1
Newcomers and oldtimers: The correlation between selection procedures,
social identity, job performance and job satisfaction
Master thesis
MSc Human Resource Management University of Groningen Faculty of Economics and Business
February 3, 2017
YOANNA ALEKSANDROVA Student number: 3291928
Nieuwe Sint Jansstraat 6 9711 VJ Groningen Tel.: +49 176 81559051
E-mail: y.aleksandrova@student.rug.nl
Supervisor Thom de Vries
Faculty of Economics and Business
2 Newcomers and oldtimers: The correlation between selection procedures, social
identity, job performance and job satisfaction
ABSTRACT
The aim of this thesis is to examine the existing literature on selection procedures, social identity, job performance and job satisfaction and to identify and justify a missing link between these elements. The research was based on a field survey, conducted with the employees in approximately 20 German companies. The idea of the research was to investigate whether the strategic use of selection procedures, such as work samples and introduction of new employees (“newcomers”) to current team members (“oldtimers”), could foster efficient social integration within the team. The gap in theory is relevant to address, because newcomers’ social integration and social identity with current team members could improve individual performance and job satisfaction. This, in turn, could result in the company’s improved productivity and increase in profits.
The results of the analysis, however, showed that there is a negative direct effect on social identity when using introduction of newcomers to current team members. Moreover, the outcome revealed that the relationships between selection procedures and job performance and job satisfaction are mediated by social identity but in a negative way. Future research could examine whether these outcomes are correct by conducting the study on a larger scale. It is beneficial to examine these relationships further, because social integration and cooperation between colleagues are essential for employees to feel content in their work environment. In this way, personal outcomes, such as mutual respect and acceptance, exchange of know-how and relevant information are generated.
3 INTRODUCTION
In order to achieve higher business outcomes and reach optimal productivity, it is essential that organizations select new team members conscientiously, so that they interact well with current team members and share relevant knowledge amongst each other (Compton, Morrissey and Nankervis, 2009). Such cooperation depends on the team members’ characteristics and mutual acceptance, and lays down the foundation for an individual’s productivity and job satisfaction (Cascio, 2006). If individuals enjoy their work environment and retain stable interaction with their colleagues, they tend to be more productive and more satisfied with their job (Arnold, Coffeng, Boot, Van der Beek, Van Tulder, Nieboer, and Van Dongen, 2016). In contrast, if individuals do not enjoy a state of comfort within their current work atmosphere, many potential issues might arise such as, for instance, absenteeism in the workplace (McShane, 1987). Therefore, ensuring team cooperativeness through the strategic use of selection tools is beneficial to the company, because effective mutual effort could improve job satisfaction, boost productivity and contribute to an increase in profits.
4 The appropriate selection of a candidate using a work sample or prior introduction to current team members could facilitate quicker social integration and contribute to an employee’s social identity with their new team (Huckman, Staats and Upton, 2009; Horner, Mobley and Meglino, 1979). Social identity refers to the employees’ sense of belonging to a group (Ellemers, Gilder and Haslam, 2004). This sense of belonging is an important source of pride and self-esteem and could in turn have a great impact on the newcomer’s performance and job satisfaction (Turner and Oakes, 1986). Studies in social psychology suggest that social identity could be strengthened through human resource practices used in recruitment, selection, training and development, which aim to optimize the person-organization fit (Boon, Den Hartog, Boselie, and Paauwe, 2011).
However, in order to improve social integration, there are factors to be taken into consideration. I focus on team openness to new team contributions and team diversity. These two factors could affect social integration and social identity in either a positive or a negative way. The first factor refers to the team’s acceptance of new viewpoints and ideas. Teams that welcome new perspectives tend to maintain effective communication and foster a creative, problem-solving spirit (Horwitz and Horwitz, 2007). In contrast, if a team is not fostering the integration of new team members and is not open to new ideas, it could damage social identity and lead to poor newcomers’ performance and job dissatisfaction (Wright, et. al, 2006). The second factor is the extent of team diversity – whether a team is homogenous or differs in age, gender, experience, education, ethnicity. Research suggests that high team diversity has the potential to enhance social identity. The reason for this is that diverse teams tend to have a better cultural understanding, enriched flow of information and ideas and are more capable of creating a pleasant work environment for the newcomers (Flaherty, 2008).
5 there is no research that combines all of these correlations together. This research gap is important to address, because it could potentially lighten the process of newcomers’ initial adjustment and help them feel as a part of the team. In order to address the deficiency in existing research, I will focus on interpreting the mechanisms linking HR practices to performance and job satisfaction. I will try to close the gap by creating a link between selection procedures; team acceptance and team diversity; newcomers’ social identity with the team members; newcomers’ performance and job satisfaction.
The potential solution I offer is to investigate whether individual performance and job satisfaction could be improved by using an interview in combination with a work sample and introduction of newcomers to current team members prior to the selection process. Current team members could help newcomers to adjust substantially by providing information, feedback, role models, social relationships and support, as well as access to broader networks and other work-relevant resources (Major, Kozlowski, Chao and Gardner, 1995; Morrison, 2002). I believe that in this way a percentage of work conflicts and absenteeism could be successfully avoided (Wanous, Poland, Premack and Davis, 1992). Moreover, in this manner current team members (referred to as “oldtimers”) are able to observe potential candidates and participate in the decision-making and selection of a new contribution to their team. Hence, involving the oldtimers in the selection procedure could facilitate the integration of the newcomer and improve the newcomer’s social identity with the team (Breaugh and Starke, 2000). This could in turn result in contentment with the work place and enhanced job performance.
6 of resources to recruitment and selection tools should be carefully considered and executed. Instead of focusing on cost reduction in the selection process, companies should scrutinize the added value of improving their person-team match (Baron and Armstrong, 2007). In order to do so, firms could implement work samples or introduction of newcomers to oldtimers as selection procedures, instead of relying only on the traditional methods such as assessment centers and interviews.
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
Work sample
A work sample is defined as “testing techniques used in employee-selection to assess an individual's ability to learn the required skills and to perform the tasks associated with a particular job” (Wanous, et. al., 2005). According to literature, the work sample, also referred to as a “job preview”, aims to give job candidates an accurate preview of a job position (Horner, et. al., 1979). The ultimate advantage of such a preview is the fact that it creates realistic expectations about the company and the tasks performed on the job. This process is important because studies have shown that early turnover is related to the newcomers’ lack of realistic information and expectations concerning the job and the organization (Horner, et. al., 1979). Through the use of a work sample, unrealistic expectations could be avoided and adjustment might occur in an earlier stage. Moreover, because simulations are highly job-related, job applicants perceive the evaluation process as more fair than other selection tools (Heneman III, et al., 2011).
7 productivity and performance (Horner, et. al, 1979). Through the use of a work sample, the candidates would also be familiar with the new work environment and their assignments, and they could cope better with the new job position. In this manner, there is a higher chance that the employee has accurate expectations and would be satisfied with the job position (Templer, Tay and Chandrasekar, 2006). Therefore, we can conclude that the work sample leads to business outcomes such as job satisfaction and productive performance. This in turn will reduce the company’s turnover and the related costs, both of which are major managerial benefits. Therefore I hypothesize:
Hypothesis 1a:Implementation of a work sample as a selection instrument provides a positive direct effect on job performance.
