How newcomers can behave: The maximization of oldtimers knowledge consideration.
J.A Nagelkerke
University of Groningen, Department of Human Resource Management & Organizational Behavior
Correspondence concerning this thesis should be addressed to Janita Nagelkerke, Korreweg 236a, 9715 AN, Groningen. E-mail: janitanagelkerke@gmail.com
Supervisor: Dr. F.A. Rink Second supervisor: Dr. L.B. Mulder Word count: 7.451 Acknowledgements
Table of contents
Abstract (English) ………... 3
Abstract (Dutch) ………. 4
Introduction ……… 7
Knowledge consideration ………... 9
Newcomer and knowledge consideration ………... 10
Newcomer identity strategies……….. 10
Influence tactics ………. 12
Influence tactics and newcomers ………... 13
Moderating role of influence tactics ……….... 15
Method ……… 16
Design and participants ………... 16
Experimental procedure ……….. 16
Manipulation of identity strategy ………... 17
Manipulation of influence tactics ………... 17
Dependent measures ………... 18
Results ……… 20
Discussion ………... 22
Theoretical implications ………. 23
Limitations and future research directions ……….. 24
Conclusion and practical implementations ……… 27
References ……….. 28
Appendix ……… 36
Tables ……….. 36
ABSTRACT
The goal of this research is to see whether there is a relation between newcomers using identity strategies (Integrating vs. Differentiating) on knowledge consideration of oldtimers, and if so, whether this relation is moderated by the use of their influence tactics (Soft or Hard). The results demonstrate that newcomers can enhance the extent to which oldtimers in a team are willing to consider their unique knowledge when they the use the integrating identity strategy with hard tactics or, when they use the differentiating identity strategy in combination with soft tactics. As such, my research provides newcomers and management practical guidelines on how to increase knowledge consideration within their organization.
MANAGEMENT SAMENVATTING
Jop hopping, het vaak en snel veranderen van baan met als doel financieel gewin en/of een nieuwe carrière stap. De dagen dat je met gemak je – 12.5 jaar bij de zaak bonus- ontving zijn voorbij en afgestudeerden blijven gemiddeld 1.5 jaar bij dezelfde werkgever (Bron: Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek). Een voordeel van deze trend is de continue aanwas van nieuwe kennis binnen organisaties. Teams die al een tijd bij elkaar zijn kunnen vast komen te zitten in dagelijkse routines en procedures en zijn daarodoor soms niet meer in staat nieuwe innovatieve ideeën te genereren (Paulus & Brown, 2007). Nieuwkomers hebben een frisse blik en een open perspectief op de zaken. In het licht van de economische crisis moeten we elke druppel kennis tot het uiterste benutten, dus ook die van de nieuwkomers.
In deze master scriptie is gekeken naar welke factoren invloed hebben op de
acceptatie van kennis door werknemers die al deel uitmaken van het team, de zo genoemde
oldtimers. Hierbij focus ligt de focus voornamelijk op de manier waarop nieuwkomers hun
kennis willen delen met het team. Gebruiken ze hierbij een op zichzelf gerichte focus; “ik” (integrating) of op de groep gerichte focus; “wij” (differentiating) gecombineerd met een
zachte of harde beïnvloed tactiek. De veronderstelling hierbij is dat nieuwkomers actief bij
kunnen dragen aan de acceptatie van hun kennis.
De uitkomsten van deze scriptie kunnen bijdragen aan een socialisatie beleid van bedrijven gericht op nieuwkomers met betrekking tot welke manier van communiceren het meeste effect oplevert voor zowel de nieuwkomer als de organisatie, zodat de innovatieve kennis van nieuwkomers in de toekomst volledig benut kan worden.
INTRODUCTION
“How Newcomers can behave: The maximization of oldtimers knowledge consideration.” Nowadays, people are changing jobs as quick as fashion trends pass us by. How can we deal with the stream of newcomers within organizations? Teams who have been together for quite some time have trouble to generate and accept new ideas caused by their routines (Gersick & Hackman,1990) or by a lack of incentive to engage in brainstorming activities (Paulus & Brown, 2007). Hansen & Levine (2009) argue that newcomers are a potential source of new ideas as they have a fresh perspective and do not have strong personal ties with the other members. In the light of today’s economic crisis organizations need to capture, now more than ever, the knowledge benefits of adding a newcomer to a group. It is simply too costly to let the ideas of a newcomer go to waste.
Literature demonstrates that newcomers can indeed have a positive influence on the innovative potential of teams (Rink, Kane, Ellemers & van der Vegt, 2012) but that their “fresh blood” does not automatically guarantees this benefit (e.g. Williams & O’Reilly, 1998; Katz & Allen, 1982). The existing members of a team (oldtimers) are not automatically willing to consider a newcomer’s unique knowledge. Oldtimers are embedded in highly complex organizational knowledge creation processes, and develop routines facilitating their collaboration to cope with this complexity (Dosi, 1982; Nelson and Winter, 1982; Teece et al., 2001). So what can organizations and newcomers pro-actively do to get voice and to grasp the value and benefits of their knowledge?
2009) are being perceived as more influential by oldtimers.The same is true for temporary newcomers (Rink & Ellemers, 2009), or for newcomers who is already a member of the company (Kane, Argote, & Levine, 2005). However most of these conditions can not be influenced by the organization or the newcomers.
This brings us to the main topic of this paper namely the active influence of
newcomers on the acceptance of their ideas by oldtimers, through the way they propose these changes. There is a relatively new stream of literature that emphasizes the role of the
newcomer in the socialization process. Theorists have started to argue that newcomers are proactive, rather than just passively involved in this process. (Miller & Jablin, 1991; Morrison, 1993a, 1993b, 2002; Wanberg & Kammeyer-Mueller, 2000; Asford & Black, 1996; Comer, 1991; Feldman & Brett, 1983). This literature informs us that newcomers can indeed proactively shape their own socialization by the identity related language that they use (Kane & Rink, 2011). This research will focus on this same language strategy (differentiating identity strategy versus integrating identity strategy) in combination with the use of influence tactics (soft versus hard), and will examine how their use by newcomers affects the extent to which oldtimers consider their knowledge. Thus, my central research question is; which
combination of an identity strategy and an influence tactic should a newcomer use to
maximize the consideration of their knowledge by oldtimers?
By answering this question, this research is contributing to the newcomer literature in several important ways. First, in previous work, the identity strategies were studied in
isolation, looking at the distinct effects of the identity strategies only. This research is
subordinate relations (e.g. Kipnis, Schmidt & Wilkinson, 1980; Bass, 1985; Yukl, 1989, Fable & Yukl, 1992). Third, up to now, newcomer literature suggests that signaling group concern was a central mediator in predicting knowledge consideration. Yet I will explore some alternative mediators that may explain the relationship between newcomers’ behaviors and the knowledge consideration of oldtimers, such as group concern and the instant positive emotions triggered after receiving the message.
