THE IMPACT OF INVOLVING TEAMS IN THE HIRING PROCESS ON
NEWCOMER OUTCOMES
Master Thesis, MSc Human Resource Management University of Groningen
Faculty of Economics and Business
Department of Human Resource Management & Organizational Behavior
January 23,2017 Nathalie Vigener-Pfahl Student number: s2998963
Grote Rozenstraat 30 E 9712 TH Groningen Tel.: +49 (0)173-2920629 e-mail: n.j.vigener@student.rug.nl
Supervisor
Prof. Dr. B.A. (Bernard) Nijstad
Acknowledgement
ABSTRACT
Nowadays, organizations are reconsidering their recruitment and selection processes in order to remain competitive on the labor market. As they are faced with increased voluntary turnover of employees, in particular among newcomers, new approaches are developed to combat this issue. The involvement of the team in the hiring process is considered to be one potentially effective strategy but since this is a relatively new procedure, there is yet no fundamental academic research providing evidence. The purpose of the study was to explore the impact of this approach, focusing specifically on the implications for the newcomer. Two mediating mechanisms were predicted to influence the relationship between involving teams in the hiring process and newcomer outcomes: the team’s willingness to accept the newcomer and the own perception of the newcomer to be a good fit with the team. I tested the hypotheses by conducting a laboratory experiment, in which groups were either given the choice to decide which newcomer they would like to work with, or (in the control condition) a newcomer was randomly assigned to that group. The research findings imply that the two hypothesized mediators, ‘newcomer acceptance by oldtimers’ and ‘newcomer’s perceived fit’ do not have a mediating effect on the relationship between having teams participate in the hiring process and newcomer outcomes. Possible implications for future research include considering conducting an extensive field study that allows to assess the effects in a realistic business environment with a larger sample size.
INTRODUCTION
As recruitment is becoming more of a challenge in today’s ‘war for talent’, the onus is on companies to come up with innovative strategies to attract new talents (Michaels, Handfield-Jones, & Axelrod, 2001; Friebel & Giannetti, 2009; Tung, 2016). Due to demographic shifts, and economic as well as technological trends, the labor market has changed, resulting in highly qualified candidates becoming increasingly scarce (Friebel & Giannetti, 2009; Beechler & Woodward, 2009). This decreasing supply is not only due to these external factors, but also due to transformational changes to the businesses’ environments, as organizations recognized that the emphasis on human capital is more important than ever, especially in a knowledge-driven economy (Michaels et al., 2001). This skills shortage, characterized by an increasing demand along with a decreasing supply, is one of the causes organizations entered into a fierce international competition for the best candidates. As the power shifts from an employer-driven to a candidate-driven market, it enables highly skilled personnel to constantly search for new opportunities as their skills are highly demanded. Through this major shift in power and the changing culture of expectations of the current and upcoming generations, organizations are faced with high rates of voluntary employee turnover, especially during the first months on the job (Cascio, 2003; Michaels et al., 2001). Therefore, facing these developments is not only about attracting the best candidates in an increasingly competitive recruiting environment, it is also about the ability to retain those talented employees once they are successfully recruited. This is particularly affecting newcomers as they are not immediately accepted as full members and may experience negative outcomes as a result (limited influence; reduced satisfaction). Indeed, turnover is likely to be high among newcomers (Young & Lundberg, 1996).
independently decides which candidate to hire without seeking team members’ advice (Anderson & Pulich, 1997) towards a collaborative strategy (Morgeson et al., 2012). This strategy is expected to be effective in terms of improving newcomer retention as both sides, the potential newcomer and the existing team, get to know each other prior to the actual job (Stewart, 2016; Sullivan, 2015). It allows newcomers in advance to explore whether they would be a good fit for both the organization and the team, and thus avoid a potential mismatch. From the team’s perspective, it is imperative to have a say in the selection of a new team member, because it is the team that will be working closely with the newcomer on a daily basis. From an employer’s perspective, the practice also yields benefits. Involving the team in the process gives the hiring manager different perspectives on the candidate, potentially leading to a better decision. Although the final hiring decision of a new employee may remain responsibility of the team leaders, they can rely on their team members’ assessment of a potential newcomer. Also, organizations should take into account this collaborative strategy as it can be a very effective way to find the most suitable candidate (Anderson & Pulich, 1997).
The approach of letting teams participate in the hiring process is up to now only based on very little academic research, but often applied by practitioners in the field. Thus, there is a need to empirically examine this phenomenon and its impacts (Burke & Cooper, 2006; Morgeson et al., 2012; Munyon, Summers, & Ferris, 2011). Within the framework of this thesis, I focus on the newcomer and emphasize the implications for employee retention emerging from this hiring practice. I assume that letting teams participate in the selection process to determine which candidate would be the best fit for the team has a positive influence on newcomer outcomes in terms of turnover intentions and job satisfaction. Assuming that newcomers gain positive experiences as a result of this approach, they are more likely to stay in the organization. Subsequently, this positive experience exerts a favorable effect on the retention of these employees.
Kulbashian, 2013; Scott-Ladd, Travaglione, & Marshall, 2006). Research has also shown that teams do not automatically accept newcomers, which in turn may lead to a higher turnover rate (Rink, Kane, Ellemers, & Van der Vegt, 2013). A participative approach to hiring does not only promise to provide better results in hiring decision making processes, but it is also expected that the team is more likely to invest in the newcomer’s socialization phase and the integration into the organization itself. Additionally, having a say in hiring decisions may increase commitment of oldtimers towards the newcomer.
The second mechanism that is expected to positively contribute to the outcomes of a newcomer is the perception of the newcomer to be a good fit for the team. Based on research on person-organization fit, individuals are more likely to work for organizations where they perceive a congruence with the organization’s culture, norms and values and their individual ones (Adkins, Ravlin, & Meglino, 1996; Kristof-Brown, Zimmermann, & Johnsen, 2005). Given the assumption that person-organization fit is also applicable to person-team fit, “[…] which focuses on the interpersonal compatibility between individuals and their work groups“ (Kristof-Brown et al., 2005: 286), these approaches are considered very promising in order to make the right recruiting decision from an employer perspective and to choose the best organization from the newcomer’s perspective. Thus, companies anticipate that the involvement of the team in the selection process is a major contributor to identify the best person-team fit and to prevent potentially destructive personality clashes based on the team’s assessment of that newcomer.
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
Newcomer outcomes
While past and present research on newcomers mainly focused on the individual outcomes as a consequence of newcomer adjustment tactics or on the overall performance of the group influenced by newcomer’s entry, I focus on the individual’s perspective (Cooper-Thomas & Wilson, 2011; Rink et al., 2013). In this context, the following section addresses newcomer related outcomes, such as job satisfaction and newcomers’ turnover intentions.
