainty, etc., when in doubtwere coded according to this category. In essence, state-ments which indicated that the newcomer learned the valueof asking questions/for help were placed in this grouping.Finally, learning statements reflecting personalized rulesabout asking questions (when to ask, when not to ask, whatquestions to ask or not to ask, etc.) also fell under thisheading.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a, R

iver

side

Lib

rari

es]

at 2

1:07

08

Oct

ober

201

4


Exemplar:

4. Other idiosyncratic workplace norm:

Exemplar:

5. Self-appraisal: How I think I'm doing

Exemplar:6. Other appraisal: How others thinkI'm doing/performing.

Exemplar:

7. Support sourcefs*) & satisfactionwith support.

"I learned that if you don't know something - don't hesitateto ask + to retain knowledge or information given to you sothat you can use it in the future."

Other statements reflecting perceived required workplacebehavior or standards for behavior were placed in thisgroup. Such statements were essentially reflective of un-written workplace rules and norms, or "the way things aredone around here." Thus, learning statements involvingrules about life in the organization were part of thisdefinition. Often, these statements took the form ofpersonalized idiosyncratic workplace rules which reflectedthe newcomer's learning of "what it takes to get by."Finally, personal generalizable workplace mottos also fellinto this category.

"I learned that the supervisor at the job site can make thedecision on if you can go home or not."Newcomers often reported learning about themselves, thatis, about their own personal abilities/accomplishments orlimitations in the workplace. Such statements reflected hownewcomers believed they were performing in the workplace.Often enough new hires indicated in these learning state-ments that they thought they were performing well on thejob, or better than before. Also relevant to this category, newhires reported that they learned they actually knew more orwere more able than they had previously thought. Inessence, self-appraisal learning statements were found to beprimarily associated with perceptions of personal growth (orlack thereof). Indeed, some statements indicated thenewcomer's realization that improvement in certain areaswas necessary (e.g., behaviors, etc.). Self-appraisalstatements should not be confused with the learning of job-related tasks or work procedures (see category #1). Thedistinguishing feature of statements falling into thisgrouping is the self-judgment inherent in the statement." - not to be so quick to judge someone guilty."

Statements indicating the newcomer learned what othersthought of his/her performance/abilities/presence/worth inthe organization fell under this classification."I learned that my fellow workers were happy to havesomeone of my experience."

Learning units which reflected the newcomer's learningabout who/what s/he could rely upon for advice, infor-mation, help, and support both at work and outside theorganization were placed in this category. Reported support

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a, R

iver

side

Lib

rari

es]

at 2

1:07

08

Oct

ober

201

4


Exemplar:

8. Nonsupport source(s') &dissatisfaction with support.

Exemplar:9. Nature of relationships at work.

Exemplar:

sources included supervisors/bosses, workers, subordi-nates, spouses, romantic partners, friends, and self (obser-vation, experience, practice, training), but were not alwaysspecified (e.g., people, others). These learning statementswere usually upbeat and indicated that the newcomer wastruly satisfied and grateful to have such support. Statementswhere the newcomer reported that some sources were morehelpful than others were also placed in this category if lesshelpful sources were not portrayed in an especially negativelight.

"I learned that you gain more information from yourcoworkers than your supervisors".

All statements which indicated that the newcomer learnedwho not to turn to for advice, information, help, and supportboth at work and outside the workplace were placed in thiscategory. Nonsupport sources included supervisors/bosses,coworkers, subordinates, spouses, romantic partners, andfriends. On occasion, they too were not specified (e.g.,people, others). These learning statements often look likecomplaints and reflected the newcomer's dissatisfactionwith or mistrust of received support/information."I learned that I went to the wrong people for advice."Learning statements about the general workplace atmo-sphere (e.g., how people interact, get along with each other,like each other) were coded according to this category.Statements indicative of the new hire's understanding ofhow to get along with others at work, as well as thosereflective of the newcomer's appraisals of others' abilities,knowledge and worth (whether good or bad) were alsoincluded in this grouping.

"People carefully guard their 'domains.' Proceed withcaution and be careful not to 'step on toes.'"