Hypothesis 1b:Implementation of a work sample as a selection instrument provides a positive direct effect on job satisfaction.
Introduction of newcomers to current team members
8 The main advantage of introduction of newcomers to oldtimers and fostering familiarity is that it could potentially help teams handle task complexity more effectively. The reason behind this is that prior introduction and familiarity help team members to develop and improve the flow of information and the coordination with their teammates (Huckman, et. al., 2009). This in turn affects team performance in a positive way.
The benefit on the newcomers’ side is that when they are introduced to their potential future colleagues, they can make a more accurate decision of whether they would enjoy working with this team. This introduction provides newcomers with clearer role expectations, helps them cope with the new work environment and presents role models of employees who have successfully integrated into their job positions (Horner, et. al., 1979). These advantages reduce the initial amount of stressful situations and help newcomers to adjust to the new work environment more easily (Hinds, Carley, Krackhardt and Wholey, 2000). Moreover, when newcomers choose to accept the work position based on the introduction to oldtimers, it is more likely that they are satisfied with a work environment they chose themselves and colleagues that they are already familiar with (Hinds, et. al., 2000). Therefore, from the above mentioned arguments we can conclude that the use of prior introduction of newcomers to oldtimers could contribute to both higher job satisfaction and better performance. I hypothesize:
Hypothesis 2a: Introduction of newcomers to the current team members as a selection instrument provides a positive direct effect on job performance.
Hypothesis 2b: Introduction of newcomers to the current team members as a selection instrument provides a positive direct effect on job satisfaction.
Social identity
9 investigate is social identity. Research in social psychology examines individual’s characteristics in more detail and in particular: the conditions that encourage workers to invest energy in their work, the everyday activities that workers invest efforts in, and the underlying values that make workers continue investing time and energy into their work (Latham and Pinder, 2005) As a consequence of empirical research in this area (Ellemers, et. al., 2004; Ashforth and Mael, 1989; Heere, and James, 2007), social identity theories arise. These theories suggest that depending on the situation, newcomers could either identify themselves as individuals who interact with each other in different social settings or they identify themselves as a member of a group (Ellemers, et. al, 2004). Naturally, it is more beneficial for organizations when newcomers share the company’s values and goals and identify themselves as a part of the team. The reason for this is that the emergence of a collective social identity raises individual work motivation and directs employees’ efforts toward the enhancement of their performance (Heere, et. al., 2007).
Work sample and social identity
10 and attitudinal support towards the company and perception of shared characteristics with other colleagues (Witing, M., 2006). Such feelings increase the sense of belonging and improve the social identity within the organization and the team.
Once the newcomers have a sense of belonging to the team, they tend to appreciate the efforts of their colleagues more, which improves the flow of information, fosters a pleasant working atmosphere and increases their productivity (Morrison, 2002). As already mentioned, the emergence of a collective social identity raises individual work motivation and directs employees’ efforts toward the enhancement of their performance (Heere, et. al., 2007). Such outcomes could also potentially improve the newcomers’ contentment with the work place and enhance their job satisfaction (Ellemers, et. al., 2004). These conclusions are in in line with the examined potential direct effects of a work sample on individual performance and job satisfaction in hypotheses 1a and 1b. They implied that when an employee has accurate perceptions of the future job tasks, there is a higher chance that the employees would be satisfied with the job position and would perform better. Therefore, I hypothesize:
Hypothesis 3a: Implementation of a work sample as a selection instrument provides a positive direct effect on newcomers’ social identity with the current team members.
Hypothesis 3b: The positive relationship between a work sample and job performance is mediated by newcomers’ social identity.
Hypothesis 3c: The positive relationship between a work sample and job satisfaction is mediated by newcomers’ social identity.
Introduction of newcomers to current team members and social identity
11 is beneficial for newcomers to be introduced to the current team members prior to the selection process. In this way, newcomers can get to know their potential future colleagues and can decide, whether this is a team, they picture themselves working in. Additionally, as follows, oldtimers are able to participate in the selection process and are involved in the decision-making process (Heneman III, et. al, 2011). Once the candidate has been selected for the job, he or she has the advantage of being chosen by his or her new team members. This builds the basis for mutual acceptance and contributes to a sense of belonging to the team. Hence, the introduction of newcomers to oldtimers represents a step further in the social integration of newcomers, because this selection method would imply that there is already partial mutual acceptance and approval (Hinds, et. al., 2000).
12 multiple factors such as newcomers’ sense of belonging, social integration, individual performance and job satisfaction (Hinds, et. al., 2000). Therefore, I hypothesize:
Hypothesis 4a: Introduction of newcomers to the current team members as a selection instrument provides a positive direct effect on newcomers’ social identity with the current
team members.
Hypothesis 4b: The positive relationship between introduction of newcomers and job performance is mediated by newcomers’ social identity.
Hypothesis 4c: The positive relationship between introduction of newcomers and job satisfaction is mediated by newcomers’ social identity.
Team acceptance to newcomers and team diversity
Team acceptance to newcomers
13 Accordingly, there are conditions of low team acceptance and high team acceptance in different teams. Literature defines high team acceptance as a situation when a team is open to new team contributions and the team members facilitate the newcomer’s efficient integration (Flaherty, 2008). For instance, high team acceptance could be communicated through the provision of role models and supervisors, initiation of conversations and socializing events. Such activities demonstrate involvement and positive attitude towards the newcomers and contribute to the newcomers’ organizational knowledge, task mastery, and role clarity (Morrison, 2002). If oldtimers facilitate the socialization process actively, it could build the basis of rewarding and satisfying work relationships for both sides. Such connections can be a vital source of employees’ sense of belonging to the team, social identity with the team, productive performance and job satisfaction (Heere and James, 2007; Flaherty, 2008). As mentioned in the paragraphs above, the use of a work sample and introduction to newcomers could also lead to a social identity with the team, job performance and job satisfaction. Considering the arguments above we can conclude that when team acceptance is high, it affects the relationship between selection procedures, social identity, job performance and job satisfaction in a positive way. It allows the use of selection procedures to have a strong influence on social identity, job performance and job satisfaction.
14 employee turnover for the company, which is both costly and could lead to a bad reputation (Huselid, 1995). Based on the above mentioned arguments we can conclude that when team acceptance is low, it moderates the relationship between the use of selection procedures and social identity in a negative way. In contrast to high team acceptance, low team acceptance could potentially hinder the effect of selection instruments on social identity, job performance and job satisfaction.
