THE EFFECT OF NEWCOMER BEHAVIOR ON ACCEPTANCE BY OLDTIMERS, AS MODERATED BY POWER RELATIONS

OH BEHAVE!

THE EFFECT OF NEWCOMER BEHAVIOR ON ACCEPTANCE BY OLDTIMERS, AS MODERATED BY POWER RELATIONS

Master thesis, MSc, Human Resource Management

University of Groningen, Faculty of Management and Organization

July 2, 2012

B.W. Baring S1650998 Star Numanstraat 113a

9714 JN Groningen Tel: +31 (0)6 53 95 13 45 e-mail: b.w.baring@student.rug.nl

Supervisor: Dr. F.A. Rink Co-assessor: Dr. F. Walter

Acknowledgement:

First and foremost I would like to thank dr. Floor Rink for her feedback, guidance and patience during the whole process. It could not have been easy. Secondly, I would like to express my gratitude and appreciation towards my parents, girlfriend, family and friends.

Without them I would not have made it this far.

ABSTRACT

In the past people tended to stick to a certain work place for the majority of their lives. In today’s world new employees and new working teams are introduced at a much higher rate. As such it is important to look at ways to get accepted as a newcomer within these new work places. In this study the effect of displaying two types of behavioral styles; Task oriented and Relation oriented, on the acceptance of newcomers within a team are examined.

Power of the newcomer is used as a moderator for this relation. Results, as acquired by an online questionnaire, indicated a clear positive effect of displaying relation oriented behavior compared to task oriented behavior. Newcomers were more accepted when displaying relation oriented behavior and became less accepted when displaying task oriented behavior.

Unfortunately no clear moderating effect of power of the newcomer was found on this relation. Supplementary analysis revealed a moderating effect of existing members (i.e.

oldtimers) power on the main effect. When an oldtimer has no power, displaying relation oriented behavior leads to even higher scores on acceptance items for the newcomer. As such this moderator enhances the original effect of task / relation oriented behavior on newcomer acceptance. In combination with the main effects this indicates some important practical implications for both newcomers and their organizations. By displaying relation oriented behavior newcomers can create benefits for both themselves, the oldtimers and the organization.

Keywords: Task / relation oriented behavior, Newcomer, Acceptance in team, Power

Relations

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT 2

INTRODUCTION 4

THEORETICAL 6 Newcomer behavior 7

Newcomer power 9 Moderating role of power in the effectiveness of newcomer behavior 10 METHODS 12

Design and Participants 12

Procedure 12

Measures 14

RESULTS 15

Dependent measures 15

Identification with the newcomer 16 Task based versus relation based acceptance 16 Newcomer group concern 16

Oldtimer effort 17 Supplementary analysis 17 Relation based acceptance 17

Newcomer group concern 19 Anticipated team performance 19 DISCUSSION 19

Findings 19 Theoretical implications 20

Limitations and Future Research directions 22

Conclusions and Practical Implications 25

REFERENCES 26

APPENDIX A: TABLES ANALYSIS 31

APPENDIX B: ITEMS QUESTIONNNAIRE 34

INTRODUCTION

"A generation ago, a lot of these new grads were committed to these corporations,"

said Ken Ramberg, co-founder of Los Angeles-based JobTrak. "However, when they saw their parents getting laid off, they realized that their corporations weren't committed to their parents. They're free agents based on the salary, based on the culture of the company, and they're in a fortunate position. It's a unique time in history.’’

As Ken Ramberg points out, in today’s globalized world employees change jobs and functions all the time. A consequence of such rotations is that work teams often are confronted with newcomers. These newcomers differ in many observable and underlying attributes and may or may not hold authority depending on the position that they will execute.

Earlier research argued that it is highly important to examine the conditions under which teams are willing to accommodate to newcomers who are different from the existing members (i.e. oldtimers) (Rink & Ellemers, 2007; Levine, Choi & Moreland, 2003). Particularly important are those newcomers that bring in diverging and potentially innovative ideas that can enhance team performance in the end. Mixing and matching these newcomers with oldtimers to form new configurations are important decisions in designing teams (Chen, 2005).

Research by Hornsey, Grice, Jetten, Paulsen and Callan (2007) showed that a

newcomer who criticized the group was agreed with less and aroused more negativity than an

old-timer who said the same thing. This makes oldtimers less open to the newcomers'

knowledge and suggestions. To counteract these effects, newcomers must become accepted

by their co-workers and/or team members. A process related and of influence to being

accepted by the other team members is organizational socialization. Socialization is ‘’the

process by which a person learns the values, norms and required behaviors which permit him

or her to participate as a member of the organization’’ (Van Maanen, 1978: 67). Successful

socialization can lead to substantial benefits for both the new employee and the organization itself. Outcomes of the process at the newcomer level include factors like job satisfaction (Jablin, 1982), perceptions of success and commitment to the organization (Allen & Meyer, 1990; Ashforth &Saks, 1996), longevity in the organization (Katz, 1985; Morrison, 1993), performance proficiency (Jablin, 1984; Morrison, 1993) and affect for one’s department or work unit (George, 1990). All these benefits make it clear that to get these newcomers to be optimally productive in their teams, they must be accepted by the other team members instead of just been seen as the outsider.

Getting accepted by your team members has a lot to do with how you, as a newcomer, behave. In this study I will look at one behavioral distinction that may be particularly important to newcomers; task oriented behavior versus relation oriented behavior, and examine whether these behaviors yield different levels of acceptance depending on the amount of power that a newcomer gets within the team.

Extensive research has been done on behavioral styles, in task oriented and relation oriented ground, newcomers in teams and power relations. But little about these three factors together. While researching the combination of these three factors, I aim to contribute to the literature in several important ways; First to practically confirm what the best style is for a newcomer to display in order to be accepted within the team and to see if the so called lay theory that newcomers should primarily display relationship oriented behavior is indeed true.

Furthermore, earlier research already point out that newcomer characteristics and newcomer

behavior seem worthy of future research (Choi & Thompson 2004; Levine & Choi, 2004) and

that it is important to look at the processes through which their characteristics and behaviors

cause newcomers to either be accepted or rejected (Sauer, 2011). Just like, Kipnis (1980) and

Dienesch & Liden (1986), I argue that by displaying a certain behavior newcomers can

acquire better positions within their work teams, for facilitating the process of gaining and using influence. With this research I aim to shine a light on these questions.