Reliability. Two types of reliability were procured. First, intercoder reliability wascalculated for the number of learning statements in each newcomer's learning narrative.Two independent coders judged approximately twenty per cent of new hires' learningnarratives in terms of the learning statements they contained. These judgments were basedupon the learning statement unitizing rules devised by the author (see note 3). Thepercentage of agreement between three judges (two coders and the author) for the numberof learning statements contained within learning narratives was high (.97).

Subsequently, a reliability check was conducted on the learning type content categoryscheme. Here, two independent coders coded approximately twenty per cent of new hires'learning statements according to the learning typology developed by the author. Intercoder

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a, R

iver

side

Lib

rari

es]

at 2

1:07

08

Oct

ober

201

4


reliability between three judges (two coders and the author), based on Scott's (1955) pi, wasadequate (.83).

Learning ApplicationThose newcomers who listed what they had learned from the uncertainty coping

experience were then asked if they had used what they had learned to cope with anothersituation, advise a colleague, and recommend a policy change within the organization.4 Onthese three items, new hires answered either "yes" or "no."

RESULTSThe first research question sought to document if and what newcomers learn from

seeking information to cope with uncertainty during organizational encounter. Of the 200study participants, 84% (n = 168) reported having acquired useful information from thiscoping process. A total of 344 learning statements were extracted from the learning narrativesof the remaining new hires. The mean number of statements reported by subjects was 1.7, witha range of 1 to 9. Roughly 60% of the sample reported one or two learnings.5

Approximately 15% (n = 30) of the new hires participating in this study indicated thatthey had learned how to accomplish a task from seeking information. In turn, roughly 11%(n = 23) of respondents indicated that they had learned that it was acceptable for new hiresto experience uncertainty, make mistakes or face problems at work. On the other hand,approximately 25% of participants (n = 50) reported that they had learned that it wasacceptable for new hires to ask questions to seek help. Twenty-six percent (n = 52) of thenew hires participating in this study reported that they had learned workplaceidiosyncratic rules or standards. Almost a quarter (n = 48) of the newcomers indicated thatthey had learned about themselves, their abilities or how they were faring in theorganization. Five percent (n = 10) of the respondents indicated that they had learned abouthow others thought they were doing, or what others in the organization thought of them.Approximately 20% (n = 41) of the new hires reported that they had learned whom theycould go to for support in the organization. Only 5% (n = 10) of the respondents indicatedthey had learned whom they could not count on for help or assistance. Finally, 11% (n = 23)of the neophytes reported learning about relationships in their workplace.

Given that the learning types cannot be considered independent of one another (i.e.,new hires experienced multiple and varied learning types), ordinary chi-square statisticscould not be used to compute differences in learning type frequencies. A Friedman two-way analysis of variance, ranking the nine types of learning, was therefore computed.6 Thistest revealed that certain learning types are more likely to be experienced than others (chi-square = 29.5; d.f. = 8; p < .0003). Thirty-six additional Friedman tests pairing learning typeswere executed to determine where specific differences lay. A modified Bonferroni test(Keppel, 1982) was used to establish a probability level (p < .001) designed to offset theadded random error brought on by these post-hoc analyses. No significant differencesbetween learning types were identified in the Friedman follow-up tests.

The second research question in this investigation sought to determine the extent towhich new hires apply what they learn from uncertainty and information-seeking to a)cope with another uncertain situation; b) advise other colleagues; and c) recommend apolicy change within the organization.

Eighty-five percent (n = 170) of study participants responded to the first of these

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a, R

iver

side

Lib

rari

es]

at 2

1:07

08

Oct

ober

201

4


learning application questions. Of the new hires who responded to this item, anoverwhelming majority (82%) indicated that they had used what they had learned fromcoping with uncertainty to cope with another uncertain situation. The same number ofnewcomers (n = 170) responded to the second learning application item. Of these, roughly71% (n=120) confirmed that they had indeed used what they had learned from coping withuncertainty to advise a colleague. One hundred and sixty-nine new hires responded to thethird application item. Of these, only 44% (N = 75) reported that they had used what theyhad learned from coping with uncertainty to recommend a policy change in theirorganization. Fifteen percent of the newcomers participating in this study (n = 30) did notrespond to these learning application questions.