Locke (1976) defines job satisfaction as a “pleasurable or positive emotional state resulting from the appraisal of one’s job or job experiences” (p. 1300). Schneider and Snyder (1975) define of job satisfaction as “[…] a personal evaluation of conditions present in the job, or outcomes that arise as a result of having a job” (p. 318), and consequently job satisfaction is associated with an individual’s perception and evaluation of the job. Accordingly, job dissatisfaction is defined as “[…] the unpleasurable emotional state resulting from the appraisal of one’s job as frustrating or blocking the attainment of one’s job values or as entailing disvalues” (Locke, 1969: 316). As low job satisfaction is considered to lead to voluntary turnover and voluntary turnover is a type of turnover that can be prevented by appropriate organizational measures, it is of crucial importance to focus on newcomer experiences (Heneman et al., 2012). According to Heneman et al. (2012), job satisfaction along with interpersonal tensions and the lack of organizational commitment can be identified as major causes for employees leaving their organizations.
Participation of teams in hiring processes
Participation in decision-making processes
Generally, as organizations are nowadays faced with increasingly competitive environments, they have to focus on the retention of talented employees (Sagie, Elizur, & Koslowsky, 1995). Therefore, companies need to provide their workforce with incentives to keep them motivated and committed whilst also reducing their employees’ turnover intentions (Zubair, Bashir, Abrar, Baig, & Hassan, 2015). One important practice to do so, is the involvement of employees in decision-making processes (Cotton, Vollrath, Froggatt, Lengnick-hall, & Jennings, 1988; Newstrom & Davis, 2004; Scott-Ladd et al., 2005). This approach has been increasingly studied in the past 20 years (Leana, Locke, & Schweiger, 1990) and is adopted by organizations that understand the importance of human capital.
level of influence in these processes. In the former, the influence is rather high as employees have the same right to participate in decision-making as other organizations’ stakeholders, although this only applies to some employees. The degree of influence in the latter dimension is rather low because employees are not directly participating.
Team participation in hiring processes
The participation in decision making processes incorporates the involvement of employees across different organizational areas. Based on this notion, recruitment and selection is an integral part of the participation in decision-making processes.
The existing theory described above, refers to the participation of employees on the individual level. As the involvement of employees refers to various management processes in organizations, it is anticipated that employee participation also refers to personnel decision-making - not only on the individual, but also on the team-level. This includes several recruitment activities in terms of taking part in interviews with potential candidates as well as the final decision which candidate to hire.
Referring back to the different dimensions of participative decision-making, a combination of short-term and consultative participation of teams in the hiring process would be the most appropriate as this approach contains components of both classifications. The affected team gets the opportunity to be introduced to the prospective candidate within the interview processes and thus prior to the actual start of official employment. Because employees are only given the opportunity to give their opinion for the period of the hiring process, participation is solely based on a short-term involvement. Once the interviews are conducted, the manager in charge seeks the team’s input and requires the team to assess the potential candidate. By this, the manager tries to assess if that applicant would be a good fit for the team and the organization (Cotton et al., 1988).
Evidence suggests that the involvement of employees in decision making processes leads to increased commitment, motivation and job satisfaction as employees perceive their contribution in terms of innovative ideas, concepts and thoughts, is realized, valued and appreciated. This is considered to be vital, because this increased motivation and commitment then in turn result in lower employee turnover (Bhuiyan, 2012; Cotton et al., 1988; Kumar & Pansari, 2014; Newstrom & Davis, 2004; Pearson & Duffy, 1999; Witt, Andrews, & Kacmar, 2000).
involvement of a team in the hiring process leads to a greater willingness of the team to accept the newcomer. The second mechanism refers to the perception of the newcomer to be a good fit for the team.
Acceptance of a newcomer by the oldtimers
A newcomer can be defined as a new employee in his first year of employment with his current employer, often referred as to as a new hire (Boswell et al., 2009). In this context, various approaches have been pursued by scholars. While the majority of research on newcomers focuses on the socialization of the newcomer, in this thesis emphasis is put on available research on how new members are integrated into and accepted by existing teams, in the following named as the ‘oldtimers’. Building on Rink et al. (2013), this approach of examining how teams respond to newcomers refers to team receptivity. It was their study’s objective to specify “[…] the conditions under which teams are most likely to be completely receptive to newcomers” (Rink et al., 2013: 249). According to Rink et al. (2013), team receptivity consists of three dimensions, whereby one refers to ‘Newcomer acceptance’ and “[…] encompasses the team’s willingness to accept that newcomer” (Rink et al., 2013: 247).
Research findings have shown that the team’s willingness to accept a newcomer depends on various variables. One variable that affects newcomer acceptance is whether the person is employed for a short-term period or considered for a permanent position. According to Rink and Ellemers (2009), oldtimers are more receptive to permanent newcomers than a new member that is only supposed to be employed for a limited period of time. Another factor having an influence on the group’s attitude towards the newcomer is staffing level. As per Cini, Moreland and Levine (1993), teams that are understaffed tend to be more willing to accept newcomers, because it is in group’s interest to receive additional support to lower the individual’s workload. Furthermore, and based on the general model of socialization by Moreland and Levine (1982), teams are less willing to fully accept a newcomer when the new member’s entry into the team is perceived to be disruptive (Moreland & Levine, 2006).
this thesis the most important stage refers to the ‘investigation’ phase. This stage describes the recruitment of a potential new member, in which the oldtimers look for a candidate that would be the best fit on a personal and job-level. Since this is a mutual process, potential candidates gain the opportunity to figure what would be their future role and what requirements they are expected to meet in that role (Moreland & Levine, 2002). Once the newcomer entered an organization, the transition to the socialization stage occurs. This stage often implies that newcomers are not yet fully accepted as team members.
In the course of the recruitment phase, the acceptance of a newcomer by oldtimers can however be accelerated. One approach of enhancing the level of acceptance would be collaborative hiring. The participation of the team in the hiring process is a decisive factor whether there will be a long-term collaboration. If both sides feel there is no fit between them, the early detection within that stage is beneficial as a mediocre staff selection can be prevented. Thus, the associated risks and costs of a potential early turnover of that newcomer can be avoided. The commitment of the team towards the newcomer is expected to be very high, as their voice in such an early stage is already heard. The model (Moreland & Levine, 1982), suggests that the commitment in the second phase of socialization increases as long as neither the team nor the newcomer feels a growing dissatisfaction (Hewstone & Stroebe, 2012). But as it is assumed that in the course of the selection interviews the future responsibilities and other uncertainties are already defined, dissatisfaction should not arise. However, as the general commitment towards the newcomer in terms of a higher acceptance and willingness to include him steadily increases, it is proposed that the team strengthens its social inclusion efforts.
employment, it is less likely to evoke dissatisfaction later on. Instead, it is suggested that the newcomer experiences improved job satisfaction which then results in a diminished intention to leave the company.