It is my goal to demonstrate that newcomers who display relation oriented behavior are more accepted than newcomers displaying Task oriented behavior. And that this distinction is more prominent for leaders then for subordinates. In the following sections, I will first review the existing literature on newcomer acceptance and newcomer behavior as influence. I will then discuss how the power position of a newcomer is likely to have an unique influence on team accommodation. I end by proposing that their power position influences the extent to which different newcomer behaviors will enhance this process.

THEORETICAL

As already discussed earlier, becoming accepted within the work team is of the utmost importance, not only for the organization itself and the stability within the team, but also for the newcomer. To newcomers in general, entering a work site is about gaining access and belonging to a community, both in a social and professional sense (Cope, Cuthbertson &

Stoddartl., 2000). So it is important for all parties to accelerate acceptation of the newcomer.

A key aspect of team accommodation to membership change is the extent to which the

oldtimers are willing to socially accept a newcomer. When newcomers join the existing

organizational work team they engage in formal and informal organizational socialization

activities with oldtimers and have ample opportunity to get socially accepted. Acceptance in a

group is then defined by Joardar & Kostova & Ravlin (2007) as:’’ the state whereby a group

recognizes a newcomer as a member, valuing the individual for both his/her task competency

and his/her participation in the relationship network of the group. Accepting the individual not

only for what he/she can bring to the group in terms of abilities, but also in terms of his/her

social status as an insider, is important for complete integration of the newcomer into the

group’’. Since oldtimers often don’t know the newcomer, it is relatively difficult for them to estimate the newcomer’s worth. Group members see newcomers as stereotypically different on the basis of diffuse cues (in-group – out-group distinctions) and experience symbolic threat due to perceived challenges to the core values, beliefs and practices of the group (Stephan &

Renfro, 2002). Since stereotyping operates in the service of control (Fiske, 1993), people often see stereotypes when they see new people. To be able to bring in personal and unique ideas, the newcomer must be seen as an in-group member, rather than as an out-group member. Accordingly, when the existing members of a team hold negative stereotypes about a newcomer solely on the basis of, for example, his or her previously work experience or demographic background, this can hinder team acceptance. It is as such important for the newcomer to take on the right role within the team as to get accepted in the group as soon as possible.

Based on Hornsey et al’s words (2007: 1045) : ‘’Common wisdom frequently tells us to take a more passive role when entering a group: to “keep a low profile,” “toe the line,” and avoid “stirring the pot.”, I aim to investigate whether newcomer acceptance depends on their task or relation oriented behavioral style.

Newcomer Behavior

In this study two behavioral styles are analyzed that can have an impact on this

acceptation; task oriented and relation oriented behavior. Task oriented behavior is described

by Blake and Mouton (1975) on their managerial grid as behavior geared towards the

production matter, towards getting results, or towards accomplishing a mission. Relation

oriented behavior is described as behavior signaling that people matter, thinking about those

who he or she works with and on getting best results through an interpersonal way; concern

for people and group maintenance. Blau & Scott (1962) describe purely task oriented people

as to be likely to keep their distance psychologically from their followers and to be more cold and aloof. Task related teams are described as groups whose tasks requires team members to work together to produce something for which they are collectively accountable and whose acceptability is potentially assessable (Hackman, 2002). Cuddy, Fiske and Glick (2008) describes warmth and competence, these two definitions can also be used for task and relation oriented styles. They describe competence as aiming for performance, confidence in your skills and efficacy. And warmth as enjoy working in teams and with people, communicating in a kind matter and avoiding interpersonal clashes.

Multiple other studies have also demonstrated that, especially for leaders, the task oriented and relation oriented behavior styles yield different results for employee satisfaction and performance. Fiman (1973) and Kelly (1950) point toward higher satisfaction of employees confronted with relation oriented styles and warmth stereotypes. Other research reported that task oriented styles were associated with higher productivity (Dunteman and Bass, 1963) and higher work quality (Likert (1977). In general, ´´the leader who is highly relationship oriented rated by superiors and peers, and who is most satisfying to subordinates, and whose approach results in the good performance of the group is likely to be both relations oriented and task oriented in an integrated fashion´´ (Bass, 1990: 510).

Task and relation oriented behavior is mostly developed as leader behavior. In this study subordinates will also display the same behavior as the leaders. Although subordinates are not in a formally leading position they however can and often will display the same behavior as their formal leaders while socializing and working with their co-workers.

In the case of a newcomer – who is seen as an out-group member, and thus need to

show his group worth first, I expect that the effect of higher satisfaction for co-workers

displaying a relation oriented behavioral style to hold up and even be magnified in this

specific newcomer situation. Since the oldtimers don’t know the newcomer, the immediate

behavior of the newcomer should have a profound effect, while immediate behavior of an oldtimer self should be moderated by the previous relation with the co-workers. And while there are some negative stereotypes towards newcomers (Hornsey et al, 2007), the relation of the newcomer with the co-workers should be more of a blank page then the one of an oldtimers with the co-workers. As such relation oriented behavior should be more important in the case of the newcomer.

Thus, I hypothesize that:

H1: Displaying relation oriented behavior has a higher positive effect on newcomer acceptance, compared to displaying task oriented behavior.

Newcomer Power

Newcomers will fulfill different roles in their new teams; these roles are paired with power. Emerson (1962) describes power as a property of the social relation which commonly entails ties of mutual dependence between the parties. Congruency or discongruency of this power between the newcomer and the oldtimers influences this relation Kanter (1983) describes power as the capacity to mobilize people and resources to get things done.

According to Pfeffer (1992: 75) power comes from situational factors; ‘’control over resources, ties one has to powerful others, and the formal authority one obtains because of one's position in the hierarch’’ and from personal factors: ‘’the skills of the various actors and their ability to perform their tasks in the organization’’. A type of power is authority, authority refers to ‘’the given right to perform roles’’ (Kahn & Kram, 1994: 17). Negotiated authority (Handy, 1989) is when work groups mutually agree to the level of power each member will acquire.

In this study I will build on the situational factors side from Pfeffer and use power as

defined by Galinksy, Gruenfeld, and Magee (2003). They defined having power as having the

position of team leader; being in charge with the responsibility for the team performance and directing, evaluating and structuring team members and tasks.

Some research has been done about power and the factors that influence newcomer acceptance. Sinclair and Kunda (1999) argue that competitive relations are mostly common within roles with comparable power, meaning that when a newcomer with a similar power position as the oldtimer enters the group, there is a real chance that these oldtimers will feel threatened. At the same time, they argue that when a newcomer is placed into a team, the team hierarchy will change and can become unstable, especially when the newcomer has a power position. When leaders see their power revoked they come to see highly skilled group members as threats and take action toward protecting their power (Maner and Mead, 2010).