In the sections below, I provide a theoretical background for the reasoning stated in this introduction.
Conceptual Development Knowledge consideration
Knowledge is an important organizational resource. It fuels productivity, growth, and survival. Organizations who learn from another’s experience are more productive,
Newcomers and knowledge consideration
The importance of knowledge in firms is especially of value for newcomers. They are the ones with new and undiscovered ideas. March (1991) found that teams who implement innovative knowledge acquired from newcomers tend to be more effective than less receptive teams. However, the acceptance of ideas from a newcomer is not that self-evident. Oldtimers need to pay attention and determine the value of a newcomer’s idea in order to create
knowledge consideration which will lead to adaption of the idea. Oldtimers prefer to work
with similar ones (Byrne, 1971) and consider their knowledge earlier rather than the knowledge of different others, such as newcomers (Kane, 2010). The self-categorization theory from Turner (1985) confirms the group versus out-group vision. Employees see in-group members as more capable, more knowledgeable than an out-in-group member because it protects the team’s self-developed image. The underlying mechanism is that individuals gain social identity, a part of their own personal identity, from the team to which they belong. When you are identified as a member of that team it is more likely to define yourself in terms of their membership to that team (Tajfel & Turner, 1979, 1986). This in-group favoritism also has consequences for knowledge consideration. In-group members have been found to be more influential and persuasive than out-group members (Abrams, Wetherell, Cochrane, Hogg, & Turner, 1990; David & Turner, 1996; Mackie & Queller, 2000). So for newcomers it is essential to develop a shared identity with the in-group in order to get their knowledge
considered. Burke, Kraut & Joyce (2010) stated that newcomers can use language as a tool to
manage their marginal position by speaking about who they desire to be one of the group. Newcomer identity strategies
Kraut & Joyce, 2010). Studies show that the use of these kinds of words has a stronger positive impact on the in-group than the out-group (Perdue, Dovidio, Gurtman, & Tyler, 1990). For example, these pronouns have been associated with the unification of disparate parties around shared goals (Gillispie & Chrispeels, 2008). Several researchers have argued that by making claims that you are already a member of the group, using an integrating identity strategy makes the newcomer more desirable as a group member (Branscombe, Spears, Ellemers, & Doosje, 2002; Noel, Wann, & Branscombe, 1995). Burke, Kraut & Joyce (2010) state that this identity strategy will increase the willingness of the group to grant membership status to the newcomer and to consider his or her knowledge. In contrast,
newcomers who adapt the differentiating strategy want to show their unique personality and ideas by making use of pronouns like I, You, Mine and Yours (Burke, Kraut & Joyce, 2010). Ashfort & Saks (1996) as well as Rink & Ellemers (2011) found that newcomers who apply this identity strategy are generally insecure about their group identity, and protect themselves by attaching importance to their personal identity. As such, research showed that I, You,
Mine, Yours are more commonly used by marginal members than are plural counterparts
(Chung & Pennebaker, 2007). When newcomer use these words and really want to focus on their own uniqueness they have more risk of getting separated from the oldtimers (Gillispie & Chrispeels, 2008). When oldtimers think and feel that the new member only focuses on their selves and shows little to no concern for the group, the newcomer can, unintentionally, isolate themselve from the group. This has an adverse impact on knowledge consideration (Jetten, Branscombe, Spears & McKimmie, 2003).
Taken together, I expect that the integrating strategy, rather than the default
Newcomers adapting a differentiating identity strategy will have lower knowledge utilization
from their team then newcomers who adapt an integrating identity strategy.
Influence tactics
The base work for discovering influence tactics is done by Frensh and Raven (1959). They developed five bases of power; referent, expert, legitimate, reward, coercive. Several theorists made the distinction in hard and soft power tactics (Nye’s, 2004; Kipnis & Schmidt &
Wilkinson, 1980; Yukl & Falbe, 1990). Hard power includes reward, coercive and sometimes legitimate powers, while soft power of attraction refers to referent power, expert power, and sometimes legitimate power. The usage of these two types of power is known as influence tactics. A soft influence tactic uses words that contain to seek compliance is a polite, friendly, or humble manner by flattering and sympathizing with the oldtimers (Kipnis & Schmidt, 1985). This tactic consists for a large part of the words “can” and “please”, placing the newcomer in a lower position than the members who are already part of the team.A hard influence strategy will try to influence the existing team members by forming coalitions with them and using authority. The newcomer suggests things in wording that seek compliance in a direct, assertive requesting way, without expressions of sympathy or friendliness (Kipnis & Schmidt, 1985). This tactic consists for a large part of words like “must” and “should”. Theorist found that the frequency of soft tactics is greater that the frequency of hard tactics (Aguinis, Nesler, Hosoda & Tedeschi, 1994; Rule, Bisanz & Kohn, 1985; van Kippenberg, van Eijbergen & Wilke, 1999; Yukl & Falbe, 1990; Yukl, Falbe & Youn, 1993). The
The success of influencing people is seen as one of the most important determinants of managerial effectiveness (Bass, 1990; Yukl, 1989) and is one of the key reasons why organizations adopt some innovations proposed by people but reject others (Kanter, 1983).
The influence tactic literature mostly focuses on leaders (e.g. Kipnis, Schmidt & Wilkinson, 1980; Bass, 1985; Yukl, 1989, Fable & Yukl, 1992) This literature did find differences in preferences for the use of soft or hard power for various hierarchical positions of the target of influence (Kipnis et al., 1980; Yukl & Falbe, 1990; Yukl & Tracey, 1992), for people having high or low self-esteem (Raven, 1992), for individuals having high or low status (Stahelski & Paynton, 1995), for high or low competent individuals (van
Knippenberg,van Eijbergen, & Wilke, 1999) for transactional and transformational leadership styles (Deluga & Souza, 1991), for people influencing a group or an individual (Guerin, 1995), and for in-group versus out-group targets (Bruins, 1997). However, given that most of these studies looked at tactic preferences only, just six studies have examined how influence tactics affect attitudes and behavior (Case, Dosier, Murkinson, & Keys, 1988; Dosier, Case, & Keys, 1988; Keys, Case, Miller, Curran, & Jones, 1987; Kipnis & Schmidt, 1988;
Mowday, 1978). This research looks at their influence on knowledge consideration focusing on newcomers.
Influence tactics and newcomers
The delicate position of the newcomer concerning their tenure in the organization may have consequences for the way they interact with people. Knippenberg & Steensma (2003) found that people use more hard tactics when the receiver is on a temporarily base in the
the oldtimers to listen this one time and do not care to build a harmonious relationship for the future. Newcomers who do believe that they will become a permanent member of a team prefer the usage of a soft tactic over a hard one, to work on that important future relationship. So a newcomer who adapts a soft influence strategy will try to make the existing team
members feel important by giving them compliments (Kipnis and Schmidt, 1985). The newcomer will put themself in a more humble position that fits their new position and allows the team members more freedom in deciding whether or not to accept his or her knowledge (Knippenberg & Steensma, 2003). However, a drawback of a soft influence tactic is the risk that the ideas of the newcomers do not get recognized as valuable by the team. Oldtimers may think that the ideas presented by the newcomer are not from a high quality because the newcomer lack of convincement.