A Friedman two-way analysis of variance was computed in an attempt to rank therelative likelihood of learning application types. This Friedman test was significant (chi-square = 27.14; d.f. = 2; p < .00001). Three additional Friedman two-way analyses ofvariance were computed to identify specific differences in learning application typeoccurrences. The acceptable alpha level for the post-hoc paired tests was set at .02. Theseanalyses revealed that during organizational encounter new hires are more likely to usewhat they learn from seeking information to cope with other uncertain situations (chi-square = 23.8; d.f. = 1; p < .00001) or to advise a colleague (chi-square = 11; d.f. = 1; p < .001,than they are to use it to recommend a policy change within the organization.

DISCUSSIONThe primary purpose of this research was to describe what new hires learn as they

strive to cope with uncertainty during organizational encounter. The vast majority ofnewcomers participating in this study were able to recall having acquired usefulinformation from this process. A reliable Learning Typology, derived inductively fromnew hire narratives, is now available to organizational scholars pursuing this line ofresearch. While some of the reported learnings (e.g., about how to accomplish tasks,regarding idiosyncratic workplace norms, involving self-performance or aboutrelationships at work) might be expected given previous organizational encounter inquiryon new hire uncertainty and information-seeking (e.g., see Miller, 1989; Miller & Jablin1991; Morrison, 1991, 1993a; Teboul, 1994), this research offers more specific insightregarding what new hires experience during early tenure. For instance, over 10% of thestudy respondents reported learning that uncertainty and making mistakes are acceptable,or to be expected. In addition, one out of every four newcomers reported learning thatasking questions and seeking help are acceptable practices. Should future researchduplicate these proportions, one will be forced to wonder why so many new hires learnthese norms through an uncertainty reduction process, rather than through theorganization's formal socialization initiatives. Such a conclusion could lead one to questionwhether managers are truly mindful of the difficulties associated with adjusting to a newworkplace environment. In turn, the appraisal-related learning that new hires reportedcannot be narrowly equated with performance (e.g., Miller, 1989; Miller & Jablin, 1991).Specifically, new hires learn not only about how others view their performance, but alsoabout their own personal abilities, growth, challenges and limitations. By the same token,it seems that new hires come to understand whom they can trust, and whom they shouldstay away from at work, as well as how employees generally relate to each other (i.e., whogets along with whom).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a, R

iver

side

Lib

rari

es]

at 2

1:07

08

Oct

ober

201

4


The nine new hire learning categories identified in this study, when further reduced orreclassified, also closely correspond to the "classic" message function categories (e.g., seeGoldhaber, 1986). Given that it is through message exchange processes that scriptsultimately develop, this content correspondence is not surprising. Ultimately, it appearsplausible that task scripts develop from the task messages obtained during new hires'uncertainty reduction initiatives, that normative learnings (i.e., LT 2-4) stem frommaintenance messages, and that the remaining learning scripts (i.e., LT 5-9) originate inhuman messages.

Future research might add heuristic value to the Learning Typology by examiningwhat determines learning content for the neophyte. We currently know little about whetherindividual or organizational-level variables influence what new hires learn during earlyorganizational tenure. Also, given the homogeneous sample of newcomers participating inthis study (i.e., white = 172), we cannot say for sure that the Learning Typology is validacross cultural/ethnic groups. Specifically, we cannot tell at this point whether differentcultural/ethnic groups consistently and systematically learn different types of things inorganizations. Differences in learning opportunities might reveal inequities in theinformation made available to different groups, and consequently subtle forms ofdiscrimination in organizations. Future research of this kind should also be mindful ofpotential new hire learning content differences across organization-types or industries.

