WHEN ARE NEWCOMERS ACCEPTED: THE ROLE OF SIMILARITY,
PERCEPTIONS OF FIT AND THE NEED FOR CREATIVE BEHAVIOR.
Master Thesis, MSc Human Resource Management (HRM)
University of Groningen, Faculty of Economics and Business
February 2, 2018
Willemijn Stoker
Studentnumber: S2563339
Schuitendiep 88-7
e9711 RH Groningen
e-mail: w.l.m.stoker@student.rug.nl
Supervisor: prof. dr. B.A. Nijstad
WHEN ARE NEWCOMERS ACCEPTED: THE ROLE OF SIMILARITY,
PERCEPTIONS OF FIT AND THE NEED FOR CREATIVE BEHAVIOR.
ABSTRACT
The present paper contributes to the literature on newcomer acceptance by integrating the newcomer acceptance literature with the Person-Organization fit (P-O fit) literature and shows that this is crucial in understanding the acceptance process of a newcomer. This study extends the research of Muchinsky & Monahan (1987) by examining how perceptions of fit (i.e., supplementary fit and complementary fit) and the need for creative behavior affect the relationship between similarity and newcomer acceptance. More specifically, we propose that we will find a positive indirect effect of supplementary fit. Furthermore, the need for creative behavior will act as a moderator on the negative relationship between similarity and perceptions of complementary fit. In addition, we propose that we will find a positive relationship between perceptions of complementary fit and newcomer acceptance. To analyze the relationships among the variables used in this study online surveys are distributed, and within the surveys a scenario is outlined. Outcomes of correlational and (moderation)-mediation analyses of data from 139 surveys distributed online confirmed almost all of the predicted hypotheses. No support was found for the hypothesis that predicted the moderating role of the need for creative behavior on the negative relationship between similarity and perceptions of complementary fit. We discuss implications for research on the newcomer accepting process and for the type of study used.
1. INTRODUCTION
Organizations increasingly rely on the use of teams (Devine, 2002). As the use of teams has increased, researchers have devoted substantial attention to the value and functioning of teams (Ilgen, Hollenbeck, Johnson, & Jundt, 2005; West, 2002). Conceptually, team researchers have converged on a view of teams as complex, adaptive, dynamic systems (McGrath, Arrow, & Berdahl, 2000). Team members interact among themselves and with other persons in contexts (Ilgen, et al., 2005). Teams develop as systems over time, and change as a function of changing conditions over time. Over time and contexts, teams and their members continually cycle and recycle (McGrath et al., 2000), and the use of teams within organizations is crucial to keep up with the changing contexts.
Teams cannot remain the same forever, and the addition of a new member is a common and critical development for the direction of an organization (Forbes, Borchert, Zellmer-Bruhn, & Sapienza, 2006). Unlike previous findings that adding a new team member hinders group functioning (Goodman & Garber, 1988; Goodman & Leyden, 1991; Mathiyalakan, 2002; Pisano, Bohmer, & Edmondson, 2001; Rogers, Ford & Tasonne, 1961) there is reason to expect that adding a new team member can have positive consequences as well. New team members have the potential to offer a fresh look at how things are done (Harris, Li, Boswell, Zhang, & Xie, 2014). Moreover, adding a new team member provides access to new knowledge (Kane & Rink, 2015). However, a newcomer’s knowledge will only have positive consequences when existing team members recognize its value and are willing to use it (Bunderson, van der Vegt, & Sparrowe, 2014). Adding a new team member may affect the team functioning (Choi & Thompson, 2005). Consequently, existing team members, called old-timers, may not always accept a newcomer, due to the fact that they experience risk (Rubenson & Runco, 1995) or that they see the new team member as a threat for the existing team (Moreland & Levine, 1982; Choi & Thompson, 2005).
based on similarity of certain characteristics, they are more likely to engage in close and personal interactions, conduct frequent consultations, and invest effort into coordinating activities with other team members (Atuahene-Gima, 2003; Menon, Jaworski, & Kohl, 1997). In turn, team members’ personal interactions have positive effects on team functioning. Adding members who are similar may be driven by the desire to maintain the existing atmosphere in the team (Forbes, et al., 2006). Moreover, newcomers replace ineffective old-timers whose presence may have stymied or harmed the group (Choi & Thompson, 2005). Thus, adding a new team member, also called newcomer, is a common step and teams often prefer newcomers who are similar to the existing team.
Previous research has thus argued that personal characteristics (West, 2002; Joardar, Kostova, & Ravlin, 2007) and similarity issues (Ruef, et al., 2003) play a role in this acceptance process. However, it seems from an old-timers’ perspective that being similar does not add much value to the organization (Piasentin & Chapman, 2007). In other words, being different can also be perceived as highly valuable by existing teams. Although the team literature (West, 2002; Ruef, et al., 2003; Choi & Thompson, 2005) has successfully argued for acceptance based on characteristics that are similar to the old-timers, knowledge about perceptions of old-timers in accepting newcomers that are not similar to the old-timers is incomplete. Therefore this study will try to find an answer to the following research question: “Under what circumstances are newcomers that are not similar to existing teams
accepted by existing teams?”
recommended as the key to retaining a workforce with the flexibility and organizational commitment necessary to meet competitive challenges (Kristof, 1996). This research takes an old-timer perspective to examine when teams accept newcomers who are not similar to existing teams. Therefore not only the supplementary, but also the complementary fit literature is used.