Team diversity
The second moderator that I examine is team diversity. Research proves the influence of team diversity on the relationship between selection procedures and newcomers’ social identity (Thomas, et.al , 2004, Earley, et. al, 2003). According to literature, the more diverse a team is, the higher the cultural intelligence of team members (Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner, 1998) “Cultural intelligence” relates to diversity and is defined as “an individual’s capability to deal effectively in situations characterized by cultural diversity” (Earley, et. al, 2003). Therefore, members of diverse teams are more likely to exhibit mental capability, knowledge of norms and conventions in different cultures. Such teams also use appropriate verbal and non-verbal signals during intercultural communication and tend to be more successful in the utilization of knowledge-sharing (Ang, Van Dyne, Koh, Ng, Templer, Tay and Chandrasekar, 2007; Wright and Drewery, 2006).
15 not feel as part of the team. This would result in miscommunication, poorer performance, job dissatisfaction and eventually the employee might leave the company (Kilduff, et. al., 2000). Therefore, considering the arguments above, we can conclude that when team diversity is low, it affects the relationship between selection procedures, social identity, job performance and job satisfaction in a negative way. In contrast to high team diversity, low team diversity could potentially hinder the effect of selection instruments on social identity, job performance and job satisfaction.
High team diversity, on the other hand, is more difficult to define. The extent of team diversity varies and there are multiple classifications used in order to categorize different types of diversity (Williams and O’Reilly, 1998; Harrison, et. al., 2007). However, some researchers do agree that highly diverse teams facilitate newcomers’ integration within the team by having different backgrounds and experience in different functions and job positions (Horwitz, et. al., 2007). In this way, team members have a better cultural understanding, enriched flow of information and ideas and are more capable of creating a pleasant work environment for the newcomers. Moreover, literature suggests that teams, consisting of members with diverse functional experience, can develop unique methods and approaches, enhance the team’s creativity, quality of decision-making and performance of complex tasks (Williams, et. al., 1998). Based on these arguments we can conclude that when team diversity is high, it affects the relationship between selection procedures, social identity, job performance and job satisfaction in a positive way. The reason for this is that high diversity allows the use of selection procedures to have a strong influence on social identity, job performance and job satisfaction.
16 Hypothesis 5b: The relationship between introduction of newcomers and newcomers’ social identity is moderated by the following factors: team acceptance to newcomers and team diversity.
Hypothesis 6a: The mediated relationship between a work sample and job performance is moderated by the following factors: team acceptance to newcomers and team diversity
Hypothesis 6b: The mediated relationship between a work sample and job satisfaction is moderated by the following factors: team acceptance to newcomers and team diversity
Hypothesis 7a: The mediated relationship between introduction of newcomers and job performance is moderated by the following factors: team acceptance to newcomers and team diversity.
Hypothesis 7b: The mediated relationship between introduction of newcomers and job satisfaction is moderated by the following factors: team acceptance to newcomers and team diversity.
Conceptual model
17 FIGURE 1
Conceptual model
METHODOLOGY
Participants and procedures
My research was based on the results of a field survey, conducted with employees in approximately 20 German companies. The questionnaire was developed in both English and German in order to make it accessible for all employees. Participants were asked to fill out the survey with their team and to forward it to other colleagues. Through this procedure, the number of participants amounted to 168 responses. Unfortunately, many of these responses were completely empty or the respondents did not fill out the name of the team, which they belong to, therefore making these results impractical. After examining the data, I sorted out the valid responses of all employees who disclosed the name of their teams and organized the results based on team membership. The rest of the responses were excluded because the research measures team variables such as team diversity, team acceptance to newcomers and social identity with the team. This process reduced the number of responses to 101 employees, members of 20 teams.
Work sample
Introduction to team members
Social identity with the team
Job performance
Job satisfaction Team acceptance
18 Taking the various size and industry of the companies into consideration, there was substantial diversity of employee characteristics such as age, gender, education, functional experience and difference of opinion in different departments such as marketing, sales, IT, technical support, engineering, etc. The distribution of age was divided in age groups, starting with the largest: 21-30 years – 34.6%, followed by 25.7 % in the 41-50 age group, 22.8% - 31-40 years, 13.9% - 51-60 years and 3% - 61-70 years. The majority of the respondents were men (57%). The results also demonstrate diverse types of employees ranging from trainees and interns to senior employees with considerable work experience. The mean of the experience in the current work field was 11.95 years (SD = 10.01) and the mean of time spent with the current team was 4.70 years (SD = 5.48).
Measures
19 non-sensitive statements. This led me to believe that these statements were not skipped on purpose, but rather unintentionally.
Participation in a work sample and introduction of newcomers to oldtimers
Both input variables were measured on a “Yes/No” (1/0) basis in order to determine whether the respondents have participated in a work sample and whether they have been introduced to their colleagues prior to their decision to take the job. Additionally, all participants were asked about the type of selection procedures they participated in before receiving their current job position.
Social identity
Social identity was measured with 7 statements, regarding whether the team member feels as a valuable part of the team (Ashforth and Mael, 1989). Examples are: “When someone criticizes the company, it feels like a personal insult” and “I find that my values and the team’s values are very similar”. Similar to the moderators, the respondents were then asked to
mark their answer on a five-point scale ranging from 1 - “Strongly agree” to 5 - “Strongly disagree”. Ratings for each item were then averaged to form an overall score for the variable (α=.83).
Team acceptance to newcomers
This variable was based on 6 items, representing different statements such as “New team members are encouraged to participate actively in discussions” and “The team gives new team members feedback to help them improve their individual performance” (Janz, Wetherbe,
20 scale. Ratings for each item were then averaged to form an overall score for the variable (α=.70).
Team diversity
In order to examine the degree of diversity, I focused on functional experience as a determinant. The reason behind this is that diversity in functional background might enrich the flow of information and ideas, develop unique methods and approaches (Harrison, et. al., 2007). Moreover, literature suggests that teams, consisting of members with diverse functional experience, can enhance the team’s creativity, quality of decision-making and performance of complex tasks (Williams, et. al., 1998). The index that I selected was Blau’s index of diversity (Blau, 1977). This index allowed me to firstly calculate the breadth of functional experience on an individual level. Then, I estimated the team diversity index through the aggregate function in SPSS and averaged it per team.
Job performance
Job performance was measured through the team’s leader evaluation of 5 criteria – team’s efficiency, adherence to schedules, adherence to budgets, ability to resolve conflicts and its overall performance (Ancona and Caldwell, 1992). Each leader gave a score ranging from 1 to 5, where 1 was excellent, 2 – good, 3 – average, 4 – poor and 5 – terrible. All of the leaders ranked their teams as either excellent or good and there was no substantial variation in their answers. Cronbach’s Alpha is .51 (α=.51) and the reason that it is below the acceptable value could be either due to a low number of questions or because of the heterogeneous constructs of the questions (Tavakol and Dennick, 2011).
Job satisfaction
21 The respondents were asked to mark their answer on a five-point scale ranging from 1 - “Strongly agree” to 5 - “Strongly disagree”. The negative statements were then recoded into different items with the use of SPSS in order to keep all the items internally consistent and based on the same scale. Ratings for each item were then averaged to form an overall score for the variable (α=.87).