A secondary purpose of this study was to further document how new hiresprogressively arrive at the accumulation of organizational knowledge that makes them"insiders." Results from this study seem to confirm that new hires do "learn" from seekinginformation to reduce uncertainty. Further, it appears that newcomers use what they learn.Unfortunately, what we know of the effects of learning on new hire behavior is limited towhat can be gleaned from three learning application questions asked of new hires in thisinvestigation. In order to unveil other learning application forms, perhaps future researchshould systematically investigate new hires' narrative accounts of the situations wherethey used/applied what they learned. Results reported herein suggest that new hires applywhat they learn to cope with other uncertain experiences, to advise others in theorganization, and to recommend policy/rule changes in the workplace. Between 60-70% ofstudy participants recalled engaging in the first two of these learning application forms.Significantly fewer new hires (i.e., approximately 38%) remembered recommending apolicy change in the workplace. The latter of these findings should be interpreted withcaution as there is little evidence in the literature to suggest that newcomers are in aposition to make "policy" determinations during early tenure. It is quite possible that studyparticipants interpreted this item rather loosely, equating the recommendation of "policy"changes with the act of offering suggestions for how practices and processes that directlyimpinge upon their work might be improved. Notwithstanding, this finding does suggestthat a considerable number of new hires are getting socialized into the workplace fasterthan the six months that seems to be the benchmark in much encounter work (e.g., Feldman,1977). Recommending changes in one's work environment is typically equated with"individualization" initiatives (e.g., Jablin, 1987; Porter, Lawler, & Hackman, 1975).Ultimately, this line of research might finally shed some light on the seemingly elusiveassimilation processes of metamorphosis and individualization. It stands to reason that itis through the accumulation of learnings or scripts that new hires undergo metamorphosis(i.e., the transformation from "rookie" to "veteran"; see also Jablin, 1987), and that

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a, R

iver

side

Lib

rari

es]

at 2

1:07

08

Oct

ober

201

4


individualization (i.e., the employee's attempt to influence his/her surroundings) mightoccur, not during the organization's socialization initiatives, as is commonly assumed (seeJablin, 1982), but upon the accumulation of scripts that provide the employee with a strongunderstanding of his or her task and social environment, as well as a sense of how he or shemight "fit" in.

Research on what and how newcomers learn in organizations is of critical importanceto organizations and individuals alike. To date, little attention has been paid to new hirelearning arising from uncertainty reduction initiatives. Rather, socialization researchershave devoted most of their attention to documenting the role that formalized training playsin helping new hires learn "what's what" and "who's who" at work. Future research shouldstrive to determine the relative value of both institutionalized (e.g., general training anddevelopment) and experiential learning for the new hire (e.g., Feldman, 1976,1977,1981;Louis et. al., 1983). If uncertainty is as inevitable for the organizational newcomer as thisline of research suggests, and if new hires are found to learn best from coping with themistakes they make (e.g., Merrick, 1996) and/or the uncertainties they face, thenorganizations might wish to invest more of their time and money developingindividualized experiential training programs.7 These programs could, for instance, bebased upon structured uncertainty/learning activities designed to facilitate self-learningfor the new hire in a non-threatening environment (e.g., see Gordon, Morgan & Ponticell,1995). As Kennedy and Berger (1994) point out, most orientation programs currently fail to"foster psychologically safe learning environments in which one can take risks trying outnew knowledge and skills without fear of being reproached, and which contribute to thedevelopment of interpersonal relationships (p. 62)." In addition, newcomer training mightactually comprise training the very targets of new hires' information-seeking initiatives(i.e., coworkers and supervisors) to better facilitate the uncertainty reduction process(Ostroff & Kozlowski, 1992). Mentoring is one form that such initiatives currently take. Thefollowing words of a "mentee," reported by Bova (1987), sum up the potential benefits ofmentoring to experiential learning: "I was so scared I would make a mistake and thenwhat?...but my mentor assured me that even if I did manage to make a mistake, so what!How else did I expect to learn? I have to venture out, take risks, develop new strategies tohandle people. He created for me an atmosphere that was conducive and encouraging totrying new ideas and in the end I learned many new skills" (p. 127).

NOTES1. Research on memorable messages (see Barge, Schlueter, & Hachtel, 1994;

Stohl, 1986) lends some support to the model of new hire learning articulatedabove. Like rules or scripts, memorable messages are outcomes of"encounter." However, the learning process described by memorablemessage theorists is one which characterizes the new hire as a passiverecipient of messages that "socialize." From this perspective, a newcomer'sability to accumulate scripts for future use during organizational encounterand beyond, hinges upon the "good fortune" of receiving messages from animportant other, as well as his or her ability to retain and deploy thosememorable scripts. Another, perhaps more rewarding approach to theempirical documentation of new hire learning outcomes (and processes)might be one which regards new hires as proactive agents in their own

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a, R

iver

side

Lib

rari

es]

at 2

1:07

08

Oct

ober

201

4


learning. This investigation sees newcomer learning as less serendipitousand indiscriminate than what seems to be currently assumed in memorablemessage research.