Besides making a theoretical contribution by linking the P-O fit literature with the newcomer integration literature, this study can be helpful in understanding the acceptance process of a newcomer. This study extends the research of Muchinsky & Monahan (1987) by examining how perceptions of fit (i.e., supplementary fit and complementary fit) and the need for creative behavior affect the relationship between similarity and newcomer acceptance. Keeping in mind that team members have a strong preference for similarity (Ruef, et al., 2003) we suppose that we will find a positive indirect effect of supplementary fit. Next to that we suppose that the role of complementary fit will depend on the need for creative behavior, in terms of adding something what the team is missing (Piasentin & Chapman, 2007). In addition, we suppose that we will find a positive relationship between complementary fit and newcomer acceptance.
2. THEORY
Similarity and newcomer acceptance
Teams tend to have a strong preference for familiarity (Liang, Moreland, & Argote, 1995; Cable & Judge, 1996). Familiarity encourages communication (Flowers, 1977), individual expression (Arrow & McGrath, 1993), and interpersonal trust (Collins, 2001), which favors better functioning of a team. Rink, Kane, Ellemers, & van der Vegt (2013) argued that teams often believe it is functional to repeat behavioral patterns that worked well in the past. Better functioning of a team may eventually lead to higher levels of newcomer acceptance. Based on aforementioned literature I expect that when a team adds a newcomer with the same characteristics, such as gender and personality, this person should be accepted more easily within an existing team. Muchinsky & Monahan (1987) indeed showed that individuals are easier accepted when the interests are similar to the group norm. In addition Kane & Rink (2015) showed that groups accepted new members on basis of the characteristics of social similarity. Therefore I hypothesize that similarity of a newcomer to the existing group members is positively related to newcomer acceptance.
Hypothesis 1: similarity is positively related to newcomer acceptance by existing members.
Similarity and supplementary fit
Researching both individual (e.g. newcomers) and contextual (e.g. team composition) factors is the main focus within the P-O fit literature (Kristof, 1996; Muchinsky & Monahan, 1987). Moreland & Levine (1982) argued that newcomers are more likely to be accepted by teams when newcomers demonstrate their commitment to the team. Moreover, if old-timers perceive that aforementioned characteristics match the organization and the team characteristics there could be a possible fit between the organization and the newcomer (Muchinsky & Monahan, 1987). Research showed that old-timers accept new members on basis of the characteristics of social similarity (Kane & Rink, 2015). Additionally, Choi & Price (2005) showed that if values between the organization and individuals are strongly related there is a higher level of commitment to the organization. Consequently, a higher level of commitment leads to a better functioning team, and leads to a higher level of supplementary fit. Therefore I hypothesize that there is a positive relationship between the extent to which characteristics of a newcomer are similar to the characteristics of existing team members and the extent to which existing members perceive supplementary fit.
Hypothesis 2a: similarity is positively related to the level of supplementary fit as perceived by the existing team members.
Supplementary fit and newcomer acceptance
Supplementary fit represents the relationship between the fundamental characteristics of an organization or team and a person (Kristof, 1996). Moreland & Levine (1982) noted that when new team members behave in the manner expected of them, they are more likely to be accepted by others, thus signifying the importance of socially attractive behaviors of newcomers. If newcomers do not behave in a socially attractive manner, their presence may be perceived as a threat to the group's identity and increase the need for differentiation from them, thereby causing the group to refuse to accept the newcomers as in-group members (Joardar et al., 2007). I expect that old-timers more easily accept newcomers that possess characteristics that are similar to the old-timer of an existing team.
believe that they fit well with an organization tend to leave. Over time, employees become more similar to each other in terms of their attitudes, values and personalities (Saraç, Efil, & Eryilmaz, 2014). Those fundamental characteristics will eventually build a strong supplementary fit, based on similarity (Choi & Thompson, 2005). Additionally, Muchinsky & Monahan (1987) showed that newcomers are more likely to be accepted when they are socially similar to the existing team members. Based on the previous I hypothesize that if there is a high level of supplementary fit the newcomer is more easily accepted, since there is a match between the team and the person in terms of values and personalities.
Hypothesis 2b: the level of supplementary fit as perceived by the existing team members is positively related to newcomer acceptance by existing team members.
Mediation model
The P-O fit literature, especially the supplementary fit literature, argues for higher acceptance levels of newcomers based on similar characteristics (West, 2002; Choi & Thompson, 2005 and Kristof, 1996). Based on the previous arguments and hypotheses 2a and 2b provided in the previous section, I propose and therefore hypothesize that there is an indirect effect between similarity and newcomer acceptance by existing team members, which is mediated by old-timer perceptions of supplementary fit.
Hypothesis 2c: the positive indirect relationship between similarity and newcomer acceptance by existing team members is mediated by supplementary fit.
Similarity and complementary fit moderated by the need for creative behavior
threat for the existing team (Moreland & Levine, 1982; Choi & Thompson, 2005). Additionally Rink et al. (2013) argued that teams often believe it is functional to repeat behavioral patterns that worked well in the past. This implies that from old-timers perspective teams tend to look for similar people (Choi & Thompson, 2005). However, within the complementary fit literature it seems from an old-timers’ perspective that being similar does not add much value to the organization (Piasentin & Chapman, 2007). In other words, being different can also be perceived as highly valuable by existing teams. Thus, complementary fit occurs when an individual possesses unique characteristics that are perceived by old-timers to be different from other employees’ characteristics, yet valuable to the organization (Piasentin & Chapman, 2007; Kristof, 1996). Therefore, I propose that there is a negative relationship between similarity of a newcomer and the level of perceived complementary fit by old-timers.
Therefore I suggest that if there is a high need for creative behavior newcomers who are not similar will be more easily accepted. Newcomers will add what old-timers are missing within their team. In line with this reasoning I propose that if there is a high need for creative behavior, this will strengthen the negative relationship between similarity and complementary fit. Hence, I hypothesize that the need for creative behavior strengthens the negative relationship between newcomer similarity and the level of complementary fit.