When newcomers adopt a hard tactic, they will put themselves in an equal or higher position than the oldtimers and do not allow a lot of freedom in deciding whether or not to accept their unique knowledge (Knippenberg & Steensma, 2003). For this reason, the tactic may not help a newcomer to develop a warm and open relationship with the oldtimers that could lead to knowledge commitment (Yukl et al.1992, 1996, 2005; Souza & Arrow, 1999). In line with this, Kipnis (1980) found that pressure (hard) tactics were used most frequently in downward influence attempts and least frequent in lateral relations. However, when using this strategy the newcomer seems very confident about his/her idea which can increase the recognizability of the value of his or her knowledge – an essential element in knowledge consideration.
This article will analyze the combination of the two identity strategies with a hard or soft influence tactic. This will result in the following combinations; integrating/soft,
The moderating role of influence tactics
When newcomers, use the differentiating strategy and demonstrate their unique personality and ideas to the oldtimers, they may not come across as full team members which can have a negative effect on knowledge consideration. The adding of soft influence tactics can buffer the negative effects of using the differentiating strategy. The newcomer displays his or her uniqueness, which makes his her knowledge recognizable but does this focusing on his/her self, which can be quite risky in their fragile position. The usage of a soft influence tactic can take some of this risk away. The soft tone in which the newcomer proposes his or her
message will help to seek compliance is a polite, friendly, or humble manner by flattering and sympathizing with the oldtimers (Kipnis & Schmidt, 1985). This can help overcome the lack of concern (Jetten, Branscombe, Spears & McKimmie, 2003) and will help build a
This research presupposes that there is a moderation effect of the influence tactics on the relationship between identity strategies and knowledge consideration and that it has positive effects on the relation between differentiating identity strategy and knowledge consideration and a negative effect on the relation between integrating and knowledge consideration. The hypotheses leading from this are:
H2a: Influence tactics will have a positive influence on the relationship between
differentiating identity strategy and knowledge consideration.
H2b: Influence tactics will have a negative influence on the relationship between the
integrating identity strategy and knowledge consideration.
H3a: The moderating effect of a soft influence tactic will have the most effect on knowledge
consideration when the newcomer uses a differentiating identity strategy.
H3b: The moderating effect of a hard influence tactic will have the most effect on knowledge
consideration when the newcomer uses an integrating identity strategy.
To summarize: The aim of this paper is to see if influence tactics moderate the relation between identity strategy and knowledge consideration replicating earlier findings.
METHOD
SD= 1.59 mainly in the following sectors; business sector (14.9%), retail sector (12.3%) education sector (11.4%) and government sector (9.2%).
Experimental Procedure. Participants were instructed to imagine themselves
working in product development team at Global printers (Phillips, 2003). To classify them as oldtimers, they learned that they had been part of this team for quite some time. At one point in time, the team was experiencing a heavy workload and for that reason, management had decided to hire a new member (the newcomer) to help the team out. Participants were then informed that the newcomer, after a couple of days, suggested a new task strategy for the team to adopt. This suggestion was presented to participants with wording reflecting either an integrating or differentiation strategy and with using soft or hard tactics. After reading the newcomer’s suggestion, participants filled in the dependent measures, manipulation demographic information and the control variables.
Manipulation of Identity strategy. In the differentiating strategy condition, the newcomer’s suggestion contained wording and pronouns reflective of distancing them from the group like I, you, me (Burke, Kraut & Joyce, 2010). In the integrating strategy condition, the newcomer’s suggestion contained wording and pronouns that show the connection of the newcomer to the group, these are words like; we, us, ours (Burke, Kraut & Joyce, 2010).
to be influenced with less to no latitude in deciding whether or not to accept the suggestion of the newcomer (Hall & Barrett, 2007), words that characterize this are “must” and “should”.
Taken the identity strategy and influence tactics together, participants read one of the following excerpts: “We [You] must [can] do things another way around here. We [I] have
been trained differently, but this new way must [can] work really well for us [you]. It will
probably [It] really help[s] us [you] if we [you] change our [your] procedure and adopt this
better strategy. Can we [I] please [We [I] will] go over it”
To validate the base condition of the difference in knowledge sharing between the integrating and differentiating strategy, two control conditions were added where these identity strategies were manipulated only (without the influence tactics).
Dependent Measures
People’s responses towards the newcomer where measured right after hearing about the upcoming membership change and after the newcomer had introduced his message. Prior to the manipulation: Base-line response to newcomer
Anticipated skills. Before the manipulation I measured the expectations of the respondents towards the skills by asking the participants to rate the extent to which they thought that the newcomer was; “competent”, “reliable”, “knowledgeable” and
“cooperative”. (α =.68) all measured on a seven point scale (1=”not at all” to 7=”very much”). The scale was adopted of work from Kane & Rink (2011).
Anticipated acceptance. Before the manipulation of the suggestion from the
with your new team member” (α 0.795) all measured on a seven point scale (1= ”not at all” to 7=”very much”). These items are adopted of work from Kane & Rink (2011).
After the manipulation
Positive Affect. Directly after the manipulation of the suggestion from the newcomer I measured the positive emotions of the respondents by asking the respondents to rate how they were feeling after reading the following words; excited, inspired and interested (α 0.70) all measured on a seven point scale (1= ”not at all” to 7=”very much”). These items are adopted from the PANAS scale (Watson, Clark & Tellegen, 1998).
Group Concern. After the manipulation of the suggestion from the newcomer I measured group concern by asking participants to rate the extent to which the newcomer; “shows his or her concerns for the group,” “displays his or her loyalty to the group,” and “cares about the group,” (α 0.76) all measured on a seven point scale (1=”not at all” to 7=”very much”). These items are adopted from a scale developed by Jetten, Branscombe, Spears & McKimmie (2003).
Newcomer Acceptance. After the manipulation of the suggestion from the newcomer. The respondents received the following information: “Imagine that your team is asked to decide whether the new member permanently joins the team as a full member.” After this information I asked the respondent to rate the following question: “to what extent would you like this person to become a full member?” on a seven point scale (1=”not at all” to 7=”very much”). This was a single item scale adopt from the newcomer scale used by Rink &
Ellemers (2009).
member’s suggestion”, “adopt your new member’s suggestion” and “reject your new member’s suggestion” (rescaled) (α 0.82) adapted from a scale of Kane & Rink (2011).
RESULTS
The goal of this research is to see whether there is a relation between the newcomer using identity strategies (integrating vs. differentiating) on knowledge consideration and if this relation is moderated by the use of influence tactics (soft or hard).