2. Students in an undergraduate communication course of large enrollment at alarge Midwestern university were invited to participate in the data collectionprocedures for this project. In exchange for their assistance they wereawarded extra-credit points. The extent of their participation involvedfinding an organizational new hire (i.e., an individual employed for less thansix months in a full-time job and on a permanent basis) willing to completethe Organizational Newcomers Questionnaire. Of the 275 questionnairesdistributed to students, 206 were returned (in sealed envelopes), yielding aresponse rate of 74.9%. A stratified random sample (by area code) of the totalpool of respondents who provided their telephone numbers (n = 204) wascontacted by telephone and confirmed that they had indeed completed theOrganizational Newcomers Questionnaire. The 32 newcomers alsocorroborated that they were permanent, full-time new employees.

Five of the 206 returned questionnaires were completed by individuals whocould not, by definition, be considered organizational newcomers. As such,these were excluded from the investigation. One respondent who completedonly demographic-type data was also excluded from the study. The finalsample size in this investigation was 200.

3. Many subjects' learning narratives contained multiple learning statements.On the other hand, these statements were found to take on a variety ofdifferent forms. This often made for unclear learning statement boundaries.It became important, therefore, at the outset of this content analytic task todevelop learning statement unitization rules to facilitate the coding ofnewcomers' complex learning narratives. The following rules weredeveloped toward this end:i) All sentences prefaced with "I learned..." and which did not contain thewords "and/but that" were considered one learning statement. Thosesentences which contained "and that" in midsentence typically containedtwo learning statements. For example, the sentence "I learned that this taskwas really very easy and that my boss was pleased with my performance"contains two learning statements. It should be noted that at timesrespondents substituted the preface "I learned that..." with the following:"(...)," "—," ";," and ",."ii) Sometimes, "and" or "but" were not accompanied by the word "that," yetstill introduced a second learning statement. When this occurred, theauthor/coders decided whether the statement(s) following "and" or "but"complemented the first part of the sentence (i.e., whether it/they constitutedthe same type of learning for the narrator) or if it/they constituted a differentlearning experience for the newcomer. For instance, while the sentence "Ilearned that I love my work but what a grind this is" contains two learningstatements, the sentence "(...) hardware and software basics" contains onlyone learning unit. Familiarity with the learning typology described belowgreatly facilitated this decision-making process.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a, R

iver

side

Lib

rari

es]

at 2

1:07

08

Oct

ober

201

4


iii) Some respondents listed only the first item they learned using the "Ilearned that..." preface. Sentences which followed sometimes did andsometimes did not include additional learning statements. For example, thefollowing sentences constitute one learning statement: "I learned that myboss was not pleased with my work. She sent me a memo to that effect." Onthe other hand, the following sentences contain two statements of learning: "Ilearned how to turn the computer on. George is always in a bad mood." Inessence the unitization process hinged on the similarity of the types oflearning reported in adjacent sentences. The learning typology describedbelow aided the author considerably in determining similarity. Finally, rulesregarding "and/but that," "and" and 'but" (see rules i) and ii)) were alsoapplied to sentences containing no "I learned that ..." preface,iv) Some learning narratives did not even have one sentence prefaced by "Ilearned that..." Here the author assumed that the first sentence representedthe first learning experience/statement for the narrator. Subsequentsentences were unitized according to rule iii).

4. These three learning applications (i.e., self, other, and organization) werederived from organizational assimilation and organizational social cognitionresearch. The first is premised upon the model of learning described earlier inthis article. The second is based on the assumption that through the learningprocess described herein, new hires become repositories of information thatother role set members may need to tap. Ultimately, it is through this processthat new hires graduate from neophyte to socialization agent and "veteran."In turn, research suggests that individualizing newcomers feel increasinglycomfortable about influencing "the organization so that it can better satisfyhis [sic] ideas about how it can best be operated" (Porter, Lawler, &Hackman, 1975, p. 170).