Hypothesis 3a: the negative relationship between similarity and the level of complementary fit as perceived by the existing team members is moderated by the need for creative behavior; this relation is stronger when the need for creative behavior is higher.
Complementary fit and newcomer acceptance
The basis for a good fit is the mutually balancing pattern of relevant characteristics between the person and the environment (Muchinsky & Monahan, 1987). Once a complementary fit is perceived from old-timers perspective I expect the same outcomes as supplementary fit, since the newcomer is adjusted to the organization. In line with the reasoning of hypothesis 2b (Saraç et al., 2014; Muchinsky & Monahan, 1987) I hypothesize that a high level of complementary fit is positively related to newcomer acceptance, since there is a match between the ability of newcomers to display creative behavior and the need of the old-timers for creative behavior.
Hypothesis 3b: the level of complementary fit as perceived by the existing team members is positively related to newcomer acceptance by existing team members.
Moderation-mediation model
3. METHODOLOGY
Sample and procedure
In order to test the formulated hypotheses, online surveys were distributed. Data were collected among students of The Faculty of Economics and Business and employees with various organizational and occupational backgrounds. The survey was initially spread through social media channels, inviting respondents to complete an online survey. All participants were requested to fill out the digital survey on the Internet. The surveys started with a scenario, and respondents received one of four versions of the survey (the type of scenario varied in each version). Thereafter, questions were asked based on the scenario, including questions about perceptions of fit and newcomers acceptance. The questionnaire ended with questions concerning the participant’s general background (Appendix A). In total 174 surveys were filled in, with 139 being filled in entirely, the other 35 respondents were dropped from the analyses. A large number of the respondents consisted of students, namely 86 of the 139 completed surveys. This represents 61.8 % of the total number of respondents. Of the respondents 67.6 % were female, 99.4 % were Dutch (0.60 % was German) and 65.9 % had a university degree as the highest level of education (M = 6.73, SD = 0.67). The participants’ age ranged from 16 years to 69 years, with a mean age of 29.90 years (SD = 14.3). 105 participants had paid work varying from ten hours to sixty hours per week.
In this study a 2 (similarity: low vs. high) x 2 (need for creative behavior: low vs. high) design was used. Within this scenario-based survey, similarity and need for creative behavior were manipulated. The scenario in the low [high] similarity and low {high} need for creative behavior conditions read as follows:
team will need a lot of creativity to deal with this}. Therefore management has recently decided to add a new member to your team. The new member has the Dutch [British] nationality and studied econometrics [sociology].
Measures
Perceived perceptions of Person-Organization fit: an adapted form of a measure based on questions used by Cable and Judge (1996) was used to assess employees’ perceived P-O fit. Within the adapted version a distinction was made between perceptions of supplementary fit and perceptions of complementary fit. Respondents rated each item on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree (1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = somewhat disagree, 4 = neither agree nor disagree, 5 = somewhat agree, 6 = agree, 7 = strongly agree).
Supplementary fit: items included questions such as “I expect that the personality of the newcomer will be similar to that of the existing members of the team”, “I expect that the personal values of the newcomer will be similar to those of the team” and “I expect that the newcomer shares a lot in common with people who work in this team” (see Appendix A). In total the measure consisted of six items and a Cronbach’s α reliability of the measure was found to be 0.84.
Complementary fit: items included questions such as “I expect that the newcomer is important to this team because he/she can bring complementary skills and abilities to the team”, “I expect that the personal values of the newcomer complement the values of the team” and “I expect that as a team we will rely on the newcomer because he/she has competences that we do not have” (see also Appendix A). In total the measure consisted of eight items and a Cronbach’s α reliability of the measure was found to be 0.85.
Table 1). The factor loadings suggest that the 14 items measure two distinct constructs. The first factor was based on the first six items and the second factor was based on the last eight items. These variables will be presented as “perceptions of supplementary fit” (component 1) and “perceptions of complementary fit” (component 2).
TABLE 1
Factor values Principal Component Analysis 1
Component 1 Component 2 1. I expect that the personality of the newcomer will be similar
to that of the existing team members.
.03 .80
2. I expect that the personal values of the newcomer will be similar to those of the team.
.06 .83
3. I expect that the newcomer shares a lot in common with people who work in this team.
.02 .80
4. I expect that the skills and abilities of the newcomer match the skills and abilities the team looks for in new team members.
.16 .61
5. I expect that the newcomer is likely to have the same perspective on work as existing team members do.
.17 .73
6. I expect that as a team we will value the newcomer as a ‘typical’ employee.
.08 .70
7. I expect that the newcomer is important to this team, because he/she can bring complementary skills and abilities to the team.
.76 .15
8. I expect that the personal values of the newcomer
complement the values of the team. .73 .25
9. I expect that as a team we will rely on the newcomer because he/she has competences we do not have.
.63 .07
10. I expect that when key decisions are made the new team member will be a good addition, because he/she has a different perspective than we do.
.75 -.04
11. I expect that the newcomer will be likely to bring expertise to the team that we need.
.78 .20
12. I expect that the newcomer will be the unique piece of the puzzle that makes this team work.
.72 .09
13. I expect that the personality of the newcomer will complement the personalities of the other team members.
.68 .13
14. I expect that as a team we will value the newcomer as different from the ‘typical employee.
.55 -.21
Eigenvalue 4.28 3.21
Variance (%) 30.59 22.91
Note. Numbers are factor loadings. Factor loadings in bold within one column are grouped together in subsequent analyses. Component 1 = perceptions of supplementary fit; component 2 = perceptions of complementary fit.