Data analysis
22 RESULTS
TABLE 1
Means, standard deviations and correlations for all constructs
Work sample was coded 1=Yes, 0=No; Introduction to newcomers was coded 1=Yes, 0=No; Team diversity was coded 0=Low diversity 1=High diversity; Team acceptance to newcomers, social identity and job satisfaction were measured on a five point Likert scale ranging from 1 - “Strongly agree” to 5 - “Strongly disagree”. Job performance was measured on a scale from 1-5, where 1 was excellent, 2 – good, 3 – average, 4 – poor and 5 – terrible. N = 101. *p < .05 **p < .01, Cronbach’s Alphas are presented in parentheses.
Descriptive statistics
Table 1 illustrates the means, standard deviations and correlations between the variables of this research. The table reveals a positive association between work sample and team introduction to newcomers (r = .38, p < .01) and a negative association between work sample and social identity (r = -.21, p < .05). The table also illustrates a negative correlation between prior introduction and the following variables: team acceptance to newcomers (r = -.25, p < .01), social identity (r = -.46, p < .01) and job satisfaction (r = -.22, p < .05). Team acceptance to newcomers is shown to correlate positively to social identity (r = .49, p < .01) and job
23 satisfaction (r = .40, p < .01). Social identity correlates positively to job satisfaction (r = .53, p < .01). All other correlations are either irrelevant or non-significant.
Hypotheses testing
TABLE 2
Hypotheses testing (1a, 1b, 2a, 2b)
Model 1a Model 2a Model 3b Model 4b
Predictor b T b T b T b T Constant 1.55 41.89** 1.60 30.65** 1.77 26.28** 1.94 21.18** Main effects Work sample .09 1.63 - - -.01 -.12 - - Introduction - - -.01 -0.23 - - -.25 -2.25* Adjusted R² .02 -.01 -.01 .04 N 101 101 101 101
24 TABLE 3
Hypotheses testing (3a, 3b, 4a, 4b, 5a, 5b, 6a, 7a)
Social Identity Job performance
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4
Predictor b T b T b T b T Constant 1.98 28.55** 2.23 22.07** 1.66 16.62** 1.82 13.98** Main effects Work sample (WS) -.29 -2.62* .08 1.33 Introduction (INT) -.50 -4.26** -.07 -1.06 Team acceptance newcomers (TAN) .62 4.53** .44 2.00* Team diversity (TD) .40 .65 -.44 -.57 Moderators WS x TAN -.02 -.07 WS x TD -1.24 -1.30 INT x TAN .09 .36 INT x TD .36 .38 Mediator Social Identity -.06 -1.22 -.10 -1.85 R2 .301 .365 .041 .034 N 101 101 101 101 1.98 28.55** 2.23 22.07** 1.66 16.62** 1.82 13.98** Conditional indirect effects
Work sample x TAN Lower Upper Total
-1 SD -.006 .075 .016 M -.006 .068 .016 +1 SD -.005 .086 .017 Work sample x TD -1 SD -.009 .063 .008 M -.006 .068 .016 +1 SD -.010 .091 .025 Introduction x TAN -1 SD .002 .151 .053 M -.002 .119 .048 +1 SD -.002 .134 .044 Introduction x TD -1 SD .002 .141 .052 M -.002 .119 .048 +1 SD -.002 .129 .044
25 TABLE 4
Hypotheses testing (3a, 3c, 4a, 4c, 5a, 5b, 6b, 7b)
Note: Dependent variable: Job satisfaction. WS=Work sample. INT=Introduction of newcomers to oldtimers. TAN=Team acceptance to newcomers. TD=Team diversity. All values have been mean centered.
Social Identity Job satisfaction
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4
Predictor b T b T b T b T Constant 1.98 28.55** 2.23 22.07** .87 5.59** .90 4.47** Main effects Work sample (WS) -.29 -2.62* .11 1.20 Introduction (INT) -.50 -4.26** .03 .29 Team acceptance newcomers (TAN) .62 4.53** .44 2.00* Team diversity (TD) .40 .65 -.44 -.57 Moderators WS x TAN -.02 -.07 WS x TD -1.24 -1.30 INT x TAN .09 .36 INT x TD .36 .38 Mediator Social Identity .46 6.27** .45 5.56** R2 .301 .365 .286 .277 N 101 101 101 101
Conditional indirect effects
Work sample x TAN Lower Upper Total
26 Hypothesis 1a stated that a work sample would have a positive direct effect on job performance and was tested with a linear regression. However, the difference between the use and the lack of a work sample is .09 (b = .09, se = .06, t = 1.63, df = 99, p = .107). This difference is not significant, therefore we cannot conclude that there is a direct effect from a work sample on job performance.
Hypothesis 1b indicated that a work sample would have a positive direct effect on job satisfaction and was tested with a linear regression. However, the difference between the use and the lack of a work sample is -.01 (b = -.01, se = .11, t = -.12, df = 99, p = .905). This difference is not significant, therefore we cannot conclude that there is a direct effect of a work sample on job satisfaction.
Hypothesis 2a predicted that prior introduction of newcomers to oldtimers would have a positive direct effect on job performance and was tested with a linear regression. However, the difference between the use and the lack of an introduction of new team members is -.01. The results were not significant, therefore there is no direct effect of prior introduction on job performance (b = -.01, se = .06, t = -.23, df = 99, p = .822).
Hypothesis 2b predicted that prior introduction of newcomers to oldtimers would have a positive direct effect on job satisfaction and was tested with a linear regression. The conducted regression analysis showed a significant negative relationship (b = -.25, se = .11, t = 2.25, df = 99, p = .027). Therefore, hypothesis 2b cannot be supported.
27 Hypothesis 3b predicted that the relationship between a work sample and job performance is mediated by social identity. The results indicate that the effect from a work sample on social identity is significant, which means there might be mediation (b = -.29, se = .11, t = -2.61, df = 95, p = .010). However, the effect of social identity on job performance is not significant (b = -.06, se = .05, t = -1.22, df = 98, p = .225). When adding the effect of social identity in the model, the effect of a work sample turns non-significant and positive (b = .08, se = .06, t = 1.33, df = 98, p = .185). Due to the insignificant effect of social identity on job performance, the mediation hypothesis cannot be supported.
Hypothesis 3c stated that the positive relationship between a work sample and job satisfaction is mediated by social identity. As in hypothesis 3b, the results show that the effect from a work sample on social identity is significant (b = -.29, se = .11, t = -2.61, df = 95, p = .010). The effect of social identity on job satisfaction is significant (b = .46, se = .07, t = 6.27, df = 98, p < 0.001). When adding the effect of social identity in the model, the effect of a work sample turns non-significant (b = .11, se = .09, t = 1.20, df = 98, p = .234). Although I find evidence for mediation in the data, the hypothesis is not supported because I stated that the positive effect of work sample on job satisfaction is mediated by social identity. Contrary to my hypothesis, I find a negative effect of work sample on job satisfaction that is mediated by social identity.
Hypothesis 4a predicted that there is a positive effect of prior introduction on the social identity of new team members. The hypothesis was tested with a linear regression and demonstrated a negative significant effect, contrary to my hypothesis (b = .50, se = .12, t = -4.26, df = 99, p < 0.001). Therefore, hypothesis 4a cannot be supported.