Control variables. In these analyses, the control variable gender did not yield significant independent main effects on our dependent measures, nor did it affect the
combined influence of identity strategies and influence strategies on any of the acceptance or knowledge consideration measures (lowest p value = 0.14). The control variable age did have a marginal significantly effect on group concern F (1, 106) = 3.44, p= 0.06 Such that people from age group 56-65 were significantly more willing to consider the newcomer’s
knowledge (M = 5.25 , SD = 0.21) than people between 18-25, (M = 4.39 , SD = 0.81), but no interaction effect with my independent factors emerged. Therefore, the control variables were removed from all subsequent analyses.
Base-line response towards the newcomer
On average 66.67% of the participants was convinced that the newcomer was needed, this however did not result in less knowledge consideration from the group who thought they were managing just fine without the adding of a new member ( M= 4.54 SD= 0.76) the group who thought they needed a new member (M=4.49 and SD=0.78). The anticipated skills of the newcomer before the manipulation was M= 4.90, SD= 0.68. On average, participants
Positive Affect. An ANOVA on knowledge consideration yielded a significant result on knowledge consideration F (16,113) = 4.35 p<0.01. Showing that participants who scored high on positive emotions after the manipulated message of the newcomer are more willing to consider knowledge than participant who scored low on positive emotions. There was little to no difference between the positive emotion means of the differentiating and integrating identity strategies (M= 4.11, SD= 1.15 and M= 4.10, SD=0.97). There was a difference between the influence tactics, participants felt more positive emotions after reading a soft influence tactics (M= 4.60, SD= 0.91) than a hard (M= 3.96, SD= 0.10) or control influence tactic (M= 3.78, SD= 1.11). Displaying that a soft influence tactic increases positive emotions from participants.
Group Concern. An ANOVA on knowledge consideration yielded a significant effect on knowledge consideration F (18,113) =3.68, p<0.01. Showing that participant who thought that the newcomer displayed concern for the group were more willing to share knowledge with this person. Both identity strategies of the newcomer have almost the same effect on group concern differentiating M= 4.16, SD= 0.10 and M= 4.07, SD= 0.83 of the integrating identity strategy. Using soft wording signals more group concern (M= 4.22, SD= 1.00) than the usage of a hard influence tactic (M= 3.93, SD= 0.84) or no influence tactic (M= 4.19, SD= 0.89).
tactics newcomers who employ a soft influence tactic have a greater chance of being considered as a full member M= 4.57, SD= 0.96 against hard (M= 4.27, SD= 1.04) and control (M= 4.03, SD= 1.07). Confirming the previously found preference of oldtimers for newcomers using a soft influence tactic.
Knowledge Consideration. An ANOVA on knowledge consideration yielded a main effect with the influence strategy F (2,113) = 5.36, p <0.05 and a significant interaction effect F (2,113) = 4.03, p<0, 05 proving the moderating effect of the influence tactic confirming hypothesis 2a. The results also support hypotheses 3a and 3b demonstrating that participants were more willing to consider the newcomers knowledge when the differentiation strategy was used in combination with soft tactics, M = 5.14, SD = 0.56, or when the integrating strategy was used in combination with hard tactics, M = 4.37, SD = 0.77. By contrast, when the differentiating strategy was accompanied with a hard tactic or when the integrating strategy was accompanied with a soft tactic, respondents were less willing to consider the newcomers knowledge respectively (M= 4.64, SD= 0.66; M= 4.45, SD= 0.87). Clearly, the overall best strategy for newcomers to use was the combination of a differentiating identity strategy with a soft influence tactic.
DISCUSSION
The main goal of my research was to see if there was a “best way” to behave for newcomers to get their innovative knowledge and ideas considered by the oldtimers. Findings show that when newcomers adapt an integrating identity they can best combine this with a hard
the receiver of the message. These positive emotions in turn lead to better knowledge
consideration. The usage of a soft influence tactic also had a significant positive influence on group concern of the newcomer, which also leads to better knowledge consideration.
Theoretical implications
The positive results found on the usage of a soft influence tactic on positive emotions of oldtimers, group concern and acceptance as full member provide initial evidence that oldtimers base their willingness to consider the knowledge of the newcomer on instant signals. Newcomers can respond to this need by using a soft influence tactic when they propose a new idea or other important knowledge, this will enhance the change of their knowledge to be considered by the oldtimers.
This was the first time in the stream of newcomer literature that an influence tactic was added to the research design. The results are very promising regarding the effect on knowledge consideration. Nye (2007) discussed the notion of ‘smart power’, which is a combination of soft and hard power tactics. It means that you just have to know when you need to implement one. This research can contribute to this smart power tactic by providing first research insights that soft power has the best effect on knowledge consideration and can therefore be seen as the smart power for knowledge consideration. The influence literature has mostly taken the perspective of leaders or higher management positions. It is interesting to see that one does not need to have a hierarchically higher position to reap the benefits of influence tactics.
Interesting enough no significant relationship between identity strategies and
that there are factors influencing the strength of the integrating and differentiating identity strategy and that the findings in the literature concerning this topic should be more nuanced than was thought before. Examples of factors that influence the acceptation of knowledge are group concern and positive emotions of the oldtimers, however test show that they cannot be addressed as mediators or moderators. Research should be conducted to find new potential mediators or moderators for the relation between identity strategy and knowledge
consideration.
Limitations and future research directions.
Despite the great amount of effort put into this research there are some limitations to this work. The first is the age distribution in my sample 85. 1 % of the sample was younger than 35, so only a small percentage (14.9%) represents the people older than the age of 36. When comparing my age distribution against the age distribution in the Netherlands one might say that is not a good representation of the real world. But it does give an image about how the young working generation (84.02 % of the respondents had a work experience of ≤ 10 years) perceives the behavior of newcomers. Researchers need to take precautions to get a better distributed age sample.
often enough or not strong enough. The strength has been proven by the use in a pretest and study of Kane & Rink (2011) showing that a newcomer can indeed display identity-related behaviors with the use of different pronouns, as a means to alter others view of the self. The manipulation was repeated eight times during the questionnaire but one can add some simple tactics that could improve the understanding of the manipulation. One could tell the
respondents that they will have to answer a few questions about the content of the upcoming message of the newcomer. Examining the adapting skills could lead to the more carefully reading of the message. When the message was repeated, respondents should not be able to go to the following question for 30 seconds. This can also help to increase the correctness of the checks. Despite the room for improvement, the incorrectness of the checks does not influence the results found in this research and is a recognized phenomenon in the field of behavioral studies.