In line with this notion, I came to the following hypotheses:
Hypothesis 1. The involvement of a team in the hiring process leads to a higher acceptance of the newcomer by the oldtimers.
Hypothesis 2. Oldtimer acceptance of newcomers is positively related to newcomer outcomes in terms of job satisfaction and reduced turnover intentions. Hypothesis 3. The involvement of a team in the hiring process is positively related to
newcomer outcomes mediated by newcomer acceptance by the oldtimers. Perception of the newcomer to be a good fit
The second mechanism that I expect to have an influence on the newcomer outcomes refers to the perception of the newcomer to be a good fit.
From existing literature on environment (P-E), we know that a lack of person-environment (P-E) fit is regarded as a potential cause for voluntary turnover (Kristof-Brown et al., 2005). Generally, and according to extant recruitment literature, P-E fit serves as an important assessment measure in recruitment and selection processes (Schilling et al., 2012). Person-environment fit can be defined as “the match between the characteristics of the individual and the surrounding environment” (Schilling et al., 2012: 3448). The different approaches to person-environment fit encompass various types, including ‘Person-Organization Fit’ (P-O), the ‘Person-Team Fit’ (P-T/P-G), also known as the ‘Person-Group Fit’ as well as the ‘Person-Job Fit’ (P-J) (Kristof-Brown, Jansen, Colbert, 2002; Schilling et al., 2012; van Vianen, 2000). While the ‘P-J Fit’ refers to the relationship between an individual’s characteristics and those of a specific job, the ’P-O Fit’ concerns the „compatibility between people and the entire organization“ (Kristof-Brown et al., 2005: 285). ‘P-O Fit’ is the most studied concept within the field of P-E fit, and research has indicated that a strong ‘P-O Fit’ reduces withdrawal behavior (Andrews, Baker, & Hunt, 2010).
influence of the psychological compatibility between the affected parties on newcomers’ outcomes. As revealed by Kristof-Brown et al. (2002), overall satisfaction of individuals is higher when there is a fit with any of these domains, either P-J Fit, P-T Fit or P-O Fit. Whether there is a Person-Team fit can already be evaluated in the recruitment or selection process (Rousseau, Ho, & Greenberg, 2006). In line with these results, I suggest that collaborative hiring can positively contribute to the candidate’s experiences with the team. This is due to team’s appreciation for newcomers, which will lead newcomers to perceive that oldtimers are genuinely interested in getting to know them.
To conclude, ‘P-T Fit’ is expected to mediate the positive relationship between the collaborative hiring approach and the newcomers’ outcomes.
This leads to the following hypotheses:
Hypothesis 4. The involvement of a team in the hiring process is positively related to the newcomer’s perception of ‘Person-Team Fit’.
Hypothesis 5. The perception of the newcomer to be a good fit is positively related to newcomer outcomes in terms of job satisfaction and turnover intentions. Hypothesis 6. The involvement of a team in the hiring process is positively related to
newcomer outcomes mediated by the newcomer’s perception to be a good fit.
FIGURE 1 Conceptual Model
OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY
METHODOLOGY
Participants and Design
The research was conducted at the research lab of the Faculty of Economics and Business of the University of Groningen. The experiment was carried out over the course of three weeks within the first block of the academic year 2016/2017. As participants were recruited from the University of Groningen, the subjects involved were mainly students. Although participation was voluntary, participants were either compensated with course credit or a fixed amount of cash, €8. In total, 120 students with a mean age of 23.11 years (SDage = 3.19) from several faculties participated in this study. Out of this sample, 48 participants (40%) were male and 72 (60%) were female. The participants’ country of origin spread across multiple countries: While one quarter (25%) of the sample was from the Netherlands, a similar proportion (28.2%) of participants originated from the Asia Pacific region (China, India, Indonesia, Korea, Taiwan, Thailand, Vietnam) and participants of German origin accounted for approximately 13%. The remaining 33.5% refer to students with origin from different European, South American and Arabic countries.
The 120 participants were assigned to 40 groups in total, with 20 groups for each of the two experimental conditions. These conditions present the following: In the first experimental condition “Choice”, participants of that group were given the opportunity to choose which candidate would join their team as a newcomer, while in the second experimental condition “Assigned”, a randomly selected newcomer was assigned to that group. This experimental setting required six participants per session who were randomly assigned to two teams of three participants. The underlying experimental task consisted of a brainstorming task divided into two parts, based on Choi and Thompson (2005).
Procedure
experimental and ‘2’ indicating the control condition. Next, participants were asked to individually complete a brief survey, similar to the one of a resume. This resume later served as a decision-making tool for the participants in the experimental condition and requested personal demographic information, as well as information about creativity skills and language capabilities of each participant.
Afterwards, I allowed sufficient time for each group to briefly introduce themselves to each other by having a discussion about the information shared on the resume. After ten minutes, both groups performed the first part of a brainstorming task. This task required the groups, based on a list containing twelve items of a given category - in this case fruits – to generate as many criteria as they could and sort these items into sub-groups (e.g. citrus vs. non-citrus, oval vs. round). Next, participants completed a first questionnaire, to capture each participant’s perceptions and feelings in terms of the group functioning and cohesion as well as the evaluation of the two other group members in terms of sympathy, creativity and the level of contribution.
At this point of the experiment, the group member change took place as one member of each group was switched to the other team. In the control condition, the newcomer was chosen at random. For this, I already specified prior to the experiment that always “Person B” from the experimental condition was assigned as the newcomer to that group. For the experimental condition, in which participants had the choice to decide which of the three members of the other group they would like to work with in the second part of the experiment, the procedure was as follows: First, “Person B” was told to change the group and was taken out to join the team in the control condition. The other two participants were provided with a set of potential newcomers. This set consisted of the three previously completed resumes of the members in the other group. The chosen person was then put into this new group.
Measures
Dependent Variables. Since the underlying model encompasses two mediation
variables, one covering the assessment of the newcomer and one covering the oldtimers’ assessment, two different questionnaires were created. For both questionnaires, a five-point Likert scale was used ranging from “strongly disagree” (1) to “strongly agree” (5).