28 social identity on job performance is marginally significant (b = -.10, se = .05, t = -1.85, df = 98, p = .067). When adding the effect of social identity in the model, the effect of prior introduction to newcomers turns non-significant (b = -.07, se = .07, t = -1.06, df = 98, p = .293). Although I find evidence for partial mediation in the data, the hypothesis cannot be supported because I stated that the positive effect of prior introduction on job performance is mediated by social identity. Contrary to my hypothesis, I find a negative effect of prior introduction on job performance that is mediated by social identity.
Hypothesis 4c forecasted that the positive relationship between prior introduction and job satisfaction is mediated by social identity. As in hypothesis 4b, the effect from prior introduction to newcomers on social identity is significant (b = -.50, se = .12, t = -4.26, df = 95, p < .001). The effect of social identity on job satisfaction is significant (b = .45, se = .08, t = 5.56, df = 98, p < 0.001). When adding the effect of social identity in the model, the effect of prior introduction to newcomers turns non-significant (b = .03, se = .11, t = .29, df = 98, p = .775). Although I find evidence for mediation in the data, the hypothesis cannot be supported because I stated that the positive effect of prior introduction on job satisfaction is mediated by social identity. Contrary to my hypothesis, I find a negative effect of prior introduction on job satisfaction that is mediated by social identity.
29 moderating effects from both team acceptance to newcomers and team diversity on the relationship between work sample and social identity. The hypothesis was not confirmed.
Hypothesis 5b anticipated that the relationship between prior introduction and social identity is moderated by team acceptance to newcomers and team diversity. I tested the main effect of prior introduction to newcomers on social identity. In addition, two moderators were tested. The first moderator was the interaction between prior introduction and team acceptance to newcomers and it was not significant (b = .09, se = .25, t = .36, df = 99, p = 0.720). The second moderator was the interaction between prior introduction and team diversity and it was also not significant (b = .36, se = .95, t = .38, df = 99, p = 0.703). Furthermore, all indirect conditional effects were also non-significant. The results in the tables do not show significant moderating effects from both team acceptance to newcomers and team diversity on the relationship between introduction and social identity. Therefore, I conclude that the hypothesis was not confirmed.
Hypothesis 6a anticipated that the mediated relationship between a work sample and job performance is moderated by team acceptance to newcomers and team diversity. However, there are no moderating effects and all indirect conditional effects are also non-significant. Therefore, there is no mediated moderation.
Hypothesis 6b anticipated that the mediated relationship between a work sample and job satisfaction is moderated by team acceptance to newcomers and team diversity. However, there are no moderating effects and all indirect conditional effects are also non-significant. Therefore, there is no mediated moderation.
30 there are no moderating effects and all indirect conditional effects are also non-significant. Therefore, there is no mediated moderation.
Hypothesis 7b anticipated that the mediated relationship between prior introduction and job satisfaction is moderated by team acceptance to newcomers and team diversity. However, there are no moderating effects and all indirect conditional effects are also non-significant. Therefore, there is no mediated moderation.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
31 Theoretical Implications
My research is complementary to existing literature by combining the use of selection procedures, social identity processes and the outcomes job performance and job satisfaction. To the best of my knowledge, no other study has focused on the combination of these exact same variables. The first significant finding was the negative direct effect of prior introduction of newcomers on social identity. Literature suggests that the introduction of new team members to current team members could initiate better social integration and foster team acceptance to newcomers (Hinds, et. al., 2000). However, the results show that team members who have participated in such procedures did not indicate that they socially identify with their teams. My results also revealed that social identity mediates the negative relationship between prior introduction and job satisfaction; and partially mediates the negative relationship between prior introduction and job performance. Future research could examine whether these outcomes are correct by conducting the study on a larger scale. Moreover, researchers could investigate whether social identity could potentially mediate the relationship of other selection procedures to newcomers’ job performance and job satisfaction in a positive way.
32 I did not find empirical evidence for the hypothesized moderating role of team acceptance to newcomers and team diversity. This could have occurred because many respondents rated their teams’ acceptance to newcomers averagely on a 5-point Likert scale. Another possible explanation is the fact that the majority of team members happened to belong to rather diverse teams and none of the teams were completely homogeneous. Therefore, there was no substantial variation in team diversity. It would be easier to establish statistical significance with a larger sample size and conduct a longitudinal multinational study in more diverse contexts. I would also suggest that future research includes other methods such as interviews, experiments, and observations. Following, the lack of moderation led to a lack of mediated moderation. My suggestion would, thus, be to further examine the relationship between selection procedures, social identity, job performance and job satisfaction by inserting different moderators such as different age groups, types of education, group tenure, etc. (Ashforth, et. al., 1989; O'Reilly III, C. A., Caldwell, D. F., Barnett, W. P., 1989). Researchers could also conduct the survey on a larger scale in order to have more variation in the answers they have obtained.
Practical implications
33 decision of whether they are a good fit, because they tend to understand the group tasks and comprehend group values well (Huckman, et. al., 2009). Although my results do not demonstrate this, I do believe that if oldtimers are introduced to potential new team members, they might be able to select a more suitable candidate than through the use of only an interview. For this reason, I would suggest that line managers and HR managers consider implementing prior introduction as means of selection and include oldtimers in the process. This could facilitate easier social integration and help both sides – newcomers and oldtimes to achieve a better person-team fit.
Limitations
My research did not confirm all of my hypotheses. Therefore, it is necessary to address the limitations of the study. Regarding the validity of this research, the data was gathered with a survey within only 20 German companies and the results are thus not generalizable to all organizational contexts. It is important to note that it is challenging to establish significant statistical results with a small sample size. Additionally, research results in other companies might vary according to different countries and industries. Therefore, it is advisable to consider that the results in different countries might vary due to political, technological and cultural characteristics.
34 due to familiarity with some respondents. The questionnaire was sent out to acquaintances with the request that it is forwarded to other colleagues. In this way, some participants might have given answers that seem more appropriate to the research topic, instead of indicating their true opinion. Such method biases are problematic, because they could lead to measurement error, which affects the validity of the conclusions about the relationships between measures (Podsakoff, et. al., 2003). In order to deal with such method biases, future research should consider additional methods of collecting data such as experiments, interviews and observations. For some of the study measures, such as team performance, it is also advisable to include supervisor ratings and peer ratings.
35 REFERENCES
Ancona, D.G., Caldwell, D.F., (1992), Demography and Design: Predictors of New Product
Team Performance, Journal of Organizational Science, 3(3), pp. 321-341.