The third characteristic of this research which leaves room for improvement in future research is that this research specifically focused on developing and testing the usefulness of two influence tactics that made a distinction in proposing a message. It is noteworthy,
however, that the literature suggests yet another influence strategy that newcomers could use; rational influence tactic. Rational tactics involve the use of logic and bargaining to
could have a positive effect on knowledge consideration. I think that a differentiating identity strategy would benefit from adding a rational influence tactic the newcomer does focus on the self but is willing to make compromises with the oldtimers which can lead to more
connection between the two parties which can help to enhance knowledge consideration (Gillispie & Chrispeels, 2008).
The research found significant relationships with the use of a scenario which was, under the timeframe of this thesis, the best method to use. However a clear future research condition would be to examine a real life situation. So following a team within a company where a newcomer is added who adapts an integrating or differentiating identity strategy to communicate an idea or change. Afterwards the same questionnaire could be answered by the team. With these results one could see if the relation holds in a real life situation. After time one could measure the longitude effects of the identity strategy used by the newcomer and if it makes a difference on the membership, knowledge consideration and knowledge sharing on the long run.
It would also be interesting to see if the results found in this study would be the same for other minorities, such as racial or ethnic and gender minorities. Would it make a
Conclusion and practical implementations
Although further work is required to gain a more complete understanding of the effect of soft and hard influence tactics and their relationship with knowledge consideration. The findings in this research show interesting first effects of this mediator, and create a best practice for a combination of integrating/hard and differentiating/soft. Findings also indicate that the
praised preference for always using an integrating identity strategy is nuanced by the usage of an influence tactic. There are more paths for newcomers to get their voice heard besides the straightforward integrating and differentiating that where common in the stream of newcomer literature. Organizations can learn the following from this research; although newcomers can have a preference about what kind of identity strategy they normally use I or we. The
REFERENCES
Argote, L., & Ingram, P. (2000). Knowledge transfer: A basis for competitive advantage in firms. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 82: 150-169.
Ashforth, B. E., & Saks, A. M. (1996). Socialization tactics: Longitudinal effects on newcomer adjustment. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 149–178.
Ashford, S. J., & Black, J. S. (1996). Proactivity during organizational
entry: The role of desire for control. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 199–214.
Aguinis, H., Nesler, M.S., Hosoda, M., & Tedeschi, J.T. (1994) The use of influence tactics in persuasion. Journal of social psychology. 134: 429-438.
Bauer, T. N., Bodner, R., Erdogan, B., Truxillo, D. M., & Tucker, J. S. (2007). Newcomer adjustment during organizational socialization: Review of antecedents, outcomes, and methods. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92: 707-721.
Bass, B.M. (1990). From transactional to transformational leadership: Learning to share the vision. Organizational dynamics, 18(3): 19-32.
Branscombe, N. R., Spears, R., Ellemers, N., & Doosje, B. (2002). Intragroup and intergroup evaluation effects on group behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28: 744-753.
Bruins, J. (1997). Predicting the use of influence tactics: A classiÞcation and the role of group membership. In K.M. Bennebroek Gravenhorst (chair), Power dynamics and organizational change II. Symposium held at the Eighth European Congress on Work and Organizational Psychology, Verona, Italy, April.
Burke, M., Kraut, R., & Joyce, E. (2010) Membership claims and request: Converstation-level newcomer socialization strategies in online groups. Small Group Research 41 (1), 4-40.
Cini, M. A., Moreland, R. L., & Levine, J. M. (1993). Group staffing levels and responses toprospective and new group members. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 723 - 734.
Clagett, R.P. (1967). Receptivity to Innovation – Overcoming N.I.H. Master thesis, MIT.
Comer, D. R. (1991). Organizational newcomers’ acquisition of information from peers.
Management Communication Quarterly, 5, 64-89.
Deluga, R.J., & Souza, J. (1991). The effects of transformational and transactional leadership styles in the influencing behavior of subordinate police officers.
Journal of Occupational Psychology, 64, 49-55.
Dosi, G (1982), "Technological paradigms and technological trajectories", Research Policy, 11 (3).
Falbe, C.M., Yukl, G. (1992) Consequences for managers of using single influence tactics and combinations of tactics. Academy of Management Journal 35(3), 638-652.
Feldman, D. C., & Brett, J. M. (1983). Coping with new jobs: A comparative study of new hires and job changers. Academy of Management Journal, 26, 258-272.
Filstad, C. (2011) "Organizational commitment through organizational socialization tactics",
Journal of Workplace Learning, 6(23), 376 – 390.
Gersick, C. J., & Hackman, J. R. (1990). Habitual routines in task performing groups.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 47, 65–97.
Gillispie, J., & Chrispeels, J. H. (2008). Us and them: Conflict, collaboration, and discursive negotiation of multishareholder roles in school district reform. Small Group Research,
39, 397-437.
135, 371-385.
Hansen, T. & Levine, J.M. (2009) Newcomers as change agents: Effects of newcomers' behavioral style and teams' performance optimism. Social influence 4(1),
10.1080/15534510802280827.
Hall, A. & Barrett,L. (n.d) Influence: The Essence of Leadership. Retrieved June, 10, 2012 from http://www.ianrpubs.unl.edu/pages/publicationD.jsp?publicationId=733.
Higgins, E. (1997) Beyond pleasure and pain. American Psychologist. Vol 52(12), 1280-1300.
Hussinger, K & Wastyn, A. (2011) In Search for the Not-Invented-Here Syndrome: The Role of Knowledge Sources and Firm Success. Industrial economics and international management 11(48).
Jetten, J., Branscombe, N. R., Spears, R., & McKimmie, B. M. (2003). Predicting the paths of peripherals: The interaction of identification and future possibilities. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 130-140.
Jetten, J., Postmes, T. & McAuliffe, B.J. (2002). We’re all individuals: Group norms of individualism and collectivism, levels of identification and identity threat. European
Journal of Social Psychology, 32, 189-207.
Kane, A. A. (2010). Unlocking knowledge transfer potential: Knowledge demonstrability and superordinate social identity. Organization Science, 21, 643-660.
Kane, A.A., Argote, L. & Levine, J. (2005). "Knowledge transfer between groups via personnel rotation: Effects of social identity and knowledge quality". Organizational
Behavior And Human Decision Processes 96 (1): 56–71.
Kane. A.A. & Rink, F. (2011) Newcomers as active agents: Team receptivity to integrating vs. differentiating identity strategies. Best Paper Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of
Kanter, R. M. (1983). The change masters: Innovation for productivity in the American
corporation. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Kaplan, S. (2007) In leadership, “hard” skills trump “soft” skills. Retrieved on June, 14, 2012 from http://blogs.hbr.org/cs/2007/12/in_leadership_hard_skills_trum.html.
Katz, R. & Allen, T. J. (1982). Investigating the Not-Invented-Here (NIH) syndrome: A look at the performance, tenure and communication patterns of 50 R&D project groups. R&D
Management, 12(1): 7-19.
Katz, R. & Thomas, J.A. (2008) Investigating the Not Invented Here (NIH) Syndrome: A Look at the Performance, Tenure, and Communication Patterns of 50 R&D Project Groups. International Management of Research and Development. 445-57.