Moreover, on average, people pay more attention to others who control their outcomes than to those who do not, suggesting that newcomers with power should also encounter difficulties getting accepted (Erber & Fiske, 1984).

All the actions from a leader will be under a magnifying glass compared to the actions of a subordinate who has little to no control or power about you. Hence, there is also reason to suggest that there is a higher probability that a newcomer with power will not be accepted when behaving inappropriately then when a regular newcomer without power behaves this way.

Moderating role of power in the effectiveness of newcomer behavior

As hypothesized I expect that task / relation oriented behavioral style and newcomer power has a role on acceptance of the newcomer within the work team. As such I also expect that there is a moderating role of power in the relation of newcomer behavior on newcomer acceptance.

Earlier research stated that satisfaction of subordinates with the supervisors’

communication is linked with factors as supportiveness (Daniels, Spiker & Papa, 1997) and

receptivity (Wheeless,Wheeless & Howard, 1984). Dienesch and Liden (1986) suggest that prosocial and antisocial tactics may impact the quality of the relation between the leader and his/her subordinates. For instance, pro-social tactics involving the use of rewards, rationality, flattery, and friendliness should not only foster subordinate compliance but also increases the relationship. In contrast, antisocial tactics involving direct assertive requests, higher authority and sanctions should tend to damage the superior-subordinate relationship and thus reduces this relationship (Lamude, Scudder, Simmons & Torres, 2009). This indicates that good communication can enhance acceptance. Coupled with the earlier stated research from Erber (1984) I could conclude that good communication from a newcomer with power (who is the leader) will have more positive effects then good communication from a subordinate. Hence, I expect that a position of power of the newcomer enhances the earlier predicted effects of hypothesis 1. Task oriented leaders will be less accepted then task oriented subordinates and relation oriented leaders will be more accepted then relation oriented subordinates. I hypothesize:

H2: ‘’Displaying either task oriented or relation oriented behavior is more important for newcomer acceptance when the newcomer has power than when he or she does not have power’’.

I will test the relationship between task and relation oriented behavior on acceptance to newcomers, as moderated by power relations, with the following conceptual model:

Newcomer Acceptance Power of the Newcomer

Task oriented

Relation oriented

METHODS Design and Participants

Participants (n = 86) were randomly assigned to one of the four conditions within a 2 (Behavior style: Task or Relational oriented) X 2 (Power: Leader or Subordinate) factorial design. Participants were acquired from different standings, age and gender. A large part (77.7%) was currently employed (e.g. DFA Service, Rabobank or Humanitas). Twenty-one percent was student, and the remaining was currently searching for work. More than half of participants was female (n = 48), with only 31 male participants and 7 participants who did not give their gender. The average years of working experience was 12.24 (SD: 9.79) years, the average age is 34.71 years (SD, 11.51).

Procedure

The hypotheses in this study were tested by data obtained through an online questionnaire. Participants took on the role of a member of an existing team in which a newcomer was introduced. Participants were randomly divided over 4 paths of the questionnaire. Group 1 (21 participants) had a newcomer who was task oriented and had no power in the group. Group 2 (23 participants) had a newcomer who was relation oriented and had no power in the group. Group 3 (21 participants) had a newcomer who was task oriented and had power in the group in the form of being the team leader. Finally, group 4 (21 participants) had a newcomer who was relation oriented and had power in the group in the form of being the team leader.

After being randomly divided over the four conditions, participants read a description of

the team they hypothetically were in. They were for multiple years now part of a team,

consisting of five subordinates and one leader. They knew their team members well and were

attached to them. The leader had formal responsibility for team performance and uses a bonus

system to reward individual performance. Participants then learned that, due to structural changes, the organization has just recently hired a new member for their team

Manipulation of Newcomer Power

The newcomer either assumed the position of team leader (having power) or as one of the subordinates (having no power; Galinksy, 2003). When the newcomer had power and was the team leader, participants read the following excerpt; ’The new team leader will be in charge of directing and evaluating you and your team mates and will decide how to structure the team’s tasks. And, as the team leader, will be determining the rewards that you and the other team members will receive’’. When the newcomer did not have power and was a general subordinate, participants read; ’The new team member will have the responsibility to carry out tasks as set and structured by the team leader. The team member will be evaluated by the team leader every period. And, as a regular team member, will not have an opportunity to evaluate the manager, nor have any control over the division of bonuses or other resources. The manipulation of each respondent was coded as either 1 (= Power) or 2 (= No Power).

Manipulation of the Newcomer’s behavioral style

Following the power manipulation, the newcomer introduced him-/herself in either a

task or relation oriented manner. This condition was manipulated by an adapted scenario of

Cuddy, Fiske & Glick, 2008. The newcomer introduced him-/herself in the task oriented

condition as: ‘’I always aim to perform well. I am confident that I have the skills necessary for

the upcoming task. You can count on me to contribute to the team’s efficacy. I am always task

oriented.’’ In the relation oriented condition the newcomer introduced him-/herself as: ‘I

always enjoy working in teams, and work with others in a kind manner. You can count on me

to contribute to a friendly and trustworthy atmosphere within the team. I am always relation

oriented. The manipulation of each respondent was coded as either 1 (= Task oriented) or 2 (=

Relation oriented).

Measures

After the manipulations, I assessed participants’ immediate responses to the described situation. All measures were obtained with 7-point Likert scales ranging from ‘’Not at all’’

(1) to ‘’Very much’’ (7). The participant had to answer 33 questions all related to newcomer acceptance.

Identification with the newcomer was assessed with 7 items derived from Rink and Ellemers (2012), including items like: ‘Do you think that you will personally like the newcomer’’, ‘’Will you feel comfortable with your new team member?’’ and ‘Do you think that the newcomer will fit in your team’’, (α = .83).

Task based versus relation based acceptance was assessed with items derived from Joardar et al. (2007). Half of the items resembled the task based component, such as; ‘Would you like to work with the newcomer’’ and ‘Do you think that the newcomer would be an asset to your team’’, (α = .81). The other half reflected the relation based component, for example,

“Do you think that you would like to invite the newcomer to social events’’ and ‘’Would the newcomer fit into the team socially’’, (α = .75).

Newcomer group concern was assessed with 5 items derived from Kane & Rink (2012), e.g. .‘’Speaks on behalf of the team’’, ‘’Shows his or her concerns for the team’’ and ‘’Acts out of interest for the team’’, (α = .82).