Newcomer acceptance by the oldtimers. To measure the acceptance of newcomers by
the oldtimers, I utilized an existing scale covering items on group acceptance developed by Joardar, Kostova, and Ravlin (2007). This scale measures group acceptance on a relationship-based and task-relationship-based level. I modified and complemented the scale with additional items meeting the study’s requirements. In this context, I also intended to assess the group performance as perceived by the oldtimers after the newcomer joined, and thus included some performance related items.
As a preliminary analysis, I conducted an ‘Explorative Factor Analysis’ (EFA) for verification purposes. Since I generated some of the items in the scales by myself and combined these with already existing scales from literature, I considered necessary to assess how these compiled scales match. As expected, the explorative factor analysis yielded two factors for group acceptance (see Appendix A, Table A1 for the rotated factor loadings).
Task-based acceptance. Deriving from this analysis, I used eight items for task-based acceptance. Example items for this construct included “The newcomer was an asset to our workgroup” and “the newcomer was valuable to our workgroup”. This newly generated scale resulted in a Cronbach’s alpha of .93.
Relationship-based acceptance. For the six items on relationship-based acceptance, Cronbach’s alpha was .95. Example items of this construct included “The newcomer would be socially compatible with out group”, “The newcomer could easily become one of us”.
Perceived fit. I measured perceived fit by using items of different fit scales (Cable &
one-dimension factor solution and showed a reliability of a= .94, all items loading on this factor. This factor explained a total variance of 70.82% (see Appendix A, Table A2).
Newcomer outcomes. Newcomer outcomes were measured using several existing
scales of job satisfaction and turnover intentions. These were modified to meet this study’s requirements. For newcomer outcomes, the factor analysis yielded, as expected, two dimensions (see Appendix A, Table 3 for rotated factor loadings):
Job satisfaction. To measure job satisfaction, and in this case satisfaction with the new group, three items of Evan’s & Jarvis’ (1986) 40-items scale were used. Two of these items were adopted whereas one was slightly adjusted and two additional items were self-designed. Items included are “I felt included in the group” and “If I could, I would want to remain within that group.” This new scale had a Cronbach’s alpha of .87.
Turnover intentions. As measuring turnover intentions is difficult since this is not an organizational setup, I focused on the newcomer’s intention to work with the group in the future. I have drawn on four items of Evans & Jarvis (1986) scale that were slightly amended. To give an example, this construct involved items such as “If it were possible to move to another group, I would”, “If I could have dropped out of the group in between, I would have done so.” The internal consistency of this scale was .86.
Control variables. I included control variables such as the participant’s demographic
characteristics in terms of gender and nationality. The reason behind this is to evaluate how different the newcomer is from the two oldtimers or if the group in the experimental condition chose a newcomer that is similar or dissimilar to them on these two demographic dimensions. For this purpose, a distance or relational measure was created for each of these attributes following Tsue, Egan and O’Reilly’s approach (1992). The difference score, d-score, is comprised as follows: it measures the individual’s actual dissimilarity on a particular demographic characteristic, relative to all the other individuals in a group. It is calculated by the square root of the summed squared differences between an individual’s value on a specific demographic attribute and the value on the same attribute for every other individual in the group, divided by the total number of group member including the focal individual. Hereby, a difference score, approaching “1” indicates a higher level of dissimilarity1.
1
RESULTS
Since the focus of this research is on a team’s assessment of a potential newcomer, the oldtimer data has been aggregated to the group level, taking the average of the two oldtimers in a group. In order to scrutinize the conceptual model and test hypotheses, I made use of SPSS and the SPSS-Macro PROCESS by Hayes, a statistical analysis program.
Descriptive Statistics
An overview of the means, standard deviations and inter-correlations among the key variables is presented in Table 1. As shown in the table, the perception of the newcomer to be a good fit is positively and significantly correlated with the newcomer’s satisfaction (r = .84, p < .01). It is further negatively and significantly correlated with a newcomer’s turnover intentions (r = - .59, p < .01). Similarly, there is a positive and significant correlation between task-based and relationship-based acceptance (r = .60, p < .01). The relational demography attributes gender and nationality are not correlated with any of the other measures.
TABLE 1
Means, Standard Deviations (SD) and Pearson’s Correlations at the group-level
Variables Mean S.D. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 Newcomer acceptance by the oldtimers
Task-based acceptance 4.04 .64 1 .60** - .03 - .07 - .03 -.11 .10 .18 2 Newcomer acceptance by the
oldtimers
Relationship-based acceptance 3.88 .78 1 .09 .10 - .05 .18 .07 .22 3 Perception of the newcomer to
be a good fit* 4.06 .64 1 .84** - .59** .03 .03 .08 4 Newcomer outcome Satisfaction 3.95 .73 1 - .60** .17 - .11 .21 5 Newcomer outcome Turnover intentions 2.16 .77 1 .06 .20 .07 6
Gender – Relational demography .40 .33 1 .02 .10
7
Nationality – Relational
demography .78 .087 1 .00
8 Experimental Condition 1
Differences between conditions
Prior to testing the proposed mediations, I conducted an Independent Samples t-test to compare the outcome of a newcomer in the experimental condition ’Choice’ and the control condition ‘Assign’. The results of the examination of the differences are shown in Table 2. There was no significant difference in the scores for ‘Choice’ (M = 4.10, SD = .66) and ‘Assign’ (M = 3.80, SD = .79; t (38) = 1.31, p = .20.) in terms of the newcomer’s satisfaction. The same applies for the newcomer’s turnover intentions. There was an insignificant difference in the scores for ‘Choice’ (M = 2.21, SD = .62) and ‘no choice’ (M = 2.10, SD = .90); t (38) = .46, p = .65). As shown in Table 2, the analysis also did not yield significant differences between the two groups for the mediating variables. These results suggest that involving a team in the decision-making process and letting them have a voice does not have a significant effect on the newcomer outcomes. Specifically, the results imply that if groups are involved in the decision-making process, the satisfaction and turnover intentions of a newcomer do not improve significantly.
TABLE 2
Results of the independent sample T-test for the effect of being involved in the hiring-process on the dependent variables
Means (SD) t-value df p- 2-tailed
Experimental Condition ‘Choice’ Control Condition ‘Assign’ Task-based acceptance 4.15 (.54) 3.93 (.72) 1.10 38 .28 Relationship-based acceptance 4.05 (.74) 3.72 (.81) 1.36 28 .18 Newcomer’s perceived fit 4.10 (.58) 4.01 (.70) .46 38 .65 Newcomer’s job satisfaction 4.10 (.66) 3.80 (.79) 1.31 38 .20 Newcomer’s turnover
intentions
2.21 (.62) 2.10 (.90) .46 38 .65
Note: n= 40
Testing the hypotheses
Table 4. The relational demography attributes such as nationality and gender were included as control variables in the analysis. As can be seen in Table 3, the control variables never had any effects on the dependent variables. Thus, I will not discuss them any further.