Kipnis, D., & Schmidt, S. M. (1985). The language of persuasion. Psychology Today 30: 40-46.
Kipnis, D., Schmidt, S.M., & Wilkinson, I. (1980) Intraorganizational Influence Tactics: Explorations in Getting One's Way. Journal of Applied Psychology 65(4): 440-452. Knippenberg, B., Eijbergen, R., & Wilke, H. (1999). The Use of Hard and Soft Influence
Tactics in Cooperative Task Groups. Group Processes Intergroup Relations. 2: 231. Knippenberg, B. & Steensma, H.(2003) Future interaction expectations and the use of soft
and hard influence tactics. Applied psychology: an international review 52(1) 55-67. Levine, J. (n.d) Innovation in Task Groups: Newcomers as Change Agents. Retrieved June, 8,
2012 from http://www.lrdc.pitt.edu/schunn/innov2006/talks/Levine.pdf.
Levine, J. M., & Choi, H-S. (2010). Newcomers as change agents: Minority influence in task groups. In R. Martin & M. Hewstone (Eds.), Minority influence and innovation:
Lichtenthaler, U., Ernst, H., 2006. Attitudes to externally organizing knowledge management tasks: a review, reconsideration and extension of the NIH syndrome. R&D Management 36, 367–386.
March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization
Science, 2, 71-87.
Morrison, E. W. (1993a). Longitudinal study of the effects of information seeking on newcomer socialization. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 173–183.
Morrison, E. W. (1993b). Newcomer information seeking: Exploring types, modes, sources, and outcomes. Academy of Management Journal, 36, 557–589.
Morrison, E. W. (2002). Information seeking within organizations. Human Communication
Research, 28, 229–242.
Miller, V. D. & Jablin, F. M. (1991). Information seeking during organizational entry: Influences, tactics, and a model of the process. Academy of Management Review, 16, 92–120.
Nelson, R.R and Winter, S.G. (1982). An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change. Harvard University Press.
Noel, J. G., Wann, D. L., & Branscombe, N. R. (1995). Peripheral ingroup membership status and public negativity toward outgroups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68: 127–137.
Nye, J. (2007) "Soft Power, Hard Power and Leadership." Retrieved June, 17, 2012 from http://voices.yahoo.com/joseph-nyes-soft-power-approach-becoming-transformational-2982467.html?cat=9.
Paulus, P. B., & Brown, V. R. (2007). Toward more creative and innovative group idea generation: A cognitive-social-motivational perspective of brainstorming. Social and
Paulus, P.B. & Nijstad, B.A. (2003) Group Creativity: Innovation through collaboration. Oxford: Oxford university press.
Perdue, C.W., Dovidio, J.F., Gurtman, M.B, & Tyler, R.B. (1190) Us and them: Social categorization and the process of intergroup bias. Journal of personality and social
psychology, 59: 475-486.
Phillips, K. W. (2003). The effects of categorically based expectations on minority influence: The importance of congruence. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 3-13. Postmes, T., Spears, R. & Cihangir, S. (2001). Quality of decision making and group norms.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 918-930.
Raven, B.H. (1992). A power/interaction model of interpersonal influence: French and Raven thirty years later. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 7, 217-244.
Rich, R.F. (1997) Measuring knowledge utilization: Processes and outcomes. Knowledge,
Techonology & Policy 10(3), 11-24.
Rink, F., & Ellemers, N. (2009). Temporary vs. permanent group membership: How the future prospects of newcomers affect newcomer acceptance and newcomer influence.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35, 764-776.
Rink, F., Kane, A., Ellemers, N., & van der Vegt, G. S.(2011) Team receptivity to newcomers: Evidence and future research themes. Academy of Management Annals Rule,B.G., Bisanz, G.L., & Kohn, M. (1985) Anatomy of a persuasion schema: Targets, goals
and strategies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 48; 1127-1140.
Souza, G. R. (1999). Utilization of Power and Influence Tactics by Military Leadership Trainees. Robert D. Clark Honors College at the University of Oregon. Eugene, OR:
Unpublished Thesis.
Stahelski, A.J., & Paynton, C.F. (1995). The effects of status cues on choices of
560.
Staw, B.M & Cummings, L.L. Research in Organizational Behavior. 20: 77-140.
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In S.
Worchel & W. G. Austin (Eds.),Psychology of intergroup relations. Chicago,
IL:Nelson-Hall.
Teece, A. (2001). Managing Industrial Knowledge: Creation, Transfer and Utilization. London: Sage.
Turner, J. C. (1985). Social categorization and the self-concept: A social-cognitive theory of group behavior. In E. J. Lawler (Ed.), Advances in Group Processes, Vol. 2: 77-122. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Van Knippenberg, B., Van Eijbergen, R., & Wilke, H.A.M. (1999). The use of hard and soft influence tactics in cooperative task groups. Group Processes & Intergroup
Relations, 2, 231-244.
Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief
measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS Scales. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 47, 1063–1070.
Williams, J. R., & Johnson, M. A. (2000). Self–supervisor agreement: The
influence of feedback seeking on the relationship between self and supervisor ratings of performance. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 30, 275–292.
Williams, K.Y. & O’Reilly, C.A. III (1998). Demography and diversity in organizations: A review of 40 years of research.
Yukl, G.A (1989) Leadership in organizations. Englewood: Prentice Hall.
Yukl, G. A. (1996). Antecedents of influence outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81(3), 309-317.
Yukl, G. A. (2005). Leadership in organizations (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Yukl, G.A. & Falbe, C.M. (1990) Influence Tactics and Objectives in Upward, Downward, and Lateral Influence Attempts. Journal if applied Psychology 75(2), 132-140.
Yukl, G., Falbe, C.M., & Youn, J.Y. (1993). Patterns of influence behaviour for managers.
Group and Organization Management. 18: 5–28.
Yukl, G., & Tracey, J.B. (1992). Consequences of influence tactics used with subordinates, peers, and the boss. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 525-535.
Ziller, R.C., Behringer, R.D., & Jansen, M.J (1961) The newcomer in open en closed groups.
Journal of applied psychology. 45:55-58.