Oldtimer effort was assessed with 4 items derived from Rink & Ellemers (2012) . Participants were asked the extent to which they would, e.g.: ‘’Make an effort to collaborate with the newcomer’’ and ‘’Do their utmost best for their newcomer’’’ (α = .87).

Anticipated knowledge consideration was assessed with 4 items derived from Kane &

Rink (2012) . For example, participants were asked the extent to which they would: ‘’Be open

for work suggestions from the newcomer’’ and ‘’Appreciate input of the newcomer’’, (α = .91).

Finally, anticipated team performance was assessed with 2 self developed items, e.g.;

“The team will be successful’’, (α = .81).

Control variables were asked at the end of the questionnaire and included items as age, gender and working experience. Two important control items who are used in analysis are the

‘’Least Preferable Co-worker’’ Fiedler (1967) items. Participants were asked to take a (former) co-worker in mind with which they had or have problems in working together. They were then asked to rate this co-worker on 18 two choice items. These items were asked on an 8 point scale with one item on the one end (1) and the other item on the other end (8), (α = .86). Of the 84 participants, who employed the role of oldtimers and filled in the check, 37 were task focused, 29 were relation focused and 18 were in between.

Participants also reported their own level of power within their organization (Lammers, Stoker & Stapel, 2009); ‘’Are you a leader in your current function?’’; No; Yes, to 1-5 employees; Yes, to 6-10; Yes, to 11-15; Yes, to 16-20; Yes, to more than 20 employees. And

‘’ How would you rate the amount of power you have within the company’’; No power; A little power; Moderate power; Much power; A great deal of power.

RESULTS Dependent Measures

I performed a series of ANOVAS on the dependent measures with newcomer power and

newcomer behavioral style (task – relation) as independent factors and the personal power

level of participants (‘’Are you a leader in your current function?’’ and ‘’ How would you rate

the amount of power you have within the company’’), oldtimer behavioral styles (task –

relation) and their gender as covariates.

Identification with the newcomer. The results demonstrate a main effect for

newcomer behavior only, F(1, 79) = 9.31, p < .01, ŋ

= .24 . Task oriented newcomers score lower (M = 4.04, SD = .73) on Identification with the newcomer then relation oriented newcomers (M = 4.71, SD = .73). No unique for, or interaction effect with power emerged, p

° ns.

Task based versus relation based acceptance The results demonstrate a main effect

for newcomer behavior, marginally significant for Task based group acceptance, F(1, 79) = 1.97, p = .10, ŋ

= .11 , and Relation based group acceptance, F(1, 79) = 15.43, p < .01, ŋ

= .18. Task oriented newcomers score lower (M = 4.61, SD = .94) on Task based acceptance then relation oriented newcomers (M = 4.93, SD = .73) and also lower (M = 3.48, SD = 1.19) on Relation based acceptance then relation oriented newcomers (M = 4.36, SD = .95).

There were also a marginally separate significant main effect for power on Task based group acceptance F(1, 79) = 1.94, p = .10, ŋ

= .11,. Newcomers with power score lower (M = 4.60, SD = .83) on the item of Task based group acceptance then newcomers with no power (M = 4.94, SD = .85). Although no significant main effect was found of newcomer behavior or power on relation based acceptance, there was an interaction effect, F (1, 77) = .4.64, p <

.05, ŋ

= .26. Task oriented leaders (M = 3.05, SD = 1.23) score lower on Relation based group acceptance then relation oriented leaders (M = 4.37, SD = .76). Task oriented subordinates (M = 3.92, SD = .99) also score lower then relation oriented subordinates (M = 4.36, SD = 1.11), but this effect was significantly smaller than for the newcomers with power.

This shows that for newcomers in a power position, it is more important to monitor how they behave than for newcomers in a subordinate position.

Newcomer group concern The results demonstrate a main effect for newcomer

behavior, F(1, 79) = 9.14, p < .01, ŋ

= .24 Task oriented newcomers score lower (M = 4.30,

SD = .88) on Newcomer group concern then relation oriented newcomers (M = 5.01, SD =

.67). There were also a separate marginally significant main effect for power on Newcomer group concern F(1, 79) = 2.44, p = .062, ŋ

= .14. Newcomers with power score higher (M = 4.81, SD = .86) on Newcomer group concern then newcomers with no power (M = 4.52, SD = .84). No interaction effect with power emerged, p ° ns

Oldtimer effort The results demonstrate a main effect for newcomer behavior only,

F(1, 79) = 6.56, p < .01, ŋ

= .15 Task oriented newcomers score lower (M = 4.73, SD = 1.08) on Oldtimer effort with the newcomer then relation oriented newcomers (M = 5.29, SD = .56). No unique for, or interaction effect with power emerged, p ° ns.

As shown in Table 2, the means (acceptance scores) for newcomers displaying relation oriented behavior is higher than for newcomers displaying task oriented behavior.

These analyses are in line with hypothesis 1 and as such I can conclude that displaying relation oriented behavior has a higher positive effect on newcomer acceptation, compared to displaying task oriented behavior. Only two out of seven items were significant on main effects of power. As shown in table 3 The means (acceptance scores) on these two items for newcomers with and without power were contradicting.

The anticipated moderating role of power was not found, disconfirming hypothesis 3.

With only one out of eight possible significant interaction effects, I cannot conclude that displaying either task oriented or relation oriented behavior is more important for newcomer acceptance when the newcomer has power than when he or she does not have power.

However, as shown in table 4, this one significant effect did support my hypothesis.

Supplementary analysis

Since the original interaction between Power and Task / Relation oriented behavior

did not generate enough significant results I looked at other interactions. I still believe in the

function of power as a moderator in the relation of newcomer behavior on newcomer

acceptance. As Emerson (1962) noted power is a relation of mutual dependence between parties. High power of a newcomer as such is not only a function of high power of the newcomer, but also of low power of the oldtimer. Hence I looked specifically at the other side of the coin, power of the oldtimer. The new interaction is then; behavioral style (task/relation) newcomer x Power of the oldtimer (participant). Underlying theory is that people pay attention to others who control their outcomes (Erber et al, 1984). Oldtimers who have a high level of power should have less to fear from the newcomer and should not take much notice while oldtimers who have a low level of power should take more notice to behavior of the newcomer since the newcomer could potentially threaten their power status.