Hypothesis 1 stated that the involvement of a team in the hiring process leads to a higher
acceptance of the newcomer by the oldtimers. From the factor analysis performed before, two constructs emerged - relationship-based and task-based acceptance. For relationship-based acceptance, the analysis revealed a low negative coefficient for the effect of letting teams having a voice in the hiring process on the mediating variable, relationship-based acceptance (b = -.31, p = .24). The regression of the independent variable on a task-based acceptance did not show a significant relationship between these two variables (b = -.19, p = .34). Hence, the involvement of a team in the hiring process did not necessarily lead to a higher task-or relationship-based acceptance. As such, I reject hypothesis 1.
Hypothesis 2 proposed that the increased acceptance is positively related to the newcomer
outcomes in terms of improved job satisfaction and reduced turnover intentions.
Considering the first dependent variable, the regression analysis yielded a positive relationship between relationship-based acceptance and job satisfaction. This was however not significant (b = .06, p =.50). The same applies for the task-based acceptance yielding the following values: b = -.18, p = .19. For this reason, the hypothesis for the dependent variable job satisfaction is rejected. In terms of the newcomer’s turnover intentions, the analysis revealed a positive, but insignificant relationship between relationship-based acceptance and turnover intentions (b = .10, p = .66). However, a negative relationship resulted from the regression of task-based acceptance on turnover intentions (b= -.28, p= .40). Since both p-values indicate not to be significant for the effect of a task-based and relationship-based acceptance on turnover intentions, hypothesis 2 is not confirmed.
Hypotheses 3 proposed that the involvement of a team in the hiring process is positively
related to the newcomer outcomes mediated by the newcomer acceptance by the oldtimers. In order to test this hypothesis, I performed a mediation analysis, using bias-corrected bootstrapping.
acceptance on the dependent variable job satisfaction, while controlling for condition, showed a positive, but not significant effect (b = .06, p = .50). Lastly, controlling for the mediator relationship-based acceptance, letting teams participate in the hiring process was not a significant predictor for job satisfaction (b = -.21, p = .13). Since the zero is present in the confidence interval of the indirect effect (CI95% [-.16, .02]), there was significant mediation effect. In terms of the task-based acceptance, the regression showed values of b = -.19, p = .34 for Path A, and b= -.18, p= .19 for Path B. The mediation analysis also revealed no mediation for task-based acceptance as mediator, condition as the independent variable and job satisfaction as the dependent variable (b = .03, CI95%[-.02, .21]).
With regards to newcomer’s turnover intentions, Path A, testing the regression of the independent variable on the dependent variable relationship-based acceptance, was not significant (b = -.31, p = .24). Path B showed that the regression of the mediator relationship-based acceptance on the dependent variable turnover intentions, while controlling for letting teams participate in the hiring process, not to be significant (b = .10, p = .66). The bootstrapping revealed that there was no indirect effect (b = -.03, CI95% [-.41, .06]). Taking into account the task-based acceptance of a newcomer by the oldtimers, a similar picture emerged. Both, Path A (b = -.19, p = -.34) and Path B (b = -.28, p = .40) proved to be not significant. Since letting a team participate in the hiring process was not a significant predictor for turnover intentions while controlling for task-based acceptance (b = -.21, p = .13), there was no mediation (CI95%[-.03, .44]). Consequently, hypothesis 3, considering both the relationship-based as well as the task-based acceptance cannot be confirmed.
Hypotheses 4 & 5. In order to test these two hypotheses, I conducted a regression analysis.
Hypothesis 6 stated that the involvement of a team in the hiring process is positively related
to the newcomer outcomes mediated by the newcomer’s perception to be a good fit.
In terms of the dependent variable job satisfaction, Path A of the mediation model, which tested the regression of the mediator ‘A newcomer’s perception to be a good fit’, did not show a significant effect (b = -.09, p = .68). Path B revealed that the regression of the mediator perceived fit of the newcomer on the dependent variable job satisfaction, while controlling for the condition, was highly significant (b = .94, p < .001). Last, controlling for the mediator perceived fit, involving a team in the hiring process was not a significant predictor of job satisfaction (b = -.21, p = .13). Using a bootstrap with 1000 samples to investigate the indirect effect, the analysis revealed an indirect coefficient of b = -.09, SE = .20, CI95%[-.47, .30], indicating not to be significant.
The regression analysis for the indirect mediation effect with the newcomer’s turnover intentions as the dependent variable and the newcomer’s perceived fit as mediator, revealed no significant effect for Path A (b = -.09, p = .68) but a significant effect for Path B (b = -.74, p < .001). Involving a team in the hiring process was not a significant predictor of turnover intentions (b= -.18, p= .41). I tested the indirect effect using a bootstrap estimation approach. These results indicated the indirect coefficient was not significant (b= -.07, SE = .16, CI95%[-.22, .41]).
TABLE 3
Results of the regression analysis incorporating all relevant dependent variables Dependent Variables (M1) (M2) (M3) (DV1) (DV2) Predictors Relationship-based acceptance Task-based
acceptance Perceived Fit satisfaction Job intentions Turnover
Control Variable
Distance score
(in terms of gender and nationality) .85 (1.16) -.42 (-.76) .14 (.22) .59 (.86) .49 (.67) Main effects Condition1 -.31 (-1.19) -.19 (-.98) -.09 (-.41) -.21 (-1.54) -.18 (-.84) Relationship-based acceptance .06 (.68) .10 (.44) Task-based acceptance -.18 (-1.34) -.28 (-.85) Perceived Fit .94 (7.51)*** -.74 (-3.81)***
Note: 1 Dummy Coded, 0= Choice
1= Assign; t-value is presented in parentheses
TABLE 4
Results of the analysis for the indirect mediation effects Indirect effects (Mediation Model)
DV 1 Job satisfaction b SE LLCI ULCI M1 – Relationship-based acceptance -.02 .04 -.16 .02 M2 – Task-based acceptance .03 .05 -.02 .21 M3 – Perceived Fit -.09 .20 - .47 .30 DV 2 Turnover intentions b SE LLCI UCLI M1 – Relationship-based acceptance -.03 .10 -.41 .06 M2 – Task-based acceptance .05 .10 -.03 .44 M3 – Perceived Fit -.07 .16 -.22 .41 DISCUSSION
Research findings. The study set out to research the impact of team involvement in the hiring
process on the newcomers’ outcomes. I expected to find a mediating effect of perceived fit of the newcomer and of the acceptance of a newcomer by the oldtimers for letting teams having a voice in the hiring process, rather than simply assigning a new team member to the existing team.
turnover intentions was observed. This means that an increase in fit perceptions leads to reduced intentions to quit. Accordingly, the fifth hypotheses – that a strong perception of the newcomer to be a good fit is positively related to outcomes in terms of an improved job satisfaction and reduced turnover intentions – was confirmed. However, no evidence was provided for the indirect mediation effects. Nevertheless, a drawback of these significant findings is rather apparent. Since exactly those relations, perceptions such as being a good fit as well as job satisfaction and turnover intentions, are all measured among newcomers, representing a common method variance, it is not surprising that they correlate with each other.