Newcomer acceptance included items such as “I expect that it will be easy to get along with the newcomer”, “I expect that I will feel comfortable with the newcomer” and “I expect that I will personally like the newcomer” (Appendix A). In total the measure consisted of nine items and a Cronbach’s α reliability of the measure was found to be 0.91. To assess whether these nine items represent a single construct, a principal component analysis with direct oblimin rotation was performed. The results of the principal component analysis are presented in Table 2. As expected, one component had an eigenvalue above the Kaiser’s criterion of 1 and explained in total 59.10 % of the variance. The eigenvalue of this component was 5.28 (Table 2). Table 2 shows the values of the factor loadings. Based on this analysis we can conclude that the nine items represent one construct measuring “newcomer acceptance”.
TABLE 2
Factor values Principal Component Analysis 2
Component 1 1. I expect that it will be easy to get along with the newcomer. .82
2. I expect that I will feel comfortable with the newcomer. .78
3. I expect that I will personally like the newcomer. .81
4. I expect that I can easily accept the newcomer as a member of our team. .85
5. I expect that I will treat the newcomer with respect. .74
6. I expect that I will easily accept the ideas of the newcomer. .73
7. I expect that the newcomer will be valuable for the team. .79
8. I expect that I will make use of the fresh look of the newcomer. .71
9. I expect that I will immediately trust the newcomer. .67
Eigenvalue 5.28
Variance (%) 59.10
Note. Numbers are factor loadings. Factor loadings in bold within one column are grouped together in subsequent analyses. Component 1 = newcomer acceptance.
Manipulation checks
4. RESULTS
Descriptive statistics and correlations
In Table 3 the descriptive statistics and correlations among the variables used in this study are shown. Table 3 shows that similarity has a significant negative correlation with supplementary fit (r = - .39) and newcomer acceptance (r = - .26) at the p = 0.01 level. Furthermore, supplementary fit significantly correlates with newcomer acceptance (r = .71) at the p = 0.01 level. Next to this, complementary fit is also significantly correlated with newcomer acceptance (r = .27) at the p = 0.01 level. The correlation matrix shows that the control variables gender, age, and education do not have significant relations with the variables used, except for the relationship between gender (r = .22) and supplementary fit. The relationship between gender and supplementary fit is significant at the p = 0.05 level.
TABLE 3
Descriptive Statistics for all study variables
Variable M SD 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 1. Similaritya 1.52 0.50 - 2. NeedForCBb 1.51 0.50 .02 - 3. Supplementary Fit 4.15 1.20 - .39** - .07 .84 4. Complementary Fit 4.84 0.93 .07 - .05 .12 .85 5. NewcomerAcceptance 5.04 0.95 - .26** - .04 .71** .27** .91 6. Genderc 1.68 0.47 - .02 - .05 .22* .04 .10 - 7. Age 29.90 14.34 .03 - .05 - .03 - .00 - .03 - .14 - 8. Educationd 6.73 0.67 .02 .02 - .11 - .08 - .05 - .08 - .05 - N 166 166 148 141 140 139 139 139
Note. Scale reliabilities (Cronbach’s α) are on the diagonal. Dashes indicate that there is no scale reliability to report. **: Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
*: Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
a: Dummy coded: 0 = similar, 1 = dissimilar.
b: Need for creative behavior, dummy coded: 0 = low, 1 = high. c: 1 = male, 2 = female.
d: 1 = primary education, 2 = lower vocational education, 3 = high school / preparatory secondary vocational education, 4 = intermediate
Manipulation checks
To check whether our manipulation checks indeed had the suggested effects we performed two-way ANOVAs. This first two-way ANOVA was performed with the manipulation check of similarity as dependent variable and similarity and the need for creative behavior as fixed factors. This test revealed an effect for similarity, F (1, 135) = 11.62, p = < .01. Respondents in the high condition reported higher levels of similarity (M = 6.40, SD = 1.71) than respondents in the lower condition (M = 5.40, SD = 1.77).
The second two-way ANOVA was performed with the manipulation check of the need for creative behavior as dependent variable and similarity and the need for creative behavior as fixed factors. This test revealed an effect for the need for creative behavior, F (1, 135) = 4.76, p = < .05. Respondents in the high condition reported higher levels of similarity (M = 7.52, SD = 1.80) than respondents in the lower condition (M = 6.84, SD = 1.89).
Taken together, we can conclude from these two-way ANOVAs that both of the manipulation checks were successful. However, the effect of the similarity manipulation was stronger than the effect of the need for creative behavior manipulation. Due to the fact that the formulation of the manipulation check for the need for creative behavior was weak, the process of answering the scenario questions may have been influenced.
Hypotheses testing
In order to test the formulated hypotheses we first conducted a one-way ANOVA, thereafter a two-way ANOVA was performed. Moreover, PROCESS regression analyses were performed. These tests were intended to test whether there are mediation and moderated-mediation effects among similarity, the need for creative behavior, perceptions of fit, and newcomer acceptance. The conceptual model used in this study is presented in Appendix B.
showed that the main effect of similarity on newcomer acceptance is significant, F (1, 138) = 9.77, p < .01. The descriptive statistics showed that newcomer acceptance is higher when the newcomer is similar (M = 5.29, SD = .76) than when the newcomer is dissimilar (M = 4.80, SD = 1.05). So, based on this one-way ANOVA, which find a positive effect of similarity on newcomer acceptance, we can conclude that hypothesis 1 is supported.