I performed a series of ANOVAS on the dependent measures with newcomer behavioral style (task – relation) and the personal power level of participants (‘’How would you rate the amount of power you have within the company’’) as independent factors and oldtimer behavioral styles (task – relation), their gender and power of the newcomer as covariates. Of the item ‘’How would you rate the amount of power you have within the company’’, 17 participants with no power had a task oriented newcomer and 26 participants had a relation oriented newcomer. Of the participants with power, 25 participants had a task oriented newcomer and 16 participants had a relation oriented newcomer. As shown in table 6, the anticipated moderating role of oldtimer power was found on three of the seven items.

Relation based acceptance Interaction effect emerged on relation based group

acceptance between behavioral style of the newcomer and power of the oldtimer;, F (2, 74) =

2.58, p = .10, ŋ

= .28. When the participant has no power, task oriented newcomers score

lower (M = 3.24, SD = 1.15) then relation oriented newcomers (M = 4.50, SD = 1.06). When

the participant has power, task oriented newcomers score lower (M = 3.65, SD = 1.20) then

relation oriented newcomers (M = 4.10, SD = .76), but this effect was smaller than the

difference for participants without power.

Newcomer group concern. An interaction effect emerged between behavioral style of

the newcomer and power of the oldtimer; ‘’How would you rate the amount of power you have’’, F (2, 74) = 1.92, p < .05, ŋ

= .35. When the participant has power, task oriented newcomers score lower (M = 4.32, SD = 1.03) then relation oriented newcomers (M = 4.99, SD = .52). When the participant has no power, task oriented newcomers also score lower (M

= 4.26, SD = .63) then relation oriented newcomers (M = 5.03, SD = .78).

Anticipated team performance Interaction effect emerged between behavioral style of

the newcomer and power of the oldtimer, F (2, 74) = 2.44, p = .05, ŋ

= .19. When the participant has no power, task oriented newcomers also score lower (M = 4.56, SD = .64) then relation oriented newcomers (M = 5.02, SD = .98). When the participant has power, it did not matter how the newcomer behaved, the average performance expectations were pretty high;

task oriented newcomers (M = 4.78, SD = .98) and relation oriented newcomers (M = 4.97, SD = .99).

DISCUSSION Findings

This research intended to find the effect of task and relation oriented behavior on acceptance of a newcomer in a team, as moderated by power of the newcomer. This design, featuring an online questionnaire, enabled us to assess oldtimers’ initial perceptions of the newcomer at the key moment after the newcomer displayed either task or relation oriented behavior. The results showed that newcomers with a relation oriented behavioral style had greater scores on the means (acceptance scores) of the acceptance items. Power of the newcomer, however, had no clear significant effect on the acceptance scores of newcomers.

As such the hypothesized interaction effect of newcomer power and task / relation oriented

behavior was also not clearly found. These results provide evidence that oldtimers are more

open towards accepting newcomers displaying relation oriented behavior then towards

newcomers displaying task oriented behavior. Using this strategy of a relation oriented behavior style appears to generate significant differences compared to using a task oriented behavioral style.

Theoretical implications

This study was designed to contribute to the existing body of literature on newcomers, task oriented and relation oriented behavior and power by addressing multiple issues; first to confirm a clear defining ‘’best practice’’ way to behave as a newcomer, also considering elements as newcomer and oldtimer power.

To find this effect three hypothesis were developed. The first hypothesis stated that

‘’Displaying relation oriented behavior has a higher positive effect on newcomer acceptance, compared to displaying task oriented behavior’’. This hypothesis was confirmed; analysis led to significant main effects of task / relation oriented behavior on five items; Identification of the oldtimer with the newcomer, Task based and Relation based group acceptance, perception of Newcomer group concern and the Effort the oldtimer is willing to show for the newcomer.

The means (acceptance scores) of these items showed that newcomers score much higher on acceptance scales when they display relation oriented behavior compared to task oriented behavior.

However, the expected interaction effect between the two main effects as hypothesized in the third hypothesis was found on only one item; Relation based group acceptance. The means (acceptance scores) of this item confirmed the hypothesis; Power enhances the effects of task and relation oriented behavior. Relation oriented leaders score even higher on acceptance scores and task oriented leaders score much lower. Still, with only one significant item this result is not reliable.

The supplementary analysis with the interaction of oldtimer power and task / relation

oriented behavior generated three significant items and generated results as in line with the

literature. Analysis showed that newcomers displaying task oriented behavior compared to relation oriented behavior exerted higher differences in acceptance scores for oldtimers without power. This effect enhances the original main effect of tasks / relation oriented behavior on newcomer acceptance on three items; relation based group acceptance, perception of newcomer group concern, and anticipated team performance with the newcomer. This supports the hypothesis that oldtimers with a low level of power take more notice of the behavioral style of the newcomer compared to oldtimers with a high level of power. Task oriented behavior becomes less accepted, relation oriented behavior becomes more accepted.

Although no main effect of and interaction effect with newcomer power was found a clear main effect of task / relation oriented behavior on newcomer acceptance was defined.

When your goal is to become accepted as quick and good as possible as a newcomer it is best to behave in a relation oriented manner. This also reconfirms the same conclusion by earlier research of Hornsey (2007), but with other acceptance scales. The ‘’best practice’’ way is to behave in a relation oriented manner.

Next to defining a ‘’best practice’’, this research also shines a light on questions asked in earlier research. Choi and Thompson (2004) named the ability of newcomers and oldtimers to collaborate and its effect on group creativity. And asked for more research into this characteristic. Analysis in my study point out that relation oriented behavior leads to higher identification rate of oldtimers with newcomers and higher effort level of oldtimers towards newcomers. As such relation oriented behavior of the newcomer should lead to better collaboration between oldtimers and newcomers. Thus, this study contributes towards ways to improve the ability to collaborate.

Sauer (2011) asked for future research to look at how leader behaviors affects

subordinates’ perceptions of trust, their willingness to accept influence, and their subsequent

desire to contribute to a team process. Analysis showed that oldtimers show more effort

towards working with new leaders displaying relation oriented behavior and identify themselves more with such leaders. This should contribute to our knowledge of leader and subordinate relations as defined by Sauer.

Finally, Kipnis (1980) and Dienesch and Liden (1986) asked for research on how people influenced and used influence tactics on their co-workers. Results in this study show that several acceptance items increased for newcomers using a relation oriented style. Thus by acting in a task or relation oriented way newcomers can influence their co-workers on different levels including identification of the oldtimer with the newcomer, perception of newcomer group concern and effort the oldtimer is willing to show for the newcomer. This research elaborates on, and shows that, using relation oriented behavior as a newcomer has positive results on gaining and using influence on co-workers.