Although most effects are not significant, often the results were in the assumed direction. Potentially, the lack of effects may therefore be related to lack of statistical power, which implies that a larger sample size may lead to stronger effects. Another reason for the results could be presented by the circumstance that oldtimers did not really meet newcomers in advance. Oldtimers had to make a decision for a candidate based exclusively on the resumes. Since I intended to maintain experimental control, I provided oldtimers with these resumes as I thought this was sufficient for achieving anticipated effects. The results however suggest that this might not have been the case. It would have been better if oldtimers and newcomers would have met personally. This might have yielded stronger results, indicating how the acceptance of newcomers by oldtimers affect satisfaction of newcomers. Apart from that, it could be the case that students in the laboratory had a tendency to be overly friendly and intended to include everybody as someone that was appointed to a team.
Concluding, and even if the results do not coincide with the experience of practitioners, there might be statistically significant effects if more attention is paid to the above mentioned explanatory as well as to additional process variables.
Limitations. Prior to providing practical and theoretical implications, I present some
that students have very likely not been involved in such a professional context before, might constitute a reason for the results.
The period for which a newcomer was recruited also represents a shortcoming of the study: the newcomer was recruited for the short moment in the laboratory setting and not for the upcoming years, as it is common in business (Rink & Ellemers, 2009; Society for Human Resource Management, 2002; Sullivan, 2008). Another shortcoming emerging from the experimental setup is attributed to the absent interviews. Since there were no interviews with the newcomers, the decision was essentially made on the basis of the completed resumes, not representing a realistic situation. The same applies to the fact that newcomers themselves were not involved in the hiring process and thus did not have the possibility to refuse to join a team.
A further limitation refers to the sample size: As previously mentioned power issues may have played a role. Future studies should have more observations than it was the case in this thesis. Additionally, and due to the limited time frame, the sample size was already limited in itself. Conducting a more extensive study would have been beyond the scope of this thesis, but it would certainly have provided a larger amount of additional data and thus a more profound basis for the analysis.
Theoretical and Practical Implications. Although this study provided no significant
mediation effects of the involvement of the team in the hiring process on the newcomer outcomes, great interest and importance should however be attached to this increasingly conducted HR practice, not only from a theoretical but also from a practical perspective.
In recent years, most studies on newcomers focused either on the acceptance of a team towards newcomers primarily emphasizing team performance, or on newcomers themselves with regards to their socialization process once they entered an organization (Rink et al., 2013). Specific research focusing on the newcomer outcomes is, however, scarce. Research on employee recruitment addresses several recruitment activities and their relative effectiveness. But this literature has been criticized for studies being poorly designed and too narrow in focus (Breaugh, 2008; Breaugh & Starke, 2000). There are, however, no extensive studies incorporating both. Therefore, combining literature on newcomers with literature on ‘Person-Environment fit’ and recruitment practices can potentially broaden the existing knowledge on these issues.
Because there is not yet much research on this issue providing significant scientific evidence for this HR practice, future research should investigate in more depth the effects of this practice on newcomers. Effects in terms of additional behavioral and attitudinal outcomes that may be included involve real job satisfaction, such as integration, scope of duties and working relationships. It should further encompass a detailed assessment of turnover intentions, especially taking into account the retention rate reflecting the success of this recruitment practice. Therefore, to provide a comprehensive picture and analysis, I recommend to conduct an extensive, long-term field study in an authentic business environment that allows to cover all relevant components with a representative and sufficiently large sample. This presupposes that the investigation is conducted within different organizations with teams with newcomers that recently applied this specific approach. Additionally, and since the experimental design of this study did not yield this, the commitment of a newcomer towards the organization should be assessed as well, because it also may influence newcomer’s turnover intentions.
Moreover, it might be very interesting to consider the inter-rater reliability, examining the extent of agreement among different oldtimers assessing one potential newcomer. By this, researchers could assess whether and to which extent team members provide consistent and reliable evaluations of newcomers. It may turn out that significant differences in these evaluations either have a moderating effect on newcomer acceptance or that they also affect the decision in favor of or against a specific candidate. These considerations bear potential chances for researchers to connect the literature on newcomers with the recruitment and selection literature, as well as with literature on P-O fit.
Conclusion. Research findings did not support the assumed mediating effects for the
REFERENCES
Adkins, C. L., Ravlin, E. C., & Meglino, B. M. (1996). Value Congruence Between Co-Workers and Its Relationship to Work Outcomes. Group and Organization
Management, 21(4), 439-460.
Anderson, P., & Pulich, M. (1997). Team based participation in the hiring process. The
Health Care Supervisor. 1997 Jun; Vol. 15 (4), pp. 69-76.
Andrews, M. C., Baker, T., & Hunt, T. G. (2011). Values and person–organization fit: Does moral intensity strengthen outcomes? Leadership & Organization Development
Journal, 32(1), 5-19.
Appelbaum S.H., Louis D., Makarenko D., Saluja J., Meleshko O., & Kulbashian S. (2013). Participation in decision making: A case study of job satisfaction and commitment (part one). Industrial and Commercial Training, 45(4), 222-229.
Ascendant Recruitment (2016). Why more employers are turning to collaborative hiring…. Retrieved May 23rd 2016 from http://www.ascendantrecruitment.co.uk/blog/why-more-employers-are-turning-to-collaborative-hiring
Beechler, S., & Woodward, I. C. (2009). The global “war for talent.” Journal of
International Management, 15(3), 273–285.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.intman.2009.01.002
Bhuiyan, M. A. H. (2012). Employee Participation in Decision Making in RMG sector of Bangladesh: Correlation with Motivation and Performance. Journal of Business and
Technology (Dhaka), 5(2), 2001–2002. http://doi.org/10.3329/jbt.v5i2.9984
Boswell, W. R., Shipp, A. J., Payne, S. C., & Culbertson, S. S., (2009). Changes in newcomer job satisfaction over time: Examining the pattern of honeymoons and hangovers. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 94(4), 844–858.