Hypothesis 2a. To examine hypothesis 2a, which predicted a positive relationship between similarity and perceptions of supplementary fit, we first conducted a regression analysis. For this test we used Model 4 of the PROCESS tool of Hayes (2013). The results of the regression analysis are presented in Table 4. This test was performed with newcomer acceptance as dependent variable, similarity as independent variable (dummy coded), and supplementary fit as mediator. In this test supplementary fit was the mediator between similarity and newcomer acceptance. This test showed that the relationship between similarity and perceptions of supplementary fit is significant, B = - .94, t = - 4.96, p = < .01. So, based on this regression analysis, which find a significant relationship between similarity and perceptions of supplementary fit, we can conclude that hypothesis 2a is supported.
Hypothesis 2b. To examine hypothesis 2b, which predicted a positive relationship between perceptions of supplementary fit and newcomer acceptance, we conducted a regression analysis. The results of the regression analysis are presented in Table 4. Again, this test was performed with newcomer acceptance as dependent variable, similarity as independent variable (dummy coded), and supplementary fit as mediator. In this test supplementary fit was the mediator between similarity and newcomer acceptance. The test showed that the relationship between perceptions of supplementary fit and newcomer acceptance is significant, B = 0.56, t = 10.89, p = < .01. So, based on this regression analysis, which find a significant relationship between perceptions of supplementary and newcomer acceptance, we can conclude that hypothesis 2b is supported.
The output of the regression analysis performed to examine hypotheses 2a and 2b, is also used for testing hypothesis 2c. In this case, while similarity was a significant predictor for both the dependent and the mediator variables it is no longer significant in the presence of the mediator variable, B = .04, t = .32, p =. 75. This confirms the mediation effect. Furthermore, the test showed that the indirect relationship between similarity and newcomer acceptance is significant (see indirect effect, Table 4). So, based on this regression analysis, which find a positive indirect relationship between similarity and newcomer acceptance, we can conclude that hypothesis 2c is supported.
Indirect effectb
B SE LLCI ULCI
Supplementary fit - .53 .13 - .83 - .31
a : Dummy coded: 0 = similar, 1 = dissimilar
b: Indirect effect of Similarity on Newcomer Acceptance
***: Significant at the 0.01 level
Hypothesis 3a. To examine hypothesis 3a, which predicted a negative relationship between similarity and perceptions of complementary fit and a moderating role of the need for creative behavior on the relationship between similarity and perceptions of complementary fit, we first conducted a two-way ANOVA. This test was performed with complementary fit as dependent variable and similarity and need for creative behavior as fixed factors. In Table 5 the means and standard deviations for similarity and need for creative behavior are displayed. The ANOVA test showed that the main effect of similarity on perceptions of complementary fit is not significant, F (1, 137) = .67, p = .42. There was no significant effect of the need for creative behavior on perceptions of complementary fit, F (1, 137) = .35, p = .56. Additionally, we did not find a significant interaction effect between similarity and the need for creative behavior, F (1, 137) = .23, p = .63. Since there is no
TABLE 4
Regression Analysis of Supplementary Fit and Newcomer Acceptance
Supplementary fit Newcomer Acceptance
Intercept 4.61 (34.03)*** 2.70 (10.74)***
Similaritya - .94 (- 4.96)*** .04 (.32)
Supplementary fit .56 (10.89)***
R .39 .71
effect of the need for creative behavior there is not a moderating role of the need for creative behavior. So, based on this two-way ANOVA, which did not find a negative relationship between similarity and perceptions of complementary fit and neither a moderating effect of the need for creative behavior, we can conclude that hypothesis 3a is not supported.
a: NeedforCB = need for creative behavior, dummy coded: 0 = low, 1 = high. b : Mean and (standard deviation).
Hypothesis 3b. To examine hypothesis 3b, which predicted a positive relationship between perceptions of complementary fit and newcomer acceptance, we conducted a regression analysis. For this test we used Model 7 of the PROCESS tool of Hayes (2013). The results of the regression analysis are presented in Table 6. This test was performed with newcomer acceptance as dependent variable, similarity as independent variable (dummy coded), complementary fit as mediator and need for creative behavior as moderator (dummy coded). In this test complementary fit was the mediator between similarity and newcomer acceptance. Additionally, the need for creative behavior was the moderator on the relationship between similarity and complementary fit. The test showed that the relationship between perceptions of complementary fit and newcomer acceptance is significant, B = 0.30, t = 3.68, p = <. 01. So, based on this regression analysis, which find a significant relationship between perceptions of complementary fit and newcomer acceptance, we can conclude that hypothesis 3b is supported.
Hypothesis 3c. To examine hypothesis 3c, which predicted a negative indirect relationship between similarity and newcomer acceptance as mediated by perceptions of complementary fit and a moderating role of the need for creative behavior on the relationship between similarity and
TABLE 5
Means and Standard Deviations for Similarity and the Need for Creative Behavior
Similarity
Similar Dissimilar
NeedForCB
Lowa NeedForCB High NeedForCB Low NeedForCB High
perceptions of complementary fit, we conducted a regression analysis. The output of the regression analysis performed to examine hypothesis 3b, is also used for testing hypothesis 3c. The results of the regression analysis are presented in Table 6. The test showed that indirect relationship between similarity and newcomer acceptance is not significant. The moderating effect of the need for creative behavior is not significant either. So, based on this regression analysis, which did not find a positive indirect relationship between similarity and newcomer acceptance and neither a moderating effect of the need for creative behavior, we can conclude that hypothesis 3c is rejected.
Conditional indirect effects
B SE LLCI ULCI
NeedforCB low .06 .06 - .03 .21
NeedforCB high .01 .08 -. 17 .14
a: Dummy coded: 0 = similar, 1 = dissimilar.
b: NeedforCB = need for creative behavior, dummy coded: 0 = low, 1 = high.