Limitations and future research directions

The experimental control obtained of the scenario design in this study enhances the internal validity of our findings, but it restricts me from generalizing my findings to broader contexts with newcomers that differ significantly from those captured in this study. Yes, this study has meaningful practical implications for newcomers and organizations alike. However, the results from this study are not directly applicable to real life situations. Limitations referring to the methodological part can be found in the sample. In this study, employee’s from all different standings and organizations were used in combinations with students. This diverse sample could be the reason why the original moderating effect failed to generate coherent meaningful results. By doing a field study, for example with existing teams within organization, who are soon to be or recently confronted with newcomers, the results should be more in line with real practical situations.

Still, we cannot say that on an absolute level relation oriented newcomers are more

accepted within a team then task oriented newcomers. Problems that may arise in a field study

are the preferences of people for a certain style. These preferences can vary across many variables, it may be different depending on the situations and tasks to be fulfilled (Foti, Fraser

& Lord, 1982; Jung & Avolio, 1999) and across cultures and geographic areas (Den Hartog, House, Hanges, Ruiz-Quintanilla & Dorfman, 1999; Yagoni, 2001).

Due to this limitation in our study of newcomer generability, I propose to look more at the circumstances that define oldtimer reactions towards certain behavioral styles;

organization and team situations, newcomer from in- or outside the organization, tasks to be fulfilled, cultural areas and oldtimer preferences. Likewise, in this study newcomers were either task or relation oriented, since earlier research stated that leaders who are both realize the best results (Bass, 1990: 510). It can be interesting to look at this distinction in future research. So to add a third behavioral style to this research and see if the above statement is also true in a specific newcomer situation.

Next to the possibility that teams and oldtimers may face different situations,

newcomers can of course also differ on many characteristics. In this study I looked at a

nameless, genderless and cultureless newcomer. It is assumable that these factors do have

influence on the acceptance of the newcomer Accordingly, the possible moderating effects of

newcomer characteristics also offer interesting avenues for future research that bears

relevance for the many organizations that deal with group compositional changes. For

example, it would be interesting to look at the influence of gender of the newcomer on the

relation tested in this study. Men are often seen as more task oriented and woman as more

relation oriented (Phillips & Alyn, 2005). It is conceivable that, when newcomers disconfirm

these stereotypes about them it could have quite an influence on the way in which the

oldtimers look at and accept the newcomer. Also, by looking at the traits of the job itself, if it

is a masculine or feminine occupation, could generate interesting results. The role incongruity

theory of Eagly and Karau (2002) stated that men’s social roles overlap with organizational

leadership roles and women’s roles don’t overlap. Research by Zion and Nelson (1988) thus argued that, unless providing strong counter stereotypical information, a female candidate for a masculine-typed occupation is likely to be judged as less suitable than a man. Looking at this, I would predict that disconfirming gender stereotypes would lead to higher acceptance rates on items like knowledge consideration and oldtimer effort. However it could also lead to lower acceptance rates on other acceptance items. According to Rudman and Phelan (2008:

64) ‘’women who transgress prescriptive norms by enacting agency, even if it is to succeed in a traditionally masculine domain, may elicit negative reactions’’. As such, I suggest that future research could look at including gender roles into the equation and their influence on the acceptance of newcomers.

One last point to consider as limitation of this study is whether the results are newcomer specific? Would the results be any different if it was not a newcomer displaying task or relation oriented behavior but an oldtimer him/herself who is displaying this behavior.

I think it is, because people’s reactions towards the behavior of a fellow oldtimer will always be moderated in itself by their previous relation with this oldtimer. It is well known that oldtimers are often less criticized then newcomers (Horney et al , 2007). Next to this oldtimers are often seen as less different from the group compared to newcomers (Stephan &

Renfro, 2002), due to their prolonged stay within the group. When an oldtimer starts displaying either of these behaviors the effect probably would be far lessened compared to a newcomer as due to the reasons just described. Nevertheless, future research could look at the differences between oldtimer and newcomer acceptance in a newcomer/oldtimer behavioral style context.

Conclusions and practical implications

By confirming the main effect of task / relation oriented behavioral style on newcomer

acceptance I have proven that displaying relation oriented behavior has multiple advantages

for a newcomer. By displaying relation oriented behavior oldtimers identify themselves more with the newcomer, have higher perceptions of the newcomer’s concern for the group and are willing to show more effort towards working with the newcomer. The supplementary analysis shows that oldtimer power has an enhancing effect on this relation.

These effects have high practical implications. The results of the analysis showed that oldtimers themselves are more positive toward a relation oriented newcomer but it also has positive effects for the newcomer and for the company employing the newcomer. As such, a newcomer displaying such behavior results in an easier, more immediate, integration in the team (Hornsey et al, 2007). At company level it has a positive impact on group creativity and creativity of the oldtimers through a side effect of higher newcomer productivity (Choi &

Thompson, 2004). On the basis of our results I suggest that organizations could benefit from

placing newcomers in teams the most by emphasizing the use of a relation oriented behavior

style due to the clear advantages towards the acceptance of the new team member.

REFERENCES

Allen, N. J., &Meyer, J. P. 1990. Organizational socialization tactics: A longitudinal analysis of links to newcomers’ commitment and role orientation. Academy of Management Journal, 33: 847-858.

Ashforth, B. E., Saks, A. M. 1996. Socialization tactics: Longitudinal effects on newcomer adjustment. Academy of Management Journal, 39: 148-178.

Bass, B.M. 1990. Bass & Stogdill’s Handbook of Leadership. Theory Research and Managerial Applications (third ed.). New York: The Free Press.

Blake, R.R., Mouton, J.S., 1975. An Overview of the Grid. Training and Development Journal, May 1975: 29-37.

Blau, P.M, Scott, W.R., 1962. Formal organizations: A comparative approach. San Fransisco: Chandler Pub. Co.

Chen, G. 2005. Newcomer adaptation in teams: Multilevel antecedents and outcomes.

Academy of Management Journal, 33: 334–365.

Choi, H., Thompson, L. 2004. Old wine in a new bottle: Impact of membership change on group creativity. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 98(2):

121-132.

Cope, P., Cuthbertson, P., Stoddart, B. 2000. Situated learning in the practice placement.

Journal of Advanced Nursing, 31(4): 850–856.

Cuddy, A.J.C., Fiske, S.T., & Glick, P. (2008). Warmth and competence as universal dimensions of social perception: The Stereotype Content Model and the BIAS Map. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 40: 61-149.