Ang, S., Van Dyne, L., Koh, C., Ng, K.Y., Templer, K.J., Tay, C., Chandrasekar, N., (2007),
Cultural Intelligence: Its Measurement and Effects on Cultural Judgment and Decision Making, Cultural Adaptation and Task Performance, Management and Organization Review 3(3), pp. 335–371
Arnold, A.E., Coffeng, J.K., Boot, C.R.L., Van der Beek, A.J, Van Tulder, M.W., Nieboer,
D., Van Dongen, J.M., (2016), The Relationship Between Job Satisfaction and Productivity-Related Costs A Longitudinal Analysis, Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 58(9), pp. 874–879
Ashforth, B.E., Mael, F. A., (1989), Social Identity Theory and Organization, Academy of
Management Review, 14(1), pp. 20-39
Baron, A., Armstrong, M., (2007), Human Capital Management – Achieving Added Value
Through People, Kogan Page Limited
Blau, P. M., (1977), Inequality and Heterogeneity, New York: Free Press
Boon, C., Den Hartog, D.N., Boselie, P., Paauwe, J, (2011), The Relationship between
Perceptions of HR Practices and Employee Outcomes: Examining the Role of Person– Organisation and Person–Job Fit, The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 22(1), pp. 138-162
36 of Sports Team Identification, Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 15(2) pp. 115-127
Breaugh, J.A., Starke, M., (2000), Research on Employee Recruitment: So Many Studies, So
Many Remaining Questions, Journal of Management, 26(3), pp. 405-434
Carson, J. B., Tesluk, P.E., Marrone, J. A., (2007), Shared Leadership in Teams: An
Investigation of Antecedent Conditions and Performance, Academy of Management Journal, 50, pp. 1217-1234
Cascio, W.F., (2006), Managing Human Resources Productivity, Quality of Work Life,
Profits, Chapter 2, p.39, Eighth Edition, McGraw Hill
Collins, W. C., (2000), Assessing Differential Functioning in a Satisfaction Scale, Journal of
Applied Psychology, 85, pp. 451-461
Compton, R., Morrissey, W., Nankervis, A., (2009), Effective Recruitment and Selection
Practices, Fifth Edition, Australia Limited
Downes, P.E., Kristof-Brown, A.L., Judge, T.A., Darnold, T.C., (2017), Motivational
Mechanisms of Self-Concordance Theory: Goal-Specific Efficacy and Person– Organization Fit, Journal of Business and Psychology, 32(2), pp. 197–215
Earley, P. C., and Ang, S., (2003), Cultural Intelligence: Individual Interactions across
Cultures, Stanford Business Books
Elangovan, A.R., Pinder, C.C., McLean, M., (2010), Callings and Organizational Behavior,
Journal of Vocational Behavior, 76(3), pp. 428–440
37 Social Identity Perspective on Leadership and Group Performance, Academy of Management review 29(3), pp. 459–478
Espinosa, J.A., Slaughter, S.A., Kraut, R.E. Herbsleb, J.D., (2007), Familiarity, Complexity,
and Team Performance in Geographically Distributed Software Development, Journal of Organization Science, 18(4), pp. 613-630
Flaherty, J., (2008), Handbook of Cultural Intelligence – Theory, Measurement and
Applications, Chapter 12 - The Effects of Cultural Intelligence on Team Member Acceptance and Integration in Multinational Teams, M. E. Sharpe
Gliem, J.A., Gliem, R.R., (2003), Calculating, Interpreting, and Reporting Cronbach’s Alpha
Reliability Coefficient for Likert-type Scales, Midwest Research-to-Practice
Conference in Adult, Continuing, and Community Education.
Harrison, D.A., Klein, (2007), What's the Difference? Diversity Constructs as Separation,
Variety, or Disparity in Organizations, Academy of Management Review, 32(4), pp. 1199-1228
Heere, B., James, J.D., (2007), Stepping Outside the Lines: Developing a Multidimensional
Team Identity Scale Based on Social Identity Theory, Sport Management Review, 10(1), pp. 65-91
Heneman III, H.G., Judge, T.A, Kammeyer-Mueller, J.D, (2011), Staffing Organizations, 8th
Edition, McGraw-Hill Education
38
Members: Balancing Similarity, Competence, and Familiarity. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 81(2), pp. 226-251
Horner, S.O., Mobley, W.H., Meglino, B.M., (1979), An Experimental Evaluation of the
Effects of a Realistic Job Preview on Marine Recruit Affect, Intentions and Behavior,
Office of Naval Research Arlington VA Environmental Sciences Directorate
Horwitz, S.K., Horwitz, I.B., (2007), The Effects of Team Diversity on Team Outcomes: A
Meta-Analytic Review of Team Demography, Journal of Management, 33(6), pp. 987-1015
Huckman, R.S., Staats, B.R., Upton, D.M., (2009), Team Familiarity, Role Experience, and
Performance: Evidence from Indian Software Services, Management Science, 55(1),
pp. 85-100
Huselid, M.A., (1995), The Impact of Human Resource Management Practices on Turnover,
Productivity, and Corporate Financial Performance. Academy of Management
Journal, 38(3), pp. 635-672
Janz, B. D., Wetherbe, J. C., Davis, G.B., (1997), Reengineering the Systems Development
Process: The Link between Autonomous Teams and Business Process Outcomes, Journal of Management Information Systems, 14, pp. 41-68
Judge, T. A., (2000), Personality and Job Satisfaction: The Mediating Role of Job
Characteristics, Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, pp. 237-249
Kane, A., Rink, F., (2015), How Newcomers Influence Group Utilization of Their Knowledge,
39 Kane, A., Rink, F., (2016), When and How Groups Utilize Dissenting Newcomer Knowledge:
Newcomers’ Future Prospects Condition the Effect of Language-based Identity
Strategies, Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 19(5) pp. 591–607
Katz, M. H., (2006), Multivariable Analysis, pp. 81-87
Kilduff, M., Angelmar, R. and Mehra, A., (2000), Top Management – Team Diversity and
Firm Performance: Examining the Role of Cognitions. Journal of Organization Science, 11(1), pp. 21–34
Kristof, A., (1996), Person-Organization Fit: An Integrative Review of its
Conceptualizations, Measurement, and Implications, Journal of Personnel Psychology, 49(1), pp. 1–49
Kristof-Brown, A. L., Zimmerman, R. D., Johnson, E. C., (2005), Consequences of
Individuals’ Fit at Work: A Meta-Analysis of Person-Job, Person-Organization,
Person-Group and Person-Supervisor, Journal of Personnel Psychology, 58(2), pp. 281–342
Latham, G.P., Pinder, C.C., (2005) Work Motivation Theory and Research at the Dawn of the
Twenty-first Century, Annual Review Psychology, 56, pp. 485–516
Lievens, F., Decaesteker, C., Coetsier, P., Geirnaert, J., (2001), Organizational Attractiveness
for Prospective Applicants: A Person-Organization Fit Perspective, Journal of Applied Psychology: An International Review, 50(1), pp. 30–51