Breaugh, J. A., & Starke, M. (2000). Research on employee recruitment: so many studies, so many remaining questions. Journal of Management, 26(3), 405-434.
Breaugh, J. A. (2008). Employee recruitment: Current knowledge and important areas for future research. Human Resource Management Review, 18(3), 103-118. doi:10.1016/j.hrmr.2008.07.003
Brownell, P. (1982). A Field Study Examination of Budgetary Participation and Locus of Control. The Accounting Review, 57(4), 766-777.
Burke, R. J., & Cooper, C. L. (2006). Reinventing HRM: Challenges and New Directions. Taylor & Francis. Retrieved May 22nd 2016 from https://books.google.nl/books?id=-EKAAgAAQBAJ
fit perceptions. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(5), 875–884. http://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.5.875
Cascio, W. F. (2003). Managing human resources: Productivity, quality of work life, profits (6th ed., International ed.). (McGraw-Hill series in management; McGraw-Hill series in management). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Chen, G. (2005). Newcomer adaption in teams: Multilevel antecedents and outcomes.
Academy of Management Journal, 48(1), 101–116.
http://doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2005.15993147
Choi, H.-S., & Thompson, L. (2005). Old wine in a new bottle: Impact of membership change on group creativity. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 98(2), 121–132. https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2005.06.003
Cini, M.A., Moreland, R.L., & Levine, J.M. (1993). Group staffing levels and responses to prospective and new group members. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 723–734.
Cooper-Thomas, H. D., & Wilson, M. G. (2011). Influences on Newcomers’ Adjustment Tactic Use. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 19(4), 388–404. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2389.2011.00567.x
Cotton, J. L., Vollrath, D. A., Froggatt, K. L., Lengnick-hall, M. L., & Jennings, K. R. (1988).
Employee Participation: Diverse Forms and Different Outcomes, 13(1), 8–22.
Evans, N. J., & Jarvis, P. A. (1986). The Group Attitude Scale: A Measure of Attraction to Group. Small Group Research, 17(2), 203-216. doi:10.1177/104649648601700205 Friebel, G., & Giannetti, M. (2009). Fighting for Talent: Risk-Taking, Corporate Volatility
and Organisation Change. The Economic Journal, 119(540), 1344–1373. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/40271394
Heneman, H. G., Judge, T. A., & Kammeyer-Mueller, J. D. (2012). Staffing organizations (7th ed., International ed.). Middleton, WI: Mendota House.
Hewstone, M., & Stroebe, W. (2012). An introduction to social psychology (fifth [compl. rev.] ed.). (BPS textbooks in psychology). Chichester: BPS Blackwell. http://catalogimages.wiley.com/images/db/jimages/9781444335446.jpg
Joardar, A., Kostova, T., & Ravlin, E. C. (2007). An experimental study of the acceptance of a foreign newcomer into a workgroup. Journal of International Management, 13(4), 513–537. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.intman.2007.02.002
Kacmar, K. M., Andrews, M. C., Van Rooy, D. L., Steilberg, R. C., & Cerrone, S. (2006). Sure Everyone Can Be Replaced... but at What Cost? Turnover as a Predictor of Unit-Level Performance. The Academy of Management Journal, 49(1), 133-144.
Kristof-Brown, A. L., Jansen, K. J., & Colbert, A. E. (2002). A policy-capturing study of the simultaneous effects of fit with jobs, groups, and organizations. The Journal of Applied
Psychology, 87(5), 985–993. http://doi.org/10.5465/APBPP.2001.27461493
Kristof-Brown, A. L., Zimmerman, R. D., & Johnson, E. C. (2005). Consequences of Individuals’ Fit At Work : Person – Organization ,Person – Group, and Person – Supervisor Fit. Personnel Psychology, 58, 281–342. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2005.00672.x
Kumar, V., & Pansari, A. (2014). The Construct, Measurement, and Impact of Employee Engagement: a Marketing Perspective. Customer Needs and Solutions, 1(1), 52–67. Leana, C. R., Locke, E. A., & Schweiger, D. M. (1990). Fact and fiction in analyzing research
on participative decision making: A critique of Cotton, Vollrath, Froggatt, Lengnick- Hall, and Jennings. Academy of Management Review, 15: 137-146.
Locke, E. A. (1969). What is job satisfaction? Organizational Behavior and Human
Performance, 4(4), 309–336.
Locke, E.A. (1976). The nature and causes of job satisfaction. In M.D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp.1297-1349). Chicago: Rand McNally.
Locke, E. A., Schweiger, D. M., & Latham, G. P. (1986). Participation in decision making: When should it be used? Organizational Dynamics, 14(3), 65-79.
Michaels, E., Handfield-Jones, H., & Axelrod, B. (2001). The war for talent. Boston, Mass.:
Harvard Buss School Press.
http://digitool.hbz-nrw.de:1801/webclient/DeliveryManager?pid=741068&custom_att_2=simple_viewer Mobley, WH. (1977). Intermediate linkages in the relationship between job satisfaction and
employee turnover. Journal of Applied Psychology, 62(2): 237–240.
Moreland, R. L., & Levine, J. M. (1982). Socialization in small groups: Temporal changes
in individual- group relations. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social
psychology (Vol. 15, pp. 137–192). New York: Academic Press.
Moreland, R. L., & Levine, J. M. (2002). Socialization and Trust in Work Groups. Group
Processes & Intergroup Relations, 5(3), 185–201.
http://doi.org/10.1177/1368430202005003001
Moreland, R.L., & Levine, J.M. (2006). Socialization in organizations and work groups. In J.M. Levine & R.L. Moreland (Eds.), Small groups (pp. 469–499). New York:
Psychology Press.
Munyon, T. P., Summers, J. K., & Ferris, G. R. (2011). Team staffing modes in organizations: Strategic considerations on individual and cluster hiring approaches. Human Resource
Management Review, 21(3), 228–242. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2010.07.002
Newstrom J.W., & Davis, K. (2004). Organizational Behavior: Human Behavior at Work (11th Edition), Tata Mcgraw- Hill Co. Ltd. New Delhi, pp.187-200.
Nijstad, B. A. (2009). Group performance (Social psychology: a modular course). Hove: Psychology Press. http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&doc_number=016220011&line_nu mber=0001&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA
Pearson, C.A.L., & Duffy, C. (1999), “The importance of the job content and social information on organizational commitment and job satisfaction: a study in Australian and Malaysian nursing contexts”, Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, Vol. 36 No. 3, pp. 17-30.