Daniels, T. D., Spiker, B. K., & Papa, M. J. (1997). Perspectives on organizational communication (4

ed.). Madison, WI: Brown & Benchmark.

Den Hartog, D.N., House, R.J., Hanges, P.J., Ruiz-Quintanilla, S.A., Dorfman, P.W. 1999.

Culture specific and cross-culturally generalizable implicit leadership theories: are

attributes of charismatic/transformational leadership universally endorsed?

Leadership Quarterly, 10: 219-256.

Dienesch, R. M., & Liden, R. C. (1986). Leader-member exchange model of leadership: A critique and further development. Academy of Management Review, 11: 618-634.

Dunteman, G.H., Bass, B.M., 1963. Supervisory and engineering success associated with self, interaction, and task orientation scores. Personnel Psychology, 16: 13-22.

Eagly, A. H., Karau, S. J. 2002). Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders.

Psychological Review, 109, 573–598.

Emerson, R. M., 1962. Power-Dependence Relations. American Sociological Review, 27: 31- 41.

Erber, R., & Fiske, S.T. 1984. Outcome Dependency and Attention to Inconsistent Information. Journal of personality and Social Psychology, 47: 709-726 Fiedler, F. E. (1967) A Theory of Leadership Effectiveness, New York: McGraw-Hill.

Fiman, B.G., 1973. An Investigation of the Relationships among Supervisory Attitudes, Behaviors, and Outputs: An Examiniation of McGregor’s Theory Y. Personnel Psychology, 26: 92-105.

Fiske, S. T. 1993. Controlling other people. The impact of power on stereotyping. American Psychologist, 48: 621-628

Foti, R.J., Fraser, S.L., Lord. R.G., 1982. Effects of leadership labels and prototypes on perceptions of political leaders. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67: 326-333.

Galinsky, A.D., Gruenfeld, D.H. & Magee, J.C. 2003. From Power to Action. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(3): 453-466.

George, J. M. (1990). Personality, affect, and behavior in groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75: 107-117

Glick, P., Zion, C., & Nelson, C. 1988. What mediates sex discrimination in hiring decisions?

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55: 178–186.

Hackman, J. R. 2002. Leading teams. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Handy, C. B. 1989. The age of unreason. Boston: Harvard Business School Press

Hornsey, M.J., Grice. J., Jetten, J., Paulsen, N., Callan, V. 2007. Group-Directed Criticisms and Recommendations for Change: Why Newcomers Arouse More Resistance Than Old-Timers. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33(7): 1036-1048.

Jablin, F.M. 1982. Organizational communication: An assimilation approach. In M. E.

Roloff&C. R.Berger (Eds.), Social cognition and communication, 255-286. Beverly Hills.

Jablin, F. M. 1984. Assimilating new members into organizations. In R. Bostrom (Ed.), Communication Yearbook, 8: 594-626.

Joardar, A., Kostova, T., Ravlin, E.C. 2007. An experimental study of the acceptance of a foreign newcomer into a workgroup. Journal of International Management, 13: 513- 537.

Jung, D.I., Avolio, B.J. 1999. Effects of leadership style and followers cultural orientation on performance in group and individual task conditions. Academy of Management Journal, 42: 208-218.

Kahn, W. A., & Kram, K. E. 1994. Authority at work: Internal models and their organizational consequences. Academy of Management Review, 19(1):17-50 Kanter, R. M. 1983. The change masters: Innovations for productivity in the American

corporation. New York: Simon & Schuster

Katz, R. (1985). Organizational stress and early socialization experiences. In T. Beehr & R.

Bhagat (Eds.), Human stress and cognition in organization: An integrative perspective,117-139. New York: Wiley.

Katz, S. M., 1998. A Newcomer Gains Power: An Analysis of the Role of Rhetorical Expertise. The Journal of Business Communication, 35(4): 419-442.

Kelley, H. H. (1950). The warm-cold variable in first impressions of persons. Journal of Personality Psychology, 18: 431- 439.

Kipnis, D., Schmidt, S.M., 1980. Intraorganizational Influence Tactics: Explorations in Getting One’s Way. Journal of Applied Psychology, 65(4): 440-452

Lamude, K.G., Scudder, J., Simmons, D., Torres, P. 2004. Organizational newcomers:

Temporary and regular employees, same‐sex and mixed‐sex superior‐subordinate

dyads, supervisor influence techniques, subordinates communication satisfaction, and leader‐member exchange, Communication Research Reports, 21(1): 60-67

Levine, J. M., Choi, H.-S., & Moreland, R. L. 2003. Newcomer innovation in work teams. In P. Paulus & B. Nijstad (Eds.), Group creativity: Innovation through collaboration, 202-225. New York: Oxford University Press

Levine, J. M., & Choi, H-S. (2004). Impact of personnel turnover on team performance and cognition. In E. Salas & S. M. Fiore (Eds.), Team cognition: Process and

performance at the inter/intra individual level, 163–176. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association

Likert, R. 1975. Past and future perspectives on System 4. Ann Arbor, MI

Van Maanen, J. 1978. People processing: Strategies of organizational socialization.

Organizational Dynamics, 7: 18-36.

Maner, J. K., & Mead, N. L. 2010. The essential tension between leadership and power:

When leaders sacrifice group goals for the sake of self-interest. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 9: 482- 497.

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

Pfeffer, J. (1992). Managing with power: Politics and influence in organizations. Boston:

Harvard Business School Press.

Phillips, B., Alyn, K. 2005. How to Deal with Annoying People. Eugene: Harvest House Publishers.

Rink, F., & Ellemers, N. 2007. Diversity and Groups: Research on Managing Groups and Teams, Vol. 11, Eds. K. W. Phillips., E. Mannix, & M. A. Neale. Diversity,

newcomers and team innovation: The importance of a common identity, 221-244.

Rudman, L.A., Phelan, J.E. 2008. Backlash effects for disconfirming gender stereotypes in organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 28: 61/79.

Sauer, S. J. Taking the Reins: The Effects of New Leader Status and Leadership on Team

Performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 2011, vol. 96, No. 3, 574-587.

Sinclair, L., & Kunda, Z. 1999. Reactions to a Black Professional: Motivated Inhibition and Activation of Conflicting Stereotypes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(5): 885-904.

Stephan, W. G., & Renfro, C. L. 2002. The role of threat in intergroup relations. In D. M.

Mackie & E. R. Smith (Eds.), From prejudice to intergroup emotions: Differentiated reactions to social groups, 191-207. New York: Psychology Press.