***: Significant at the 0.01 level.
TABLE 6
Regression Analysis of Complementary Fit and Newcomer Acceptance
Complementary fit Newcomer Acceptance
5. DISCUSSION
General discussion and findings
Previous research suggests that not all newcomers are directly accepted within an existing team (Moreland & Levine, 1982; Choi & Thompson, 2005). The objective of the current study was to provide insights into the process of accepting a newcomer within an existing team. The present study investigated the mediating role of perceptions of supplementary fit on the relationship between similarity and newcomer acceptance. Additionally, this study investigated the moderating role of the need for creative behavior on the relationship between similarity and perceptions of complementary fit and subsequently, the relationship between perceptions of complementary fit and newcomer acceptance was examined. In this study, a 2 (similarity: low vs. high) x 2 (need for creative behavior: low vs. high) design was used. Within this scenario-based survey similarity and need for creative behavior were manipulated.
Besides, moderated-mediation analysis was not significant. The moderation effect of the need for creative behavior on the relationship between similarity and perceptions of complementary fit was not significant. Further, the indirect effect was not significant for high or low need for creative behavior (see conditional indirect effects, Table 6). This means that the need for creative behavior, from an existing team member perspective, did not influence the relationship between similarity and perceptions of complementary fit.
A possible reason for the lack of support for the moderating role of the need for creative behavior was the weak manipulation check for this variable. Additionally, as the results of the manipulation checks showed, there was a significant effect of both manipulation checks. However, the effect of the similarity manipulation was stronger than the effect of the need for creative behavior manipulation. The weak formulation of the manipulation of need for creative behavior may have affected the process of answering the scenario questions and therefore the results of the hypotheses. Our results supported almost all of our predicted hypotheses, but they bear implications for theoretical perspectives. These implications, as well as some methodological and managerial issues, are elaborated on in the remainder of this section.
Theoretical implications
when the interests are similar to the norms of an existing group. Our first hypothesis predicted a positive relationship between similarity and newcomer acceptance as a basis for this research. As expected and in line with previous research from Muchinsky & Monahan (1987) and Kane & Rink (2015) this hypothesis was supported. Teams tend to accept a newcomer easier when he/she possesses characteristics that are similar to the existing team, which eventually lead to perceptions of fit. When those characteristics are similar to those of existing team members, high levels of commitment are achieved. For this reason, it is crucial to understand the effect of the characteristics of a newcomer on the effects of the acceptance process.
Unfortunately, this study did not explain the effects in the literature concerning the relationship between similarity and perceptions of complementary fit. Moreover, the moderating effect of the need for creative behavior was not supported. Saraç et al. (2014) argued that adding a creative, unique person to a team might lead to new, useful insights and ideas. Old-timers perceive that newcomers who are different (e.g., being creative) are highly valuable and able to add what the existing team needs (Piasentin & Chapman, 2007; Saraç et al., 2014). Joardar et al. (2007) stated that once those ideas are accepted this eventually may lead to higher levels of newcomer acceptance. This did not happened in this study. An explanation for this can be found in the literature of Schneider (1987), where he argues that similarity is crucial in attracting and retaining employees, which is a good basis for newcomer acceptance. The effects of similarity (Schneider, 1987) and similar characteristics (Choi & Price, 2005) dominate the effects of dissimilarity (Moreland & Levine, 1982) and the risk that comes with accepting a newcomer (Rubenson & Runco, 1995).
Practical implications
The present study may help teams by providing insights into the process of accepting a newcomer within an existing team. Proper functioning of teams is crucial for organizations (Ilgen et al., 2005). Adding a new team member may have the potential to offer a fresh look at how things are done (Harris et al., 2014). So far, it was unclear under what circumstances new team members were more easily accepted. This research shows that the perceptions of fit are crucial in the process of accepting a newcomer within an existing team. The results showed that newcomers are more easily accepted when they possess characteristics that are similar to the existing team members. In encouraging the process of accepting the newcomer organizations must be aware of the composition of the team. In adding a newcomer organizations must add a team member with several similar characteristics as the existing team.
Although adding a team member who possesses several similar characteristics may seem the most logical for organizations, adding a team member who is in some ways different may also be very beneficial for organizations. In line with the reasoning of the perceptions of complementary fit, team members that are different may be helpful in gaining new insights. Moreover, the results showed that once levels of complementary fit are achieved and newcomers provide novel and useful ideas they are also more easily accepted.
Limitations and future research
A few limitations of the present study and directions for future research should be noted. The first limitation concerns the type of study that was performed. We obtained the data by performing a scenario study; within this study the behavior and responses of respondents are not real but hypothetical. This implies that people could have responded differently than they would have done in real-life. However, an advantage of a scenario study is the possibility of revealing a causal relationship between variables. An interesting extension of our study is to perform a field study to examine whether old-timers respond differently within this type of study.
of the need for creative behavior. However, this effect did not have the intended effects. Future research that includes a stronger manipulation check of the need for creative behavior might reveal better insights in the possible effects of the need for creative behavior.
Another limitation is that the results of this study are based on self-report data. It is frequently suggested that people respond in socially desirable ways in order to cover disliked behavioral tendencies. Future research may also benefit from gathering data through open questions or by performing a field study.
Lastly, a longitudinal study could give insights in the accepting process. The level of newcomer acceptance may become higher over time. Combining several study methods may lead to higher levels of understanding of the accepting process. Scenario studies may reveal causal relationships between variables, whereas longitudinal studies are able to show patterns of a variable over time. Future research could perform a longitudinal study with several study methods combined and examine whether the level of newcomer acceptance of a similar or dissimilar newcomer might change in the longer term.
Future research that examines what existing team members really need from a new team member, may benefit from other insights than found is the present study. Researching the kind of creativity or type (e.g. personality, age, gender) of person needed within the existing team may lead to new interesting insights that go beyond the objective of this study.