40 Investigation of Newcomer Expectations, Early Socialization Outcomes, and the Moderating Effects of Role Development Factors, Journal of Applied Psychology, 80(3), pp. 418–431
Maurer, T., (1998), Peer and Subordinate Performance Appraisal Measurement Equivalence,
Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, pp. 693-702
McShane, S., (1987), Job Satisfaction and Absenteeism: A Meta-Analytic Re-examination
Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 1(1), pp. 61–77
Morrison, E.W., (2002), Newcomers’ Relationships: The Role of Social Network Ties during
Socialization, Academy of Management Journal, 45(6), pp. 1149–1160
O'Reilly III, C. A., Caldwell, D. F., Barnett, W. P., (1989), Work Group Demography, Social
Integration, and Turnover. Journal of Administrative Science, pp. 21–37
Podolny, J.M., Baron, J.N., (1997), Resources and Relationships: Social Networks and
Mobility in the Workplace, American Sociological Review, pp. 673–693
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, N. P., Lee, J-Y., (2003), Common Method
Biases in Behavioral Research: A Critical Review of the Literature and Recommended Remedies, Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), pp. 879–903
Shadish, Cook and Campbell, (2002), Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for
Generalized Causal Inference, Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 2nd Edition, p. 267
41 Complexity of Attitudes, Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, pp. 165-177
Tavakol, M., Dennick, R., (2011), Making Sense of Cronbach's Alpha. International Journal
of Medical Education, 2, p. 53
Templer, K.J., Tay, C. Chandrasekar, N.A., (2006), Motivational Cultural Intelligence,
Realistic Job Preview, Realistic Living Conditions Preview, and Cross-Cultural Adjustment. Journal of Group & Organization Management, 31(1), pp.154-173
Thomas, D.C., Inkson, K, (2005) Global Careers: New Phenomenon or New Perspectives?,
Journal of World Business, 40(4), pp. 340–347
Trompenaars, A.F., Hampden-Turner, C., (1998), Riding the Waves of Culture:Understanding
Diversity in Global Business, Nicholas Brealey Publishing
Turner, J., Oakes, P., (1986), The Significance of the Social Identity Concept for Social
Psychology with Reference to Individualism, Interactionism and Social Influence, British Journal of Social Psychology, 25(3), pp. 237–252
Van de Ven, A. H., Delbecq, L. A., Koenig, R. J., (1976), Determinants of Coordination
Modes within Organizations, Journal of American Sociological Review, 41, pp. 322– 338
Wanous, J. P., Poland, T.D., Premack, S. L., Davis, S., (1992), The Effects of Met
Expectations on Newcomer Attitudes and Behaviors: A Review and Meta-Analysis, Journal of Applied Psychology, 77(3), pp. 288–297
42 Review of 40 Years of Research, Research in Organizational Behavior, 20: pp. 77–140
Witing, M., (2006), Relations between Organizational Identity, Identification and
Organizational Objectives, Journal of Managerial Psychology, 21(7), pp. 432-452
Wright, N.S., Drewery, G.P., (2006), Forming Cohesion in Culturally Heterogeneous Teams:
43 APPENDIX
1. List of items used in this study
Newcomers’ social identity with the team (Ashforth, et. al., 1989) When someone criticizes the company, it feels like a personal insult. I am very interested in what others think about the company.
When I talk about the company, I usually say ‘‘we’’ rather than ‘‘they’’. This company’s successes are my successes.
I find that my values and the team’s values are very similar. I am proud to tell others that I am part of this team.
I am glad I chose this team to work with over other teams.
Team acceptance to newcomers (Janz, et. al., 1997; Maurer, 1998; Carson, et. al., 2007) New team members are encouraged to participate actively in discussions.
The team sees new members as a valuable part of the team.
The team gives new team members feedback to help them improve their individual performance.
The team doesn’t offer help to new team members.
The team expects new team members to find ways to solve their problems on their own. Ideas of new team members are not well accepted by the other team members.
Newcomers’ performance (Ancona, et. al., 1992) I consider myself to be extremely productive.
I think my performance is not as good as my team members’ performance. I make an effort to attain high team performance levels.
I believe my performance is poor.
44 I find real enjoyment in my work.
I consider my job rather unpleasant.
I am very satisfied with my work environment. Most of the time I have to force myself to go to work. Most days I am enthusiastic about my work.
I definitely dislike my job position.
2. SPSS Output (Hypotheses 3a, 3b, 3c, 4a, 4b, 4c, 5a, 5b, 6a, 6b, 7a and 7b)
Run MATRIX procedure: Model = 9
Y = LEV (Job performance)
X = Job_simulation (Work sample) M = SIT (Social identity)
W = TAN_MC (Team acceptance to newcomers) Z = TDS_MC (Team diversity) Sample size 101 ************************************************************************** Outcome: SIT Model Summary R R-sq MSE F df1 df2 p ,5486 ,3010 ,2863 8,1817 5,0000 95,0000 ,0000 Model
coeff se t p LLCI ULCI constant 1,9817 ,0694 28,5492 ,0000 1,8439 2,1195 Job_simu -,2861 ,1092 -2,6197 ,0102 -,5030 -,0693 TAN_MC ,6210 ,1371 4,5299 ,0000 ,3488 ,8932 int_1 -,0152 ,2324 -,0656 ,9478 -,4767 ,4462 TDS_MC ,4030 ,6209 ,6491 ,5178 -,8296 1,6356 int_2 -1,2425 ,9527 -1,3042 ,1953 -3,1337 ,6488 Product terms key:
45 ,2016 ,0407 ,0815 2,0765 2,0000 98,0000 ,1309
Model
coeff se t p LLCI ULCI constant 1,6612 ,0999 16,6261 ,0000 1,4629 1,8594 SIT -,0572 ,0468 -1,2214 ,2249 -,1502 ,0357 Job_simu ,0790 ,0592 1,3339 ,1853 -,0385 ,1965 ******************** DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS ************************* Direct effect of X on Y
Effect SE t p LLCI ULCI ,0790 ,0592 1,3339 ,1853 -,0385 ,1965 Conditional indirect effect(s) of X on Y at values of the moderator(s): Mediator
TAN_MC TDS_MC Effect Boot SE BootLLCI BootULCI SIT -,4867 -,1154 ,0077 ,0195 -,0158 ,0679 SIT -,4867 ,0000 ,0159 ,0193 -,0056 ,0750 SIT -,4867 ,1153 ,0241 ,0244 -,0083 ,0925 SIT ,0000 -,1154 ,0082 ,0169 -,0090 ,0634 SIT ,0000 ,0000 ,0164 ,0184 -,0060 ,0679 SIT ,0000 ,1153 ,0246 ,0249 -,0099 ,0908 SIT ,4868 -,1154 ,0086 ,0201 -,0084 ,0783 SIT ,4868 ,0000 ,0168 ,0226 -,0049 ,0855 SIT ,4868 ,1153 ,0250 ,0293 -,0091 ,1088 Values for quantitative moderators are the mean and plus/minus one SD from mean.