Probst, T. M. (2005). Countering the Negative Effects of Job Insecurity Through Participative Decision Making: Lessons From the Demand-Control Model. Journal of Occupational
Health Psychology, 10(4), 320-329.
Rink, F., & Ellemers, N. (2009). Temporary versus permanent group membership: How the future prospects of newcomers affect newcomer acceptance and newcomer influence.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35, 764–775.
Rink, F., Kane, A. A., Ellemers, N., & Van Der Vegt, G. (2013). Team Receptivity to Newcomers: Five Decades of Evidence and Future Research Themes. Academy of
management annals, 7(1), 245-291.
Rousseau, D. M., Ho, V. T., & Greenberg, J. (2006). I-deals: Idiosyncratic terms in employment relationships. Academy of Management Review, 31, 977–994.
Sagie, A., Elizur, D., & Koslowsky, M. (1995). Decision type, participative decision making (PDM), and organizational behavior: An experimental simulation. Human
Performance. http://doi.org/10.1080/08959289509539858
Saks, A. M. (1994). Moderating effects of self-efficacy for the relationship between training method and anxiety and stress reactions of newcomers. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 15, 639–654.
Saks, A. M. (1995). Longitudinal Weld investigation of the moderating and mediating effects of self-efficacy on the relationship between training and newcomer adjustment. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 80, 211–225.
Schilling, A., Laumer, S., & Weitzel, T. (2012). Who will remain? - An evaluation of actual Person-Job and Person-Team fit to predict developer retention in FLOSS projects.
Proceedings of the Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences,
Scott-Ladd, B., Travaglione, A., & Marshall, V. (2006). Causal inferences between participation in decision making, task attributes, work effort, rewards, job satisfaction and commitment. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 27(5), 399-414. Schneider, B, & Snyder, R.A. (1975). Some relationship between job satisfaction and
organizational climate. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60(3), 318-328
Smith, L. G. E., Amiot, C. E., Callan, V. J., Terry, D. J., & Smith, J. R. (2012). Getting new staff to stay: The mediating role of organizational identification. British Journal of
Management, 23(1), 45–64. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8551.2010.00728.x
Society for Human Resource Management (2002). A Study of Effective Workforce
Management. Retrieved January 1st 2017 from
https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/tools-and-samples/toolkits/documents/a%20study%20of%20effective%20workforce%20manage ment.pdf
Stewart, H. (2016). Seven Reasons Why Collaborative Hiring Works Better. The Blog. The
Huffington Post. Retrieved May 22nd 2016 from
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/henry-stewart/seven-reasons-why-collabo_b_9296126.html
Sullivan, J. (2015). The Big Benefits Your Organization Gets From Collaborative Hiring. Talent Management and HR. EREMEDIA. Retrieved May 22nd 2016 from
http://www.eremedia.com/tlnt/the-big-benefits-your-organization-gets-from-collaborative-hiring/
Tsue, A. S., & Egan, T. D. (1992). Being Different: Relational Demography and Organizational Attachment. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37(4), 549-79.
Tung, R. L. (2016). New perspectives on human resource management in a global context.
Journal of World Business, 51(1), 142–152. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2015.10.004
van Vianen, A. E. M. (2000). Person-Organization Fit: the Match Between Newcomers’ and Recruiters' Preferences for Organizational Cultures. Personnel Psychology, 53(1), 113– 149. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2000.tb00196.x
Witt, L.A., Andrews, M.C., & Kacmar, K.M. (2000), “The role of participation in decision-making in the organizational politics-job satisfaction relationship”, Human Relations, Vol. 53 No. 3, pp. 341-58.
Young, C. A., & Lundberg, C. C. (1996). Creating a good first day on the job: Allaying newcomers’anxiety with positive messages. The Cornell Hotel and Restaurant
Administration Quarterly, 37(6), 5.
Zubair, A., Bashir, M., Abrar, M., Baig, S. A., & Hassan, S. Y. (2015). Employee’s Participation in Decision Making and Manager ’ s Encouragement of Creativity : The Mediating Role of Climate for Creativity and Change. Journal of Service Science and
APPENDIX A TABLE A1
Factor Analysis Table – Newcomer acceptance by oldtimers
Construct and item wording Factor 1 Factor loadings Factor 2 Task-based acceptance
The newcomer was valuable to our workgroup. .74
I appreciated having the newcomer in our workgroup. .79
The newcomer was an asset to our workgroup. .80 .43
Our workgroup benefitted by having the newcomer as a member. .86
I appreciated the newcomer’s contribution. .74
The new constellation fostered the group’s creativity. .80 The group interaction improved as the newcomer was joining our
team. .71
Our group performance was better than before. .77 Relationship-based acceptance
I would like to invite the newcomer to social events. .84
The newcomer would socially fit into our group. .90
The newcomer would be socially compatible to our group. .86
I would like to interact socially with the newcomer. .85
The newcomer could easily become one of us. .86
I enjoyed having a newcomer. .75
Eigenvalue 8.36 2.00
% of Variance 59.74 14.35
Total Variance 74.08
Note: Factor loadings < .4 were suppressed.
TABLE A2
Factor Analysis Table – Perception of the newcomer to be a good fit
Construct and item wording Component Communalities
I feel, I was welcomed in the team. .84 .71
I felt accepted by the other group members. .87 .76
I feel the team is very likely to be a good match for me. / I felt a good fit with the other group members.
.88 .78
My personality is likely to match with the
personality of my team. .81 .66
I felt I was appreciated by the other group
members. .80 .64
The values of the team seem to be very similar to
my own values. .85
.72 I had the impression that the team is very likely to
meet my needs. .89
.78 I had the impression that my knowledge, skills and
abilities match the requirements of the team. .79 .62
Eigenvalue 5.67
% Total Variance 70.82
TABLE A3
Factor Analysis Table – Outcome of the newcomer
Construct and item wording Factor 1 Factor loadings Factor 2 Job Satisfaction
I enjoyed working with the new team. .81
I felt included in the group. .83
If I could, I would like to remain within that group. .82 I do not feel as part of the group’s activities.* .77
I felt a strong group cohesion. .70
Turnover intentions
If it were possible to move to another group, I would. .72 If it has been possible to get out of this group I would have. .77 I would have preferred that the group had stopped earlier. .46 .66 If I could have dropped out of the group in between, I would
have done so. .95
Eigenvalue 5.22 1.26
% of Variance 57.95 14.03
Total Variance 71.98