Wheeless, L. R., Wheeless, V. E., & Howard, R. D. 1984. The relationships of Communication with supervisor and decision-participation to employee job satisfaction. Communication Quarterly, 32: 222-232.

Yagoni, L.L. 2011. Cross-cultural role expectations in nine European country-units of a

multinational enterprise. Journal of Management Studies, 28: 1187-1215.

APPENDIX A TABLES ANALYSES Table 1

Analysis of Variance for Task/Relation and power condition

Identification MS F p

Task/Relation 9.31 17.97 0.00

Power 0.77 1.23 0.27

Task/Relation x Power 0.27 0.52 0.47

Task based MS F p

Task/Relation 1.97 2.83 0.10

Power 1.94 2.78 0.10

Task/Relation x Power 0.81 1.19 0.28

Relation based MS F p

Task/Relation 15.43 13.28 0.00

Power 3.48 2.65 0.11

Task/Relation x Power 4.64 4.29 0.04

Group concern MS F p

Task/Relation 9.14 15.36 0.00

Power 2.44 3.59 0.06

Task/Relation x Power 0.70 1.21 0.27

Oldtimer effort MS F p

Task/Relation 6.56 9.05 0.00

Power 0.01 0.01 0.93

Task/Relation x Power 0.17 0.22 0.64

Table 2

Mean and standard deviation of Task/Relation behavioral style on dependent variables

Task Relation

M (SD) M (SD)

Identification 4.04 (.73) 4.71 (.73)

Task based 4.61 (.94) 4.93 (.73)

Relation based 3.48 (1.19) 4.36 (.95)

Group concern 4.30 (.88) 5.01 (.67)

Oldtimer effort 4.73 (1.08) 5.29 (.56)

Note. n = 86.

Table 3

Mean and standard deviation of Newcomer Power on dependent variables

Power No Power

M (SD) M (SD)

Task based 4.60 (.83) 4.94 (.85)

Group concern 4.81 (.86) 4.52 (.84)

Note. n = 86.

Table 4

Mean and SD of interaction Task/Relation behavior and newcomer power Power No power

Task Relation Task Relation

M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD)

Relation based 3.05 (1.23) 4.37 (.76) 3.92 (.99) 4.36 (1.11) Note. n = 86.

Table 5

Analysis of Variance for supplementary analysis

Relation based MS F p

Task/Relation x Power oldtimer 2.58 2.38 .10

Group concern MS F p

Task/Relation x Power oldtimer 1.92 3.54 .03

Team performance MS F p

Task/Relation x Power oldtimer 2.44 3.12 .05

Table 6

Mean and SD of interaction Task/Relation behavior and oldtimer power

Power No power

Task Relation Task Relation

M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD)

Relation based 3.65 (1.20) 4.10 (.76) 3.24 (1.15) 4.50 (1.06)

Group concern 4.32 (1.03) 4.99 (.52) 4.26 (.63) 5.03 (.78)

Team performance 4.78 (.98) 4.97 (.99) 4.56 (.64) 5.02 (.98)

Note. n = 85

APPENDIX B ITEMS QUESTIONNAIRE

‘’Newcomer power manipulation’’

Ga af op uw eerste gevoel. Welke eigenschappen zou u, als bestaand teamlid, het liefste terugzien in uw nieuwe teamgenoot? Denk hierbij aan de positie die uw nieuwe

teamgenoot binnen het team heeft.

Loyaal Betrouwbaar Oprecht

Goed voorbereid Veelwetend Gekwalificeerd Capabel

Gevoelig Zorgzaam Aardig

‘’Behavioral style manipulation’’

Denk aan wat uw nieuwe teamgenoot net verteld heeft. In hoeverre denkt u dat u..

persoonlijk uw nieuwe teamgenoot zal mogen?

zich verbonden zult voelen met uw nieuwe teamgenoot?

zich gehecht zult voelen aan uw nieuwe teamgenoot?

zich comfortabel zult voelen bij uw nieuwe teamgenoot?

met uw nieuwe teamgenoot zou willen werken?

het zou waarderen om uw nieuwe

teamgenoot in uw team te hebben?

baat zal hebben bij uw nieuwe teamgenoot?

uw nieuwe teamgenoot zal uitnodigen voor sociale aangelegenheden?

zou willen omgaan met uw nieuwe teamgenoot op een vriendschappelijke manier?

In hoeverre denkt u dat uw nieuwe teamgenoot..

in het team zal passen?

anders zal zijn als u en uw team?

net zo zal zijn als u en uw team?

uit naam van de groep zal spreken?

uit naam van zichzelf zal spreken?

uit naam van zijn/haar vorige groep zal spreken?

zijn of haar zorgen met betrekking tot het team zal tonen?

loyaliteit aan het team tentoon zal spreiden?

zal handelen naar de belangen van het team?

Om het team zal geven?

een aanwinst voor uw team zal zijn?

sociaal in uw team zal passen?

In hoeverre denkt u dat u..

energie zou steken in de samenwerking

met uw nieuwe teamgenoot?

uw best zou doen voor uw nieuwe teamgenoot?

gemotiveerd zou zijn om voor uw nieuwe teamgenoot te werken?

zich erg in zou zetten voor het werken met uw nieuwe teamgenoot?

positief zou reageren wanneer uw nieuwe teamgenoot een verandering wil doorvoeren?

nieuwe kennis van uw nieuwe teamgenoot ter harte zou nemen?

open zou staan voor werksuggesties van uw nieuwe teamgenoot?

input van uw nieuwe teamgenoot zou waarderen?

In hoeverre denkt u dat u als team met uw nieuwe teamgenoot erbij..

succesvol zal zijn?

onsuccesvol zal zijn?

samenhangend zal zijn?

sociaal dichtbij elkaar zal staan?

Denk hierbij aan uw huidige werksituatie. Denk hierbij tevens aan diegene met wie u nu of in het verleden, tijdens het samenwerken, de meeste problemen hebt ondervonden.

Welke persoonlijke kenmerken bezat/bezit deze persoon?

Prettig Onprettig

Vriendelijk Onvriendelijk

Afwijzend Accepterend

Gespannen Ontspannen

Afstandelijk Intiem

Koud Warm

Ondersteunend Vijandig

Saai Interessant

Twistziek Harmonieus

Somber Opgewekt

Open Terughoudend

Roddelen Loyaal

Onbetrouwbaar Betrouwbaar

Attent Onverschillig

Gemeen Aardig

Aangenaam Onaangenaam

Onoprecht Oprecht

Mild Streng