APPENDIX Tables
Correlation table Table 1
Means, Standard deviation and Correlation between Measures
(9) Evaluation Newcomer Behavior 4.282 1.162 0.232* 0.443** -0.23 0.098 0.396** 0.87 -0.121 0.529** (10) Knowledge Consideration 4.503 0.769 0.174 0.346** 0.221* 0.193* 0.538** 0.233* -0.102 0.605** 0.670** Note. * p<0.05, ** p<0.01 Control questions
Variable: How did the newcomer introduce
We I Control 8 Control 11 10 Hard 2 Hard Soft 5 Soft 6 Wrong checks /total checks 15/57 27/57
Variable: What kind of feeling Soft/Hard We I Control - Control - Hard 3 Hard 10 Soft 8 Soft 8 Wrong checks /total checks 11/40 18/40
Table 3: Check soft/hard
General background question Variable: Gender
Frequency Valid Percent (%)
Male 54 47.4
Female 60 52.6
Total 114 100.0
Variable: Age
Frequency Valid Percent (%)
<25 61 53.5 25-35 36 31.6 7.0 36-45 8 46-55 4 3.5 56-65 4 3.5 >65 Total 1 0.9 114 100.0
Variable: Hours of work per week
Frequency Valid Percent (%)
0 6 5.3 1-8 27 23.7 24.6 9-16 28 17-32 20 17.5 33-40 19 16.7 > 40 Total 14 12.3 114 100.0
Variable: Employees
Frequency Valid Percent (%)
1-50 66 57.9 51-100 18 15.8 101-150 7 6.1 151-200 3 2.6 201-250 2 1.8 251-300 2 1.8 301-350 1 0.9 351-400 2 1.8 >400 13 11.4 Total 114 100.0
Variable: Work experience
Frequency Valid Percent (%)
0-5 78 68.4 6-10 18 15.8 11-15 5 4.4 16-20 1 0.9 21-25 8 7.0 31-35 1 0.9 >35 3 2.6 Total 114 100.0
Variable: Current function
Frequency Valid Percent (%) 0-5 102 89.5 6-10 6 5.3 11-15 2 1.8 16-20 2 1.8 21-25 2 1.8 Total 114 100.0 Table 9: Years active in current function
Variable: Branch
Frequency Valid Percent (%) Business sector 17 14.9
Construction sector 2 1.8
Recreation sector 9 7.9
Transport sector 3 2.6
Financial institutions 1 0.9 and insurance sector
Figures
Conceptual model
Scenarios Introduction
Imagine that you are part of a project team in Global printers, a company that specializes in the development of new business printers. Your team has been working around the clock to create a new product. Management therefore assigned a new member to your team to help out. The new member to your team has a few years of experience.
Task suggestion
Integrating identity strategy
Control
"We could do things another way around here. We have been trained differently, but this new way will work really well for us. It will really help us if we change our procedure and adopt this better strategy. Should we go over it?"
Soft tactic
“We can do things another way around here. We have been trained differently, but this new way can work really well for us. It will probably really help us if we change our procedure and adopt our better strategy. Can we please go over it?”
Hard tactic
“We must do things another way around here. We have been trained differently, but this new way must work really well for us. It really helps us if we change our procedure and adopt our better strategy! We will go over it”
Differentiating identity strategy
Control
Soft tactic
“You can do things another way around here. I have been trained differently, but this new way can work really well for you. It will probably really help you if you change your procedure and adopt my better strategy. Can I please go over it?”
Hard tactic
Data analysis
Before the manipulation
Variable: Competent Variable: Reliable
Variable: Knowledgeable Construct 1: Anticipated skills Variable: Cooperative High: Good impression
Low: Bad impression
The Cronbach alpha of this construct is: 0.675
Variable: Need a new member (66.7% yes, 33.3% no)
Variable: Like
Variable: Connected Construct 2: Anticipated acceptance. Variable: Close to
Variable: Comfortable High: Good impression
Low: Bad impression
Variable: Successful Construct 3: Anticipated performance. Variable: Unsuccessful (Rescale)
High: Good performance Low Bad performance
The Cronbach alpha of this construct is:
Variable: Cohesive Construct 4: Team cohesion. Variable: Close
High: Good social connection Low: Bad social connection
The Cronbach alpha of this construct is: 0.348 Construct will be excluded
Manipulation
PANAS Scale (Watson,Clark & Tellegen, 1998)
Positive Affect scale
Variable: Excited Variable: Inspired
Variable: Strong High: Positive positive Low: Negative positive The Cronbach alpha of this construct is: 0.559 after deleting strong the Cronbach alpha was 0.699
Negative Affect Scale
Variable: Hostile
Variable: Irritated Construct 6: Negative Affect
Variable: Ashamed High: Positive negative
Variable: Nervous Low: Negative negative
The Cronbach alpha of this construct is: 0.400 Construct will be excluded
Influence Behavior (Yukl, 2000)
Variable: Opportunity
Variable: Vision Construct 7: Inspirational appeal, soft Variable: Values High: See it as soft
Low: Don’t see is as soft
Variable: Demanding
Variable: Threats Construct 8: Pressure Appeal, hard
Variable: Pressure High: See it as hard
Low: Don’t see is as hard
The Cronbach alpha of this construct is: 0.635
Variable: Speaks on behalf previous group (we group mean: 4.571, I group mean 4.913)
Variable: Speaks on his/her own behalf (we group mean: 4.821, I group mean 5.482)
Variable: Concern team Variable: Loyalty team
Variable: Speak on behalf group Construct 9: Group concern Variable: Cares for team High: High group concern
Low: Low group concern
The Cronbach alpha of this construct is: 0.758
Variable: Knowledge (we group mean: 4.357, I group mean 4.500) (soft group mean: 4.567 , hard group mean: 4.324)
Variable: Respect (we group mean: 3.500, I group mean 3.603) (soft group mean: 3.432, hard group mean: 3.702)
Variable: Will one day be the leader (we group mean: 3.642, I group mean: 3.741) (soft group mean: 3.891, hard group mean: 3.675)
Variable: Power (we group mean: 3.678, I group mean 3.741) (soft group mean: 3.729 , hard group mean: 3.729)
Variable: Thought differently Variable: Influence
Variable: Took initiative Construct 10: Evaluation newcomer
Variable: Proposed behavior. High: Appreciate
Low: Don’t appreciate
The Cronbach alpha of this construct is: 0.838
Variable: Listen Variable: Be open Variable: Value
Variable: Explore Construct 11: Knowledge
Variable: Try out consideration
Variable: Reject (Rescale) High: Consider
Low: Don’t consider
The Cronbach alpha of this construct is: 0.817
Variable: Share with Global printers (we group mean: 4.285, I group mean 4.431) (soft group mean: 4.513 , hard group mean: 4.459)
Variable: First impression (we group mean: 4.000, I group mean 4.086) (soft group mean: 4.378 , hard group mean: 3.837)
Variable: Become friends (we group mean: 4.017, I group mean 4.155) (soft group mean: 4.189 , hard group mean: 4.054)
Variable: Would like newcomer to become full member = newcomer acceptence (we group mean: 4.178, I group mean 4.379)
(soft group mean: 4.567 , hard group mean: 4.270)
Dominance scale PAD Temperament Model (Mehrabian, 1996)
Variable: Control
Variable: Dominant Construct 12: Dominance
Variable: Autonomous High: Not dominant!
Questionnaire
Survey on Work Group Dynamics: The purpose of this survey is to gain a better understanding of the things that influence the success of work groups.
1.
Are you older than 18 years? *
Yes No
2.