5. Thirty-six and a half percent (n = 73) of the new hires reported learning one"item," while twenty-four percent (n = 48) reported two learning items.Three learning statements were identified in the learning narratives of 14% (n= 28) of respondents. In turn, twelve (6%) new hires reported four"learnings." Five individuals (2.5%) described five learning items. Finally,the learning narratives of three individuals contained 6, 7, and 9 learningstatements respectively.

6. A number of new hires reported several "learnings" of the same type. Giventhat the purpose of the Friedman test was to rank learning type occurrencesrather than estimate the frequency of "learnings" per category, data wererecoded to allow only one statement per learning type to be considered foreach new hire.

7. According to Stone (1991) U.S. businesses spend between $30 billion and $44billion annually on "institutionalized" forms of learning (i.e., training anddevelopment).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a, R

iver

side

Lib

rari

es]

at 2

1:07

08

Oct

ober

201

4


REFERENCESArgyris, C. (1991). Teaching smart people how to learn. Harvard Business

Review, 69(3), 99-109.Argyris, C., Putnam, R., & Smith, D. (1985). Action science: Concepts, methods,

and skills research and intervention. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.Argyris, C. & Schon, D. (1978). Organizational learning: A theory of action

perspective. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Barge, J.K., Schlueter, D., & Hachtel, A. (1994, November). Memorable

messages and newcomer socialization. Paper presented at the annual meeting ofthe Speech Communication Association, New Orleans.

Bova, B. (1987). Mentoring as a learning experience. In V. Marsick (Ed.),Learning in the workplace (pp. 119-133). New York: Croom Helm.

Cohen, C. (1981). Person categories and social perception: Testing someboundaries of the processing effects of prior knowledge. Journal of Personality andSocial Psychology, 40, 441-452.

Comer, D. (1991). Organizational newcomers' acquisition of information frompeers. Management Communication Quarterly, 5(1), 64-89.

Cude, R. (1991, May). The development of communication competence duringorganizational assimilation. Paper presented at the International CommunicationAssociation Convention, Organizational Communication Division, Chicago.

Cyert, R., & March, J. (1963). A behavioral theory of the firm. Englewood-Cliffs,NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Feldman, D. (1976). A contingency theory of socialization. AdministrativeScience Quarterly, 21, 433-452.

Feldman, D. (1977). The role of initiation activities in socialization. HumanRelations, 30, 977-990.

Feldman, D. (1981). The multiple socialization of organizational members.Academy of Management Review, 6, 309-318.

Fisher, C. (1986). Organizational socialization: An integrative review. Researchin Personnel and Human Resources Management, 4, 101-145.

Gioia, D. (1986). Symbols, scripts, and sensemaking: Creating meaning in theorganizational experience. In H. Sims, D. Gioia, & Associates (Eds.), The thinkingorganization: Dynamics of organizational social cognition (pp. 49-74). San Francisco:Jossey-Bass.

Goldhaber, G. (1986). Organizational Communication. Dubuque, IA: Wm. C.Brown.

Gordon, E., Morgan, R., & Ponticell, J. (1995). The individualized trainingalternative (individualized instructional program). Training and Development, 49,52-60.

Hastie, R. (1981). Schematic principles in human memory. In E.T. Higgins, C. P.Herman, & M. P. Zanna (Eds.), Social cognition: The Ontario Symposium (Vol. 1, pp.39-88). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Hewes, D., & Planalp, S. (1982). There is nothing as useful as a good theory...Theinfluence of social knowledge on interpersonal communication. In M. Roloff, & C.Berger (Eds.), Social cognition and communication (pp. 107-150). Beverly Hills, CA:Sage.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a, R

iver

side

Lib

rari

es]

at 2

1:07

08

Oct

ober

201

4


Jablin, F. (1982). Organizational communication: An assimilation approach. InM. Roloff, & C. Berger (Eds.), Social cognition and communication (pp. 255-286).Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Jablin, F. (1987). Organizational entry, assimilation and exit. In F.M. Jablin, L.L.Putnam, K. Roberts, & L. Porter (Eds.), Handbook of Organizational Communication(pp. 679-740). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Jones, G. (1986). Socialization tactics, self-efficacy, and newcomers' adjust-ments to organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 29(2), 262-279.