Conclusion
6. REFERENCES
Atuahene-Gima, K. 2003. The effects of centrifugal and centripetal forces on product development speed and quality: How does problem solving matter?. Academy of Management Journal, 46: 359-373.
Arrow, H., & McGrath, J. E. 1993. Membership matters. Small Group Research, 24: 334–361.
Bauer, T., Bodner, T., Erdogan, B., & Truxillo, D. 2007. Newcomer Adjustment During Organizational Socialization: A MetaAnalytic Review of Antecedents, Outcomes, and Methods. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92: 707-721.
Bird, B. 1989. Entrepreneurial behavior. Glenview, IL: Scott Foresman.
Bunderson, J. S., Van der Vegt, G. S., & Sparrowe, R. T. 2014. Status inertia and member replacement in role-differentiated teams. Organization Science, 25: 57–72.
Cable, D. M., & Judge, T. A. 1996. Person–organization fit, job choice decisions, and organizational entry. Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 67: 294-311.
Choi, J. N. 2004. Person–environment fit and creative behavior: Differential impacts of supplies– values and demands–abilities versions of fit. Human Relations, 57: 531-552.
Choi, J. N., & Price, R. H. 2005. The effects of person-innovation fit on individual responses to innovation. Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology, 78: 83-96.
Choi, H. S., & Thompson, L. 2005. Old wine in a new bottle: Impact of membership change on group creativity. Organizational Behavior and human decision processes, 98: 121-132.
Collins, H. M. 2001. Tacit knowledge, trust and the Q of sapphire. Social Studies of Science, 31: 71– 85.
Flowers, M. L. 1977. A laboratory test of some implications of Janis' groupthink hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35: 888-896.
Forbes, D. P., Borchert, P. S., Zellmer-Bruhn, M. E., & Sapienza, H. J. 2006. Entrepreneurial team formation: An exploration of new member addition. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 30: 225-248.
Griffin, A. E. C., Colella, A., & Goparaju, S. 2000. Newcomer and organizational socialization tactics: an interactionist perspective. Human Resource Management Review, 10: 453-474.
Goodman, P. S., & Garber, S. 1988. Absenteeism and accidents in a dangerous environment: Empirical analysis of underground coalmines. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73: 81–86.
Goodman, P. S., & Leyden, D. P. 1991. Familiarity and group productivity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76: 578–586.
Harris, T. B., Li, N., Boswell, W. R., Zhang, X. A., & Xie, Z. 2014. Getting what's new from newcomers: Empowering leadership, creativity, and adjustment in the socialization context. Personnel Psychology, 67: 567-604.
Ilgen, D. R., Hollenbeck, J. R., Johnson, M., & Jundt, D. 2005. Teams in organizations: From Input-Process-Output Models to IMOI Models. Annual Review of Psychology, 56: 517-543.
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.
Kane, A. A., & Rink, F. 2015. How newcomers influence group utilization of their knowledge: Integrating versus differentiating strategies. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 19: 91-105.
Kurtzberg, T. R. 2005. Feeling creative, being creative: An empirical study of diversity and creativity in teams. Creativity Research Journal, 17: 51-65.
Liang, D. W., Moreland, R., & Argote, L. 1995. Group versus individual training and group-performance: The mediating role of transactive memory. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21: 384–393.
Livingstone, L. P., Nelson, D. L., & Barr, S. H. 1997. Person-environment fit and creativity: An examination of supply-value and demand-ability versions of fit. Journal of Management, 23: 119-146.
Mathiyalakan, S. 2002. A methodology for controlled empirical investigation of membership continuity and change in GDSS groups. Decision Support Systems, 32: 279–295.
McGrath, J. E. 1984. Groups: Interaction and performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice.
McGrath, J. E., Arrow H., & Berdahl, J. L. 2000. The study of groups: past, present, and future. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 4: 95–105.
Menon, A., Jaworski, B. J., & Kohl, A. K. 1997. Product quality: Impact of interdepartmental interactions. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 25: 187-200.
Milliken, F. J., & Martins, L. L. 1996. Searching for common threads: Understanding the multiple effects of diversity in organizational groups. Academy of Management Review, 21: 402–433.
Moreland, R. L., & Levine, J. M. 1982. Socialization in small-groups: Temporal changes in individual-group relations. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 15: 137–192.
Piasentin, K. A., & Chapman, D. S. 2007. Perceived similarity and complementarity as predictors of subjective person-organization fit. Journal of Occupational and Organizational
Psychology, 80: 341-354.
Pisano, G. P., Bohmer, R. M. J., & Edmondson, A. C. 2001. Organizational differences in rates of learning: Evidence from the adoption of minimally invasive cardiac surgery. Management Science, 47: 752–768.
Rink, F. A., & Ellemers, N. 2009. Temporary versus permanent group membership: How the future prospects of newcomers affect newcomer acceptance and newcomer influence. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35: 764-775.
Rink, F., Kane, A. A., Ellemers, N., & Van der Vegt, G. 2013. Team receptivity to newcomers: Five decades of evidence and future research themes. The Academy of Management Annals, 7(1): 247-293.
Rogers, M. S., Ford, J. D., & Tassone, J. A. 1961. The effects of personnel replacement on an information-processing crew. Journal of Applied Psychology, 45: 91–96.
Rubenson, D. L., & Runco, M. A. 1995. The psychoeconomic view of creative work in groups and organizations. Creativity and Innovation Management, 4: 232-241.
Ruef, M., Aldrich, H. E., & Carter, N. 2003. The structure of founding teams: Homophily, strong ties, and isolation among U.S. entrepreneurs. American Sociological Review, 68: 195–225.
Saraç, M., Efil, I., & Eryilmaz, M. 2014. A study of the relationship between person-organization fit and employee creativity. Management Research Review, 37: 479-501.
Schneider, B. 1987. People make the place. Personnel Psychology, 40: 437-453.
APPENDIX A
Survey
Dear participant,
Thank you for taking the time to complete this survey. This survey is part of master thesis
research performed at the Faculty of Economics and Business of the University of Groningen.
This survey is meant to assess how people respond to newcomers in their work team and will
take approximately 7 minutes to complete.
In the survey, you will be asked to read a scenario and answer some questions about the
situation that is described. Please be honest when responding to the questions. There are no
right and wrong answers, because we ask for your opinion. All responses are completely
anonymous. Please let me know if you have any questions.
By participating in this research, you agree to the above conditions and that your responses
will be used for the purpose of scientific research.
Kind regards,
Willemijn Stoker
W.l.m.stoker@student.rug.nl
Please carefully read the following text. After reading the text you will be asked some
questions about the situation that is described.
Please imagine the following situation:
Scenario 1: newcomer similar, need for creative behavior low
organization. Therefore management has recently decided to add a new member to your team.
The new member has the Dutch nationality and studied econometrics.
Please imagine the following situation:
Scenario 2: newcomer different, need for creative behavior low
You are a member of a team that works for a large consulting firm that provides professional
advice to other organizations. Your team currently consists of four people including yourself.
You and your fellow team members have been working together for quite some time now.
The atmosphere on the work floor is good. All members are Dutch and have a background in
economics or business administration. Management expects some drastic changes in your
organization. Therefore management has recently decided to add a new member to your team.
The new member has the British nationality and studied sociology.
Please imagine the following situation:
Scenario 3: newcomer similar, need for creative behavior high
You are a member of a team that works for a large consulting firm that provides professional
advice to other organizations. Your team currently consists of four people including yourself.
You and your fellow team members have been working together for quite some time now.
The atmosphere on the work floor is good. All members are Dutch and have a background in
economics or business administration. Management expects some drastic changes in your
organization and thinks that your team will need a lot of creativity to deal with this. Therefore
management has recently decided to add a new member to your team. The new member has
the Dutch nationality and studied econometrics.
Please imagine the following situation:
Scenario 4: newcomer different, need for creative behavior high
Based on the scenario you have read, we will now ask a few questions.
Respondents rated each item on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from strongly disagree to
strongly agree (1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = somewhat disagree, 4 = neither agree
nor disagree, 5 = somewhat agree, 6 = agree, 7 = strongly agree).
Perceptions of supplementary fit:
1. I expect that the personality of the newcomer will be similar to that of the existing
members of the team
2. I expect that the personal values of the newcomer will be similar to those of the team.
3. I expect that the newcomer shares a lot in common with people who work in this team.
4. I expect that the skills and abilities of the newcomer match the skills and abilities the
team looks for in new team members.
5. I expect that the newcomer is likely to have the same perspective on work as existing
team members do.
6. I expect that as a team we will value the newcomer as a ‘typical’ employee.
Perceptions of complementary fit:
1. I except that the newcomer is important to this team because he/she can bring
complementary skills and abilities to the team.
2. I expect that the personal values of the newcomer complement the values of the team.
3. I expect that as a team we will rely on the newcomer because he/she has competences
that we do not have.
4. I expect that when key decisions are made the new team member will be a good
addition, because he/she has a different perspective than we do.
5. I expect that the newcomer will be likely to bring expertise to the team that we need.
6. I expect that the newcomer will be the unique piece of the puzzle that makes this team
work.
7. I expect that the personality of the new team member will complement the
personalities of the other team members.
Acceptance of newcomer: an adapted from of a measure based on questions used by Rink and
Ellemers (2009) will be used to assess newcomer acceptance. The items are:
1. I expect that it will be easy to get along with the newcomer.
2. I expect that I will feel comfortable with the newcomer.
3. I expect that I will personally like the newcomer.
4. I expect that I can easily accept the newcomer as a member of our team.
5. I expect that I will treat the newcomer with respect.
6. I expect that I will easily accept the ideas of the newcomer.
7. I expect that the newcomer will be valuable for the team.
8. I expect that I will make use of the fresh look of the newcomer.
9. I expect that I will immediately trust the newcomer.
Manipulation check for independent variables
Similarity:
“To what degree is the newcomer similar to existing team members based on the scenario you
read? Please answer on a scale of 1-10, with 1 being not at all similar to 10 being very
similar.”
Need for creative behavior:
“To what degree does your team need creative ideas?” Please answer on a scale of 1-10, with
1 being that your team does not need creative ideas at all to 10 that your team is very much in
need of creative ideas.”
Additional information
1) What is your gender?
a) Male
b) Female
2) What is your age?
3a) Are you a student?
a) Yes
b) No
3b) Do you have paid work?
a) Yes
If yes: how many hours in a week?
4) What is your nationality?
5) What is your level of education?
1. Primary education
2. Lower vocational education
3. High school / preparatory secondary vocational education
4. Intermediate vocational education
5. Secondary school / pre-university education
6. Higher vocational education
7. University
6) On a scale from 1 to 7 I would describe myself as:
Respondents rated each item on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from strongly disagree to
strongly agree (1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = somewhat disagree, 4 = neither agree
nor disagree, 5 = somewhat agree, 6 = agree, 7 = strongly agree).
APPENDIX B
Conceptual Model
H 3c H 2c Newcomer Acceptance Supplementary Fit Complementary Fit SimilarityNeed for creative behavior
H 1
H 2a H 2b