Did you work in a team or are you currently working in a team. (the definition of a team here is: two or more individuals with collective norms and goals) *
Yes No
3.
How many hours per week are you working? *
Please read the following information about a project team of Global printers:
Imagine that you are part of an ongoing work team at Global printers, a company that specializes in the development of new business printers. You have been working in this team for several years now, and you like working at this company. You feel attached to your other team members.
Your team has been working around the clock to create a new product. Management therefore assigned a new member to your team to help out. The new member to your team has a few years of experience.
4.
Before proceeding, please answer the following questions. These questions are to measure your first impressions and expectations about the new member of your project team.
Choose the number that best indicates your response.
Incompetent Competent Unreliable Reliable Ignorant Knowledgeable Unlikeable Likeable Uncooperative Cooperative 5.
How do you think you would feel when the new member was added to your team:
I would probably think we did not need a new team member, it was going fine the way it was. I would probably think that we needed a new team member because we had lots of work
Choose the number that best indicates your response.
Based on your first impressions, to what extent do you think that … (1=not at all 4=moderately 7=very much)
Not at all Very Much
You will personally like your new team member?
You will feel connected to your new team member?
You will feel close to your new team member?
You will feel comfortable with your new team member?
7.
Based on your first impression, to what extent do you think that your team with the help of the new team member will be..
(1=not at all 4=moderately 7=very much)
Not at all Very Much
... successful?
... unsuccessful?
... cohesive
... close?
Please read the following information about your team.
Within a few days of working with your team the new member came up with a new idea, which he/she suggests in the following way:
“We [You] must [can] do things another way around here. We [I] have been trained differently, but this new way must [can] work really well for us [you]. It will probably [It] really help[s] us [you] if we [you] change our [your] procedure and adopt this better strategy. Can we [I] please [We [I] will] go over it”
8.
This scale consists of a number of words and phrases that describe different feelings and emotions. Read each item and then indicate how you are feeling
(1= not at all 4= moderately 7= very much)
Not at all Very Much
Base your answers on the way that the new team member has made the suggestion.
“We [You] must [can] do things another way around here. We [I] have been trained differently, but this new way must [can] work really well for us [you]. It will probably [It] really help[s] us [you] if we [you] change our [your] procedure and adopt this better strategy. Can we [I] please [We [I] will] go over it”
(1=not at all 4=moderately 7=very much)
Not at all Very Much
The newcomer proposes a change that is an opportunity to do something really exciting and worthwhile.
The newcomer describes a clear, inspiring vision of what the change could accomplish.
The newcomer talks about ideals and values when proposing the change.
The newcomer demands that you carry out the change.
The newcomer uses threats or warnings when trying to get you to do something.
The newcomer tries to pressure you to carry out a request.
Remember
The newcomer suggested:
“We [You] must [can] do things another way around here. We [I] have been trained differently, but this new way must [can] work really well for us [you]. It will probably [It] really help[s] us [you] if we [you] change our [your] procedure and adopt this better strategy. Can we [I] please [We [I] will] go over it”
10.
Not at all Very Much ... speaks on behalf of the group?
... speaks on behalf of his or her previous group?
...speaks for him/her self?
... shows his or her concerns for the team?
... displays his or her loyalty to the team?
... acts out of interest for the team?
... cares about your team?
... has a lot of knowledge?
... has a lot of status?
... gets a lot of respect?
.. will one day become the leader of your team?
... has a lot of power?
Remember
The newcomer suggested:
“We [You] must [can] do things another way around here. We [I] have been trained differently, but this new way must [can] work really well for us [you]. It will probably [It] really help[s] us [you] if we [you] change our [your] procedure and adopt this better strategy. Can we [I] please [We [I] will] go over it”
11.
Not at all Very Much
the way the new team member thought differently about how to handle things?
the way the new team member tried to influence the team?
the way the new member took initiative?
the way in which the new team member proposed a different work strategy?
12.
To what extent do you think that you will .. (1=not at all 4=moderately 7=very much)
Not at all Very Much
listen to the specifics of your new member’s suggestion ?
be open to your new member’s suggestion?
value your new member’s suggestion?
Remember
The newcomer suggested:
“We [You] must [can] do things another way around here. We [I] have been trained differently, but this new way must [can] work really well for us [you]. It will probably [It] really help[s] us [you] if we [you] change our [your] procedure and adopt this better strategy. Can we [I] please [We [I] will] go over it”
13.
Choose the number that best indicates your response To what extent do you think that you will ..
Not at all Very Much ... explore your new member’s suggestion?
... try out your new member’s suggestion?
... adopt your new member’s suggestion?
... reject your new member’s suggestion?
... share your new member’s suggestion with other teams at Global printers?
14.
To what extent do you think that you as an existing team member would... (1=not at all 4=moderately 7=very much)
Not at all Very Much
... easily accept the new team member? ... be happy with the new team member?
... have a positive first impression of the new team member?
... easier accept things of the newcomer in the future?
... become friends with the newcomer?
15.
Imagine that your team is asked to decide whether the new member permanently joins the team as a full member. (1=not at all 4=moderately 7=very much)
Not at all Very Much
... to what extent would you like this person to become a full member?
How you rate yourself as a person
In control Cared for
Dominant Submissive
Autonomous Guided Influenced
Only a few open questions left!
17.
How did the new member introduce his/her new idea: *
Using "I" Using "We"
18.
The newcomer focused on the group: *
Yes No
19.
The newcomer focused on his or herself: *
No
20.
What kind of feeling did the introducing of the new idea from the newcomer have: *
"Soft" "Hard"
Please answer these general background questions
21.
Gender *
Male Female
22.
What is your age? *
23.
How many employees does the company that you work for have? (if the company has more than one location, than answer only for your location) *
1-50 51-100 101-150 151-200 201-250 251-300 301-350 351-400 > 400 24.
How many years of working experience do you have? *
0-5 6-10 11-15 16-20 21-25 26-30 31-35 > 35 25.
0-5 6-10 11-15 15-20 21-25 26-30 31-35 > 35 26.
In which branch are you currently working?
Business sector Construction sector Recreation sector Government Transport sector
Financial institutions and insurance sector Agricultural sector
IT sector Retail sector Food sector
Chemistry and Pharmacy sector Healthcare
Education sector Service sector Different
Are you a leader In you current function? * No Yes, to 1-5 employees Yes, to 6-10 employees Yes, to 11-15 employees Yes, to 16-20 employees Yes, to more than 20 employees
28.
On which level are you a leader
NB: If you filled in that you're not a leader you can skip this question.
Top management (board of directors, executive director ) Middle management (deputy manager, chief of a department) Lower management (team-leader, chef, team-coach)
29.
How would you rate the amount of power you have within the company ( 0= no power 50= moderately 100= a great deal of power)
NB: If you filled in that you're not a leader you can skip this question.
0 25 50 75 100