Kennedy, D., & Berger, F. (1994, December). Newcomer socialization: Orientedto facts or feelings? The Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 58-71.

Keppel, G. (1982). Design and analysis: A researcher's handbook. (2nd. ed.).Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Louis, M. (1980). Surprise and sense making: What newcomers experience inentering unfamiliar organizational settings. Administrative Science Quarterly, 25,271-298.

Louis, M., Posner, B., & Powell, G. (1983). The availability and helpfulness ofsocialization practices. Personnel Psychology, 36, 857-866.

March, J., & Simon, H. (1958). Organizations. New York: Wiley.Merrick, N. (1996). Employees do learn by making mistakes. People

Management, 2, 12.Miller, V. (1989, May). A quasi-experimental study of newcomers'

information-seeking behaviors during organizational entry. Paper presented atthe International Communication Association Convention, San Francisco

Miller, V., & Jablin, F. (1991). Information-seeking during organizational entry:Influences, tactics, and a model of the process. Academy of Management Review,16(1), 92-120.

Mischel, W. (1973). Toward a cognitive social learning reconceptualization ofpersonality. Psychological Review, 80, 252-283.

Morrison, E. (1991). An investigation of mode and source usage in thenewcomer information seeking process. In J. Wall, & L. Jauch (Eds.), Best papersproceedings of the 51st

Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management (pp. 225-229). Miami Beach,Florida.

Morrison, E. (1993a). Newcomer information-seeking: Exploring types,modes, sources, and outcomes. Academy of Management Journal, 36(3), 557-589.

Morrison, E. (1993b). Longitudinal study of the effects of information-seekingon newcomer socialization. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 173-183.

Morrison, E. (1995). Information usefulness and acquisition duringorganizational encounter. Management Communication Quarterly, 9(2), 131-155.

Ostroff, C., & Kozlowski, S. (1992). Organizational socialization as a learningprocess: The role of information acquisition. Personnel Psychology, 45, 849-874.

Parks, M. (1985). Interpersonal communication and the quest for personalcompetence. In M. Knapp & G. Miller (Eds.), Handbook of interpersonal com-munication (pp. 171-201). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a, R

iver

side

Lib

rari

es]

at 2

1:07

08

Oct

ober

201

4


Porter, L., Lawler, E., & Hackman, J. (1975). Behavior in organizations. NewYork: McGraw Hill.

Schein, E. (1968). Organizational socialization and the profession ofmanagement. Industrial Management Review, 9, 1-16.

Scott, W. (1955). Reliability of content analysis: The case of nominal scalecoding. Public Opinion Quarterly, 19, 321-325.

Stohl, C. (1986). The role of memorable messages in the process oforganizational socialization. Communication Quarterly, 34(3), 231-249.

Stone, N. (1991, March-April). Does business have any business in education?Harvard Business Review, 46-62.

Teboul, JC. B. (1994). Facing and coping with uncertainty duringorganizational encounter. Management Communication Quarterly, 8(2), 190-224.

Teboul, JC. B. (1995). Determinants of new hire information-seeking duringorganizational encounter. Western Journal of Communication, 59, 305-325.

Van Maanen, J. (1976). Breaking in: Socialization to work. In R. Dubin (Ed.),Handbook of work, organization and society (pp. 67-130). Chicago: Rand McNally.

Walsh, J., & Ungson, G. (1991). Organizational memory. Academy of ManagementReview, 16(1), 57-91.

Wanous, J. (1980). Organizational entry: Recruitment, selection, and socialization ofnewcomers. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Weick, K.E. (1979). The social psychology of organizing (2nd ed.). Reading, MA:Addison-Wesley.

Weick, K., & Bougon, M. (1986). Organizations as cognitive maps: Chartingways to success and failure. In H. Sims, D. Gioia, & Associates (Eds.), The thinkingorganization: Dynamics of organizational social cognition (pp. 102-135). San Francisco:Jossey-Bass.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a, R

iver

side

Lib

rari

es]

at 2

1:07

08

Oct

ober

201

4

‘scripting” the organization: new hire learning during organizational encounter

Documents