Values for dichotomous moderators are the two values of the moderator. ***************** INDEX OF PARTIAL MODERATED MEDIATION ******************* Moderator:
TAN_MC Mediator
Index SE(Boot) BootLLCI BootULCI SIT ,0009 ,0211 -,0347 ,0536 Moderator:
TDS_MC Mediator
Index SE(Boot) BootLLCI BootULCI SIT ,0711 ,0938 -,0351 ,4048
******************** ANALYSIS NOTES AND WARNINGS ************************* Number of bootstrap samples for bias corrected bootstrap confidence
intervals: 5000
Level of confidence for all confidence intervals in output: 95,00
46 Run MATRIX procedure:
Model = 9
Y = LEV (Job performance) X = Introduction to newcomers M = SIT (Social identity)
W = TAN_MC (Team acceptance to newcomers) Z = TDS_MC (Team diversity) Sample size 101 ************************************************************************** Outcome: SIT Model Summary R R-sq MSE F df1 df2 p ,6040 ,3648 ,2602 10,9115 5,0000 95,0000 ,0000 Model
coeff se t p LLCI ULCI constant 2,2301 ,1010 22,0721 ,0000 2,0295 2,4307 Introduc -,5047 ,1185 -4,2573 ,0000 -,7400 -,2693 TAN_MC ,4387 ,2193 2,0003 ,0483 ,0033 ,8741 int_1 ,0908 ,2527 ,3592 ,7203 -,4109 ,5924 TDS_MC -,4417 ,7755 -,5696 ,5703 -1,9813 1,0978 int_2 ,3623 ,9482 ,3821 ,7032 -1,5200 2,2447 Product terms key:
int_1 Introduc X TAN_MC int_2 Introduc X TDS_MC ************************************************************************** Outcome: LEV Model Summary R R-sq MSE F df1 df2 p ,1850 ,0342 ,0820 1,7367 2,0000 98,0000 ,1815 Model
coeff se t p LLCI ULCI constant 1,8164 ,1299 13,9842 ,0000 1,5587 2,0742 SIT -,0957 ,0518 -1,8497 ,0674 -,1985 ,0070 Introduc -,0736 ,0697 -1,0562 ,2935 -,2118 ,0647 ******************** DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS ************************* Direct effect of X on Y
Effect SE t p LLCI ULCI -,0736 ,0697 -1,0562 ,2935 -,2118 ,0647 Conditional indirect effect(s) of X on Y at values of the moderator(s): Mediator
47 SIT -,4867 ,1153 ,0485 ,0375 -,0009 ,1536 SIT ,0000 -,1154 ,0523 ,0340 ,0020 ,1406 SIT ,0000 ,0000 ,0483 ,0305 -,0020 ,1187 SIT ,0000 ,1153 ,0443 ,0333 -,0020 ,1285 SIT ,4868 -,1154 ,0481 ,0328 ,0009 ,1350 SIT ,4868 ,0000 ,0441 ,0304 -,0023 ,1198 SIT ,4868 ,1153 ,0401 ,0343 -,0024 ,1337 Values for quantitative moderators are the mean and plus/minus one SD from mean.
Values for dichotomous moderators are the two values of the moderator. ***************** INDEX OF PARTIAL MODERATED MEDIATION ******************* Moderator:
TAN_MC Mediator
Index SE(Boot) BootLLCI BootULCI SIT -,0087 ,0277 -,0942 ,0300 Moderator:
TDS_MC Mediator
Index SE(Boot) BootLLCI BootULCI SIT -,0347 ,1232 -,3573 ,1634
******************** ANALYSIS NOTES AND WARNINGS ************************* Number of bootstrap samples for bias corrected bootstrap confidence
intervals: 5000
Level of confidence for all confidence intervals in output: 95,00
--- END MATRIX ---
Run MATRIX procedure: Model = 9
Y = TMJS (Job satisfaction) X = Job_simulation (Work sample) M = SIT (Social identity)
48 Model
coeff se t p LLCI ULCI constant 1,9817 ,0694 28,5492 ,0000 1,8439 2,1195 Job_simu -,2861 ,1092 -2,6197 ,0102 -,5030 -,0693 TAN_MC ,6210 ,1371 4,5299 ,0000 ,3488 ,8932 int_1 -,0152 ,2324 -,0656 ,9478 -,4767 ,4462 TDS_MC ,4030 ,6209 ,6491 ,5178 -,8296 1,6356 int_2 -1,2425 ,9527 -1,3042 ,1953 -3,1337 ,6488 Product terms key:
int_1 Job_simu X TAN_MC int_2 Job_simu X TDS_MC ************************************************************************** Outcome: TMJS Model Summary R R-sq MSE F df1 df2 p ,5352 ,2864 ,1960 19,6707 2,0000 98,0000 ,0000 Model
coeff se t p LLCI ULCI constant ,8656 ,1549 5,5875 ,0000 ,5582 1,1731 SIT ,4554 ,0726 6,2707 ,0000 ,3113 ,5995 Job_simu ,1099 ,0918 1,1975 ,2340 -,0722 ,2921 ******************** DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS ************************* Direct effect of X on Y
Effect SE t p LLCI ULCI ,1099 ,0918 1,1975 ,2340 -,0722 ,2921 Conditional indirect effect(s) of X on Y at values of the moderator(s): Mediator
TAN_MC TDS_MC Effect Boot SE BootLLCI BootULCI SIT -,4867 -,1154 -,0616 ,1101 -,2626 ,1796 SIT -,4867 ,0000 -,1269 ,0840 -,3107 ,0229 SIT -,4867 ,1153 -,1922 ,0953 -,3990 -,0273 SIT ,0000 -,1154 -,0650 ,0837 -,2333 ,1057 SIT ,0000 ,0000 -,1303 ,0593 -,2699 -,0339 SIT ,0000 ,1153 -,1956 ,0844 -,3802 -,0543 SIT ,4868 -,1154 -,0684 ,0930 -,2680 ,1060 SIT ,4868 ,0000 -,1337 ,0821 -,3161 ,0099 SIT ,4868 ,1153 -,1990 ,1093 -,4424 -,0173 Values for quantitative moderators are the mean and plus/minus one SD from mean.
Values for dichotomous moderators are the two values of the moderator. ***************** INDEX OF PARTIAL MODERATED MEDIATION ******************* Moderator:
TAN_MC Mediator
49 Moderator:
TDS_MC Mediator
Index SE(Boot) BootLLCI BootULCI SIT -,5658 ,5167 -1,8284 ,2545
******************** ANALYSIS NOTES AND WARNINGS ************************* Number of bootstrap samples for bias corrected bootstrap confidence
intervals: 5000
Level of confidence for all confidence intervals in output: 95,00
--- END MATRIX ---
Run MATRIX procedure: Model = 9
Y = TMJS (Job satisfaction) X = Introduction to newcomers M = SIT (Social identity)
W = TAN_MC (Team acceptance to newcomers) Z = TDS_MC (Team diversity) Sample size 101 ************************************************************************** Outcome: SIT Model Summary R R-sq MSE F df1 df2 p ,6040 ,3648 ,2602 10,9115 5,0000 95,0000 ,0000 Model
coeff se t p LLCI ULCI constant 2,2301 ,1010 22,0721 ,0000 2,0295 2,4307 Introduc -,5047 ,1185 -4,2573 ,0000 -,7400 -,2693 TAN_MC ,4387 ,2193 2,0003 ,0483 ,0033 ,8741 int_1 ,0908 ,2527 ,3592 ,7203 -,4109 ,5924 TDS_MC -,4417 ,7755 -,5696 ,5703 -1,9813 1,0978 int_2 ,3623 ,9482 ,3821 ,7032 -1,5200 2,2447 Product terms key:
