The impact of person-role fit on the influence and acceptance of newcomers in teams
with the moderating role of transformational leadership style
Author:
Mireille Hovenga
Under supervision of: Inge Bouwhuis Second supervisor Floor Rink
Rijksuniversiteit Groningen
Faculty of Economics & Management and Organization
Msc Human Resource Management
June 2009
Willem van Noortstraat 120 3514 GH Utrecht
06-11076406
Email: s1384562@student.rug.nl
2 ABSTRACT
In this research we examined the relationships between the person-role fit of a newcomer and the degree of influence and acceptance of a newcomer (measured among 119 employees; newcomers, team members and team leaders). Besides this, we looked at the moderating role of a transformational leadership style on these relationships. Social discrimination can undo the positive contributions of newcomers. Expectancy is that a high person-role fit of a newcomer will be positively related to the acceptance and influence of the newcomer, which in turn will have a positive influence on the contributions newcomers can make to the team. Results show that a high degree of person-role fit of the newcomer does not have a positive effect on the acceptance of the newcomer, but it does have a positive relationship with influence. Moreover, results show that old-timers still have more influence than newcomers do. Besides this, transformational leadership did not moderate the relationship between person-role fit and the acceptance/influence of the newcomer. Implications of these results and the consequences for future research are discussed.
3 1. INTRODUCTION
Working in teams has become a common phenomenon in the competitive world nowadays (Sundstrom, 1999). There are different reasons for the shift from individual jobs in functionalized structures to working in teams. To survive in a highly competitive and innovative world, high levels of expertise, adaptability, rapid response and skill diversity are highly valued characteristics. Work teams can possess these characteristics (Kozlowski, Gully, Nason, & Smith, 1999). Because of the existence of many teams in an organization, team effectiveness becomes a salient concern for organizations (Kozlowski & Ilgen, 2006). To be able to fully contribute to the goals of the organization, it is important for a team to work in an effective way. Different underlying processes can influence the effectiveness of a team (Kozlowski & Ilgen, 2006). For example the way how knowledge is shared within a team, how team members fit within their organization, team and role, and what kind of leadership style is used. Another important influence on team effectiveness is the role of newcomers in teams. Newcomers, with their unique knowledge input, can be of great importance for the effectiveness of the team. The main goal of the present study is to look what the influence of the person-role fit of a newcomer is on the degree of acceptance and influence of the newcomer. As mentioned before, leadership style can also have a great influence on team effectiveness. In this research we also investigate the moderating role of transformational leadership style on the relation: person-role fit of a newcomer – acceptance/ influence of the newcomer.
4 have a detrimental influence on team performance and thereby a loss of team effectiveness (Kozlowski & Ilgen, 2006). This decrease in team effectiveness is a result of the disruption of communication and coordination of the collective knowledge, and higher levels of intra team conflict (Argote, Insko, Yovetich, & Romero, 1995). But what about positive contributions of newcomers to team effectiveness? Does a high turnover ratio necessarily have a detrimental effect on team performance and team effectiveness?
A newcomer in the team can have advantages and disadvantages. On the one hand, one of the reasons organizations choose for more mobility within teams is the advantage of knowledge transfer. Knowledge is power. Knowledge can be an extremely important competitive advantage, especially in the world nowadays, with the rise of more and more knowledge intensive industries (Argote, Ingram, Levine & Moreland, 2000). Newcomers can be a source of new knowledge. A company can benefit from this unique knowledge and experience. The quality and speed of knowledge transfer is of fundamental significance in a highly competitive world (Zander & Kogut, 1995). On the other hand, successful knowledge transfer may be difficult to achieve. Newcomers can be targets of social discrimination in the team (Ashforth & Mael, 1993). According to Social identity Theory, individuals categorize themselves and others into different social classifications (Tajfel & Turner, 1985). Newcomers may be seen as a distinct group with distinct values and practices. In turn, this process influences the cooperation, cohesion, altruism and positive evaluations of the group. Positive contributions of the newcomer may not be accepted through this process (Turner, 1982, 1984). These processes may thus lower the influence of the newcomer. Another disadvantage is the high costs of integrating the new team members. Much time and money is spent to help newcomers to adapt to the new work procedures and socialize them in the new team environment (Bauer, Morrison, & Callister, 1998).
1.1 Factors influencing the process of newcomers entering into teams
5 a group’s prior performance and size, or whether a team was assigned rather than chose their strategy (Choi & Levine, 2004). Influence of a newcomer is a result of an implicit or explicit negotiation between newcomers and old team members (Levine, Choi & Moreland, 2001). Newcomers can possess unique knowledge but if they are not influential, the group cannot take advantage of it.
Success depends on the degree to which old team members adopt the ideas of newcomers. As a consequence, a good relationship between newcomers and old-timers is very important. Therefore we argue that another factor that may influence the process of acceptance and influence is the degree of person-role fit of the newcomer. Person–role fit reflects ‘the compatibility between individuals’ personal characteristics and the features of his or her role within the team’ (DeRue & Morgeson, 2007, p. 1).
There is a lot of research on newcomer socialization (e,g. Moreland, Cooper-Thomas & Anderson, Choi & Levine, Chen & Klimoski). The majority of this research investigates the socialization processes of newcomers in teams. They look at the different stages a newcomer is going through, and how the newcomer can adjust as soon as possible to the rules and procedures of the new team. Little research has tested the impact that newcomers can have on their workgroups. While a newcomer can have a big influence on important aspects of performance, such as teamwork, continuous learning and innovative behavior, newcomer influence represents an important, but understudied, form of minority influence (Welbourne, Johnson, & Erez, 1998). The purpose of this research is to investigate the relation a newcomer has with the team and what the consequences of this relationship are for the acceptance and influence of the newcomer. Specifically, we look at the person-role fit of the newcomer with the team, in relation to the acceptance and influence of the newcomer.
6 Additionally, a leader can play an essential role in creating and facilitating working conditions of a team. Research shows that different leadership styles have different effects on follower attitudes, behavior, and performance (Fiedler, 1967; Hersey & Blanchard, 1977; as cited in Dale & Fox, 2008). Despite findings of many studies that leadership styles may influence the effects of person-role fit in teams (Meglino et al., 1991; Reichers, 1987; Silverhart & Hinchcliffe, 1996; Weiss, 1978), little research exists about this potential influence. There is also little research about the influence of leadership style on newcomers in teams. Not all leadership styles may have the same influence on follower attitudes, behavior, and performance. Leadership styles which involve more intensive contact between the subordinate and leader, seems to have more influence on affecting the values, attitudes and behaviors of subordinates (Meglino et al., 1991; Weiss, 1978). When we look at the definition of the transformational leadership style: ‘leader behavior to motivate their subordinates to improve the collective good’ (Burns, 1978, p. 6), we suggest that this is a form of leadership which involves an intensive interaction between the subordinate and the leader. Expectancy is that especially transformational leadership style will have a positive influence on the acceptance and influence of a newcomer and not a transactional style of leadership. Newcomers’ input can improve the collective team performance. Motivation of subordinates to improve the collective good is one of the key behaviors of transformational leadership style. Transactional leadership style, the reliance on contingent rewards to induce subordinate performance, is more individualistic (Avolio & Bass, 1988; Bass, 1985). It is more focused on the motivation of an individual then on the improvement of the collective good. The acceptance of the newcomer and the acceptance of newcomers’ influence, by a team, are important for the improvement of the collective good. It is therefore we look at the influence of transformational leadership style and not at the influence of the more individualistic focused transactional leadership style.
person-7 role fit of the newcomer and the acceptance and influence of the newcomer in the team as well as the moderating effect of transformational leadership on this relationship (see figure 1).
8 1.2 Theory and hypothesis
Person-role fit & the acceptance of the newcomer
Having a new team member in the team is not a guarantee for success. Before newcomers can fully contribute to the achievement of the goals of the group, it is important that the newcomer is accepted by the group and has the possibility to exert some influence. A group wants the newcomer to contribute more to the achievement of the team, whereas the newcomer wants the group to contribute more to the satisfaction of his or her personal needs. The degree of commitment of the newcomer to the contribution to the team, and vice versa, will influence the acceptance of the newcomer (Moreland & Levine, 2002). A high degree of commitment between the team and the newcomer will result in a greater acceptance of the newcomer.
Social categorization can play an important role in the acceptance of a newcomer. According to social identity theory, people tend to classify themselves and others into various social categories, such as organizational membership, religious affiliation, gender, and age cohort (Tajfel & Turner, 1985). The existence of different social identities has influence on the degree of cooperation, intra-group cohesion and positive evaluations of the group (Turner, 1982, 1984). Newcomers can become the victim of social discrimination. Newcomers may be seen as an out-group member and the group of old-timers as the in-group based on the idea of belonging to distinct social categories. Specific behaviors and affective states of the newcomer may cause in-group favoritism. Newcomers have a special role in the group. Newcomers may behave differently, they do not know the group yet and they may experience feelings of anxiety, and can be uneasy about their acceptance by the group (Louis, 1980; Schuetz, 1944; Van Maanen, 1977). Their newness can become very visible, both to themselves and others, what can result in the generation of in-group favoritism for the old-timers. The in-group may develop negative stereotypes of the out-group member (Horwitz & Rabbie, 1982; Wilder, 1981). This can result in low commitment levels.
9 their group. Placing a newcomer in such a team may be enough to generate in-group favoritism for the old-timers.
Due to the bias of in-group – out-group membership, a lower degree of cohesion and coordination will exist between the newcomer and the team. They will be less committed to each other and the acceptance of the newcomer will be influenced in a negative way.
Similarity between team members can apparently be of great importance in the process of the acceptance of a newcomer. The degree of person-role fit therefore plays an important role in the acceptance process of a newcomer. Person-role fit can be conceptualized along two dimensions: demands–abilities fit and needs–supplies fit. In team contexts, demands–abilities fit: ‘reflects the degree to which an individual’s knowledge, skills, and abilities are commensurate with the demands of his or her role within the team’. Needs–supplies fit, on the other hand, ‘reflect the degree to which individuals’ needs, desires, or preferences are met by their role within the team’ (DeRue & Morgeson, 2007, p. 2). Diversity literature states that when an individual has different values to other team members, there will be less personal attraction between the individual and other team members. As mentioned in the so called attraction-selection-attrition model, individuals who are similar to others in an organization in personality, attitudes, and values will be attracted to, selected by, and remain in the organization (Schneider, Goldstein, & Smith, 1995). The same can be applied to person-role fit. Based on the attraction-selection-attrition model the expectancy is that, a low needs-supply fit result in less attraction of the newcomer. As Schneider (1983) mentioned; ‘because member’s core values and beliefs about their work are threatened and members are less able to predict each other’s behavior, there will be increased role ambiguity and interpersonal friction’ (Schneider, 1983, as cited in Hobman, Bordia & Gallois, 2003, p. 5) . We expect that less attraction results in less acceptance of the newcomer.
10 newcomer will be less committed to each other. Due to this, we expect that the newcomer will be less accepted by the team.
Hypothesis 1. Person-role fit is positively related to the acceptance of a newcomer in the team.
Person-role fit and the influence of a newcomer
Newcomers can be a source of influence in changing work practices. To fully benefit of the advantages of the newcomer in the team, it is important that the newcomer can express the unique information and experience they possess, and that the others consider it. Newcomers can have direct influence by sharing their unique information and experience with old-timers, and by convincing them to accept this and apply it in their working life. Newcomers can also have indirect influence by changing underlying thoughts and perceptions of old-timers on how things have to be done (Ancona & Caldwell, 1998; Wood, Lundgren, Ouellette, Busceme, & Blackstone, 1994).
It is difficult for newcomers to convince old-timers to accept and implement their ideas for several reasons. Newcomers can be seen as a minority. They do not have the power, status and information the majorities does have (Moscovici, 1980). Power, status and information are factors that influence the validation processes of the majority, which results in the decision whether to accept the ideas of the minority or not. The lack of these resources makes it more difficult for minorities to exert some influence (Moscovici, 1980, 1985). Newcomers may feel uncomfortable with their minority position, and may change their ideas to gain the acceptance of the majority (Moscovici, 1980, 1985). Beside this, many organizations still use the standard of assimilation of the newcomer towards the organization, instead of the accommodation towards the newcomer. During the socialization process, newcomers are susceptible to influence of old-timers (Ashforth & Saks, 1996). Their adjustment towards the majority means a loss of unique information.
11 perceived as less trustworthy and co-operative (Brewer, 1979). This process will affect the extent to which their ideas are perceived as valuable by the in-group. The expectancy is that the newcomer as a member of the out-group will have less influence in the team.
The degree of person-role fit also plays an important role in the influence of a newcomer. Self-categorization- and similarity-attraction theory research states that people prefer to interact with others who are similar to them in attitudes and values (Byrne,1971; Berscheid, 1985). A newcomer with a low person-role fit may be seen as the dissimilar person. Low need-supplies fit result in a decrease of attraction between team members (Adkins, Russell, & Werbel, 1994). Different values and beliefs about the job that has to be done can result in an increase of personal friction between team members (Schneider, 1983). The same seems to apply to the situation of low demand-ability fit. As mentioned before, if the newcomer does not have the knowledge, skills and abilities that commensurate with the demands of his or her role in the team, then the newcomer cannot fully contribute to the goals of the team. The expectancy is that the newcomer will be less accepted by the team. Team members may ignore the positive contributions of a dissimilar person due to negative perceptions of this person (Elsass & Graves, 1997).
Dissimilarity may have a negative influence on work group involvement, attractiveness of a team, satisfaction and group cohesiveness (Tsui, Regan & O ‘Reilly, 1992). Workgroup involvement relates to the integration of a newcomer in the team, the access to informal sources of information, and how much individuals feel respected and listened to (Kirchmeyer, 1995). Dissimilarity will have a negative effect on workgroup involvement, and thereby a negative influence on the access to ‘important networks of information and opportunity’ (Mor-Barak & Cherin, 1998). The expectancy is that due to the existence of dissimilarity, there will be less attraction and work involvement (and thereby exclusion of networks of information), which in turn will have a negative impact on the influence of the newcomer in the team. Barsade, Ward, Turner and Sonnefeld (2000) already observed that people who are similar in affect will be more willing to be influenced by people with the same (perceived) affect.
12
Transformational leadership
To survive in a highly competitive world, where teamwork is a common phenomenon and where the transition ratio of newcomers is high, leadership style becomes a very important factor in influencing the effectiveness of a team. Leadership can have an important influence on team processes and outcomes (Kozlowski & Ilgen, 2006). Leaders can influence team effectiveness through effects on the cognitive, motivational-affective, and behavioral capabilities of employees (Kozlowski, Gully, McHugh, Salas, Cannon-Bowers, 1996). Not al leadership styles may have the same influence on follower attitudes, behavior, and performance. Styles which involve an intensive contact between leader and subordinates may have more influence on the values, attitudes and behaviors of subordinates (Meglino et al., 1991; Weiss, 1978). We expect transformational leadership to be such a style. Transformational leadership can be described as: ‘leader behaviors to motivate their subordinates to improve the collective good’ (Burns, 1978, p.6). Transformational leadership is a topic of interest for almost 25 years and was first investigated by Burns (1978). Transformational leadership includes the behavioral dimensions of: ‘charisma (i.e., admirable qualities that produce subordinate identification), inspirational motivation (i.e., an appealing vision of the future and meaningful goals), intellectual stimulation (i.e., challenge, provocation, and engagement), and individualized consideration (i.e., sensitivity to member needs)’ (Kozlowski & Ilgen, 2006).
13 fit, such as the negative effects of the attraction-selection-attrition model, can also have a negative influence on the unique knowledge input of the newcomer. Differences in knowledge, skills and abilities (demand-abilities fit) and differences in needs, desires and preferences (needs-supplies fit) can result in less personal attraction, less commitment and a lower degree of workgroup involvement (Tsui, Regan & O ‘Reilly, 1992). The expectancy is that these negative effects result in a lower acceptance and influence level of the newcomer.
Leadership can play a large role in overcoming the negative effects of the minority status of a newcomer and a low person-role fit. Leaders can create conditions which helps the team maintain fit with the environment and resolve challenges (Kozlowski & Ilgen, 2006).
There are a few things that are expected to positively influence the negative effects of a low person-role fit and the minority status of a newcomer. For example, the promotion of an open culture which responds in an effective way towards change, the use of good communication- and feedback channels between team members- and leaders, and the stimulation of a good use of socialization techniques. The expectancy is that transformational leadership can have a positive influence on the negative effects of a low person-role fit and the minority status of a newcomer.
Change happens when a newcomer is entering the team. It is important that old-timers have a positive standing towards change, otherwise the team cannot benefit from the unique input of a newcomer. Transformational leadership is especially effective during times of change. Research shows that due to an inspiring vision, empowerment, stimulation of followers, and the attention to followers’ needs, the commitment for change can be high (Herold, Fedor, Caldwell & Liu, 2008).
14 They will be more committed to each other and more willing to accept each other’s ideas. When every team member is aware of a shared vision, and everyone is willing to contribute to the collective goal, we expect the unique input of the newcomer to be more accepted by the team. Besides this, a high degree of involvement and cohesiveness may have a positive effect on the access to information and will result in a higher degree of communication. Communication, feedback, and access to information may help to overcome the negative effects of a low person-role fit. When newcomers are better informed about the knowledge, skills, abilities, and work values needed to accomplish their task, they are better able to contribute to the collective goal. This will result in higher commitment between old-timers and newcomers. Higher commitment levels will have a positive influence on the acceptance of the newcomer. Transformational leaders have a positive influence on followers’ identification with the group, internalization of group values, and the degree of affective commitment toward each other (Shamir, House & Arthur, 1993). Based on this, we expect that a transformational leadership style will positively moderate the relationship between person-role fit, and the acceptance of a newcomer.
Hypothesis 3a. A transformational leadership style will affect the relationship between person-role fit and the acceptance of a newcomer in a positive way.
16 2. METHODS
2.1 Participants
Participants for this study were employees from a group of quality supermarkets in the Netherlands. This study included teams working at the headquarter of this company in various divisions (human resources, marketing, sourcing, commerce, logistics). Participating employees were professionals, working in empowered teams responsible for specified collective team goals. Data was collected from the newcomer in the team (in some cases the team contained two newcomers), other team members, and the team leader of each team. In some cases there existed some obscurity about the borders of a team. In that case we sampled the teammates most likely to interact closely and regularly with the newcomer. On average, team size was 5 (M = 5.3, SD = 1.72).
Data were collected using questionnaires, which took about fifteen minutes to complete. The questionnaires consisted of three different parts. Part one were questions at the individual level, part two were questions at team level and part three consisted of questions where the team members assessed each other on different topics. There existed three different forms of questionnaires, one questionnaire for the newcomer, one for the teammates, and one for the team leader. Questionnaires were handed out personally to the teams.
17 2.2 Measures
Person-role fit
Person-role fit was measured by a scale validated by Cable and DeRue (2002). This version is based on the work of Kristof (1996) and Edwards (1991) for the measurement of needs-supplies fit, and based on past research by Cable and Judge (1996) for the measurement of demand-ability. Needs-supplies fit was measured with the following items: ‘There is a good fit between what my job offers me and what I am looking for in a job,’ ‘The attributes that I look for in a job are fulfilled very well by my present job,’ and ‘The job that I currently hold gives me just about everything that I want from a job.’ Items of demand-ability fit included ‘The match is very good between the demands of my job and my personal skills,’ ‘My abilities and training are a good fit with the requirements of my job,’ and ‘My personal abilities and education provide a good match with the demands that my job places on me.’ Items were measured on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 = not at all, to 5 = completely. Factor-analysis shows us the two sub-dimensions of person-role fit (Table 1). To measure person-role fit as one dimension, the two scales (needs–supplies, demands–abilities) were combined into one overall measure. Meta-analytic evidence of Kristof-Brown, Zimmerman, & Johnson (2005) suggests that an overall measure is a better predictor of the key criteria than using the two scales separately. The scale had a good reliability (Cronbach’s alpha .89).
Transformational leadership style
18 behaviors constructs. Factor analysis conducted for this research showed these three key transformational behavior constructs and the ‘core’ construct, as well a transactional behavior construct, which was also measured. (Table 2). The scale showed a very high reliability (Cronbach’s alpha .94).
Influence
To assess influence in teams we based ourselves on literature on power (Diekman & Galinsky, 2006). Based on this definition of power we operationalized power with the questions: ‘In general, how much do you learn from this person? (Skip Yourself)’; and the question ’How influential is this person in the way your team as a whole functions? (Include Yourself)’. Using the Round Robin method, each participant rated themselves and the other team members on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 = very little to 7 = very much. Results were aggregated to the individual level. The Cronbach’s alpha for this scale was .78
Acceptance
Acceptance was measured by using a modified version of the scale of Warner, Hornsey and Jetten (2007). Using the Round Robin method, each participant rated themselves and other participants of the team on the question: ‘How much would you like to have this person as a friend? (Skip Yourself)’. All participants were asked to rate this question on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 = very little to 7 = very much. Results were aggregated to the individual level.
Control variables
The demographic variables age and gender were used as control variables. Research of Chatman (1991) and Heller and Yukl (1969) suggest that these demographic variables may moderate the effects of leadership and person-organization fit.
2.3 Analyses
20 3. RESULTS
3.1 Descriptive statistics and Intercorrelations.
Table 3, 4 and 5 show the descriptive statistics and intercorrelations. Table 3 shows us the descriptive statistics and intercorrelations of the complete dataset, Table 4 of the newcomers set and Table 5 of the old-timers set. Unfortunately, the correlation we expected to find, the relationship between person-role fit of the newcomer and degree of influence (1) was not statistically significant (r = -.06 and r = -.05). Neither was the expected correlation between person-role fit and acceptance of the newcomer (2) statistically significant (r = .03). There is a significant positive correlation between person-role fit of a newcomer and a transformational leadership style (r = .45, p = < .01). Correlations between transformational leadership and influence of the newcomer (r = -.17 and r = -.07), and between transformational leadership and acceptance of the newcomer (r = .09) are not significant. We did detect a positive correlation between influence and acceptance of the newcomer (r = .57, p = <.01).
In the complete- and in the old-timer dataset, we found several significant relationships. First of all, in contrast with what we found in the newcomer dataset, the complete and old-timer dataset show a significant positive correlation between person-role fit and influence (r = .36/.36 and r = .49/.40 p = <.01). Similar to what we found in the newcomer dataset, influence and acceptance have a positive correlation in the complete and old-timer dataset. Finally, a significant relationship involving the control variable age was detected in the complete dataset. Influence has a positive correlation with age (r= .23/.24, p=<.01).
21 3.2 Hierarchical Regression Results
Table 6 summarizes the results of hypothesis 1; the degree of person-role fit of the newcomer in relation with the acceptance of the newcomer. Looking at step two, the main effects in the complete sample, we can see that person-role fit is not significantly related with acceptance (b = .07, t =.76, n.s). When we look at the interaction with the dummy newcomer/old-timer in step three, we see that there is no significant difference between the relation person-role fit and acceptance of a newcomer and that of the old-timers (b = .08, t =.24, n.s). So, person-role fit is not positively related to the acceptance of a team member (old-timer) and a newcomer. Besides this, we cannot detect a significant difference in acceptance between a newcomer and an old-timer (b = .07, t =.29, n.s). Table 6 also shows results about the expected moderating effect of transformational leadership on the direct relation between person-role and acceptance of the newcomer (hypothesis 3a). These results are also not significant (b = -.07, t = -.61, n.s). So, transformational leadership does not affect the relation between the person-role fit of the newcomer and the acceptance of the newcomer.
22 4. DISCUSSION
In this research, we tested the relationship between the person-role fit of a newcomer and the degree of acceptance and influence of the newcomer. When newcomers’ needs, desires, or preferences are commensurate with their role in the team (need-supplies) and when the newcomers’ knowledge, skills and abilities are in line with the demands of his or her role in the team (demand-ability), we expected a high degree of acceptance. Unfortunately, the results of our analyses did not support this hypothesized relationship. Person-role fit of the newcomer is not positively related to the acceptance of the newcomer in our sample. Similarity between work-related values and preferences will not result in more attraction and acceptance of the newcomer. Possessing the knowledge and skills required for the job, - as a result making a significant contribution to the overall team goals, - neither result in higher acceptance levels of the newcomer. We found the same results when we looked at person-role fit and the degree of acceptance of old-timers. Based on our findings, the newcomer status therefore does not consequently have a negative influence on the degree of acceptance.
Hypothesis 2 proposed a positive relation between the person-role fit of the newcomer and the influence of the newcomer. Results of our analyses of the complete dataset (newcomers and old-timers) showed a significant positive relation between the person-role fit of a team member and the influence of that team member. A higher person-role fit will result in more influence. These results apply to newcomers as well as to old-timers. On the other hand, we see that old-timers have more influence then newcomers do. So the negative status of the newcomer,- seen as a minority and as an out-group member who do not possess the power, status, information, and therefore have a lack of influence,- can only be partly overcome by a high degree of person-role fit. This indicates that a high degree of person-role fit will have a positive influence on the degree of influence of newcomers, but it takes time to get the same amount of influence old-timers have.
23 of workgroup involvement, less acceptance and influence). Unfortunately, transformational leadership style did not have this effect.
Theoretical & practical implications
This research shows that the person-role fit of a newcomer does not have a positive relationship with the acceptance of the newcomer. A newcomer can be accepted, while not fitting in his or her role. This implies that there are other processes that influence the acceptance of the newcomer. It is important to know what these processes are because acceptance is related to influence. According to Levine, Choi, and Moreland (2001), newcomer influence is a result of a negotiation between the old-timers and the newcomer. Newcomer’s influence depends on the degree in which old-timers accept the newcomer’s ideas. Acceptance is a step in the right direction towards influence. We therefore encourage researches to further look at the possible processes which may influence the acceptance of a newcomer.
To gain the advantages of the newcomer, it is important that the newcomer can exert some influence. Results confirm that person-role fit is positively related to the influence of the newcomer. A practical implication for organizations therefore is the importance to recruit people who fit well to their role. Besides this, results show that old-timers still have a higher degree of influence than newcomers do. This may imply that old-timers do not totally accept the influence of the newcomer. Examining the reasons for this, should improve the understanding of this phenomenon. For example investigating different organizational cultures newcomers come in (and in which culture the newcomer has more influence) and looking at earlier experiences of teams with newcomers (which may have an influence on their stance toward newcomers).
24 Strengths, limitations & future research
Much research struggles with the problem of common method bias; the divergence between observed and true relationships among constructs (Cooper & Schindler, 2003). Common method variance can cause this systematic error, when the measurement technique introduces systematic variance into the measure. The use of more than one single method to measure the constructs, can overcome the problem of common method bias. Strength of this research is that we made use of a self-reporting method and the Round Robin method to look at the relationship between role and influence/acceptance. Newcomers rated their person-role fit themselves, but the influence and acceptance of the newcomers were rated by team members and team leaders. Using more than one method overcomes the problem of common method bias.
Besides this strength, a few limitations of the present study and directions for future research should be mentioned. First of all, for this research we made use of a relative small sample of 111 members of 26 teams. A small sample can have a negative influence on the reliability of the research, can disturb the representation of the real world, and has less statistical power. This result in a bigger chance of a type two error (the believe that there is no effect, but in reality there is) (Cohen, 1992). Besides this, data collection was only done in one organization in a European country. Countries and organizations can be very different on several points, for example in (organizational) cultures, how they approach newcomer socialization (Van Maanen, 1977) and how often turnovers take place in teams. These contextual factors may have an influence on how team members react on newcomers. Collecting data at different organizations in different countries, with different contexts, is more representative then data collected at one organization in one country. Future research should use a bigger sample, and collect data at different organizations in different countries. Such research could substantially improve our understanding of the dynamic processes of influence and acceptance of the newcomer in different contexts.
25 conclusions can be made about the causality of the investigated relationships. Gathering data at more points in time can overcome such problems and will result in more reliable data. Future studies might use a longitudinal form of research.
A third limitation can be the fact that some of the teams did not exist that long for themselves. Rules and procedures of the team are not yet rooted in, and the team as a whole still has to learn how to work with each other. This will influence the minority status of the newcomer in a positive way, because everyone is a newcomer in a certain way. Unfortunately, this may bias the way team members rate the newcomers on influence and acceptance. Future research should take this problem in consideration.
A fourth limitation of our study is the way of measuring the influence and acceptance of the newcomers. It is a very direct and confronting way of asking the opinion of team- members and leaders about the newcomer. It is possible that some social desirability bias in responding exist because of this.
Another potential limitation may be the team tenure of some newcomers. Some newcomers are already included in the team for a long period (on average team tenure was four months). Literature shows us that assimilation of a newcomer proceeds quickly and easily when the group only contains one newcomer (Merei, 1949; Van Maanen & Schein, 1979; Ziller, 1964). Most of the researched teams had to deal with only one newcomer. Newcomers, standing for a longer period in the team, may already be assimilated and already be seen as old-timers. This may be the cause of the results of this research that there does not exist a difference between old-timers and newcomers in the relation person-role fit – influence. Finally, the present research could be extended by examining the effects of other leadership styles on newcomer processes. As mentioned before, leadership styles have different effects on follower attitudes, behavior, and performance (Fiedler, 1967; Hersey & Blanchard, 1977; as cited in Dale & Fox, 2008) and because of this have an influence on affecting the values, attitudes and behaviors of subordinates (Meglino et al., 1991; Weiss, 1978). Leaders can have a great effect on how team members treat newcomers. Future research investigating these different leadership styles can help newcomer literature finding the best fitting leadership style in which teams can gain the advantages of the newcomer.
26 skills then what is needed to accomplish their role within the team. However, this does not have an influence on the degree of acceptance of the newcomer. This indicates that the acceptance of newcomers is not so much work-related, but influenced by other (interpersonal) processes.
27 REFERENCES
Adkins, C.L., Russell, C.J., & Werbel, J.D. 1994. Judgements of fit in the selection process: The role of work value congruence. Personnel Psychology, 47: 605–623.
Ancona, D. G., & Caldwell, D. F. 1998. Rethinking team composition from the outside in. In M. A. Neale, E. A. Mannix, & D. H. Gruenfeld, (Eds.), Research on managing groups and teams, 1: 21–38. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Anderson, N., & Thomas, H. D. C. 1996. Work group socialization. In M. A. West (Eds.), Handbook of work group psychology: 423–450. Chichester, England: Wiley.
Argote, L., Ingram, P., Levine, J. M., & Moreland, R. L. 2000. Knowledge transfer in organizations: Learning from the experience of others. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 82: 1-8.
Argote, L., Insko, C.A., Yovetich, N., & Romero, A.A. 1995. Group learning curves: The effects of turnover and task complexity on group performance. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 25: 512–529.
Ashforth, B. E., & Mael, F. 1989. Social identify theory and the organization. Academy of Management Review, 14: 20–39.
Ashforth, B. E., & Saks, A.M. 1996. Socialization tactics: longitudinal effects of newcomer adjustment. Academy of Management Journal, 39: 149-178.
Avolio, B.J., & Bass, B.M. 1988. Transformational leadership, charisma, and beyond. In J.G. Hunt, B.R. Baliga, H.P. Dachler, & C.A. Schriesheim (Eds.), Emerging leadership vistas (pp. 2949). Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
Barsade,G., Ward, A.J., Turner, J.D.F. & Sonnefeld, J.A., 2000. To Your Heart's Content: A Model of Affective Diversity in Top Managennent Teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45: 802-836.
Bass, B.M. 1985. Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: Free Press.
Bauer, T.N., Bodner, T., Erdogan, B., Truxillo, D.M., & Tucker, J.S. 2007. Newcomer adjustment during organizational socialization: A Meta-analytic review of antecedents, outcomes, and methods. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92:707-721
Bauer, T. N., Morrison, E. W., & Callister, R. R. 1998. Organizational socialization: A review and directions for future research. In G. R. Ferris (Eds.), Research in personnel and human resources management, 16: 149–214. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Berscheid, E. 1985. Interpersonal attraction. In G, Lindzey and E, Aronson (Eds,), Handbook of Social Psychology, 2: 413-484. New York: Random House.
28 Byrne, D. E. 1971. The attraction paradigm. New York: Academic Press.
Cable, D. M., & Judge, T. A. 1996. Person-organization fit, job choice decisions, and organizational entry. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 67(3): 294– 311.
Chatman, J.A. 1991. Matching People and Organisations: Selection and Socialisation in Public Accounting Firms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36(3): 459–84.
Chen, G., Gully, S. M., Whiteman, J. A., & Kilcullen, B. N. 2000. Examination of relationships among trait-like individual differences, state-like individual differences, and learning performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85: 104-122.
Choi, H. S. & Levine, J. M. 2004. Minority influence in work teams: The impact of newcomers. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40: 273-280.
Cohen, J. 1992. A power primer. Psychological bulletin, 112: 155-159
Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. 1983. Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Cooper & Schindler, 2003. Business research methods, (8nd ed.149-150). Boston, Mc Graw Hill.
Dale, K. & Fox, M.L. 2008. Leadership Style and Organizational Commitment: Mediating Effect of Role Stress. Journal of managerial issues, 34:109-130
DeRue , S. & Morgeson, P. 2007. Stability and Change in Person–Team and Person–Role Fit Over Time: The Effects of Growth Satisfaction, Performance, and General Self-Efficacy. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92: 1242–1253
Diekman, K. A., Galinsky, A.D. 2006. Overconfident, Underprepared: Why You May Not Be Ready to Negotiate. Negotiation, 12: 6-9
Dutton, J. E., Duckerich, J. M., & Harquail, C. V. 1994. Organizational images and member identification. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39: 239–263.
Elsass, P. M., & Graves, L. M. 1997. Demographic diversity in decision-making groups: The experiences of women and people of color. Academy of Management Review, 22: 946– 973.
Feldman, D. C. 2002. Stability in the midst of change: A developmental perspective on the study of careers. In D. C. Feldman (Eds.), Work careers: A developmental perspective: 3–26. San Francisco: Jossey- Bass.
Foote, N. N, 1951. Identification as the basis for a theory of motivation. American
29 Social identity and intergroup relations: 241-274, Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Gould, S. B. 1975. Organizational identification and commitment in two environments. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, Lansing.
Heller, F. & Yukl, G. 1969. Participation, Managerial Decision-Making and Situational Variables. Organisational Behaviour and Human Performance, 4: 227–41.
Herold, D. M., Fedor, D.B., Caldwell, S. & Liu, Y. 2008. The effects of transformational and change leadership on employees' commitment to a change: A multilevel study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93: 346-357.
Hobman, E.V, Bordia, P.& Gallois, C. 2003. Consequences of feeling dissimilar from others in a work team. Journal of Business and Psychology, 17: 18-24.
Kirchmeyer, C. 1995. Demographic similarity to the work group: A longitudinal study of managers at the early career stage. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 16: 67– 83.
Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Ilgen, D.R. 2006. Enhancing the effectiveness of work groups and teams. Psychological Science in the Public internet, 7: 77-124.
Kozlowski, S.W.J., Gully, S.M., McHugh, P.P., Salas, E., & Cannon- Bowers, J.A. 1996. A dynamic theory of leadership and team effectiveness: Developmental and task contingent leader roles. In G.R. Ferris (Eds.), Research in personnel and human resource management, 14:253–305. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Kozlowski, S. W. J., Gully, S. M., Nason, E. R., & Smith, E.M.1999. Developing adaptive teams: A theory of compilation and performance across levels and time. In D.R. Ilgen & E.D. Pulakos (Eds.), The changing nature of work performance: Implications for staffing,
personnel actions and development: 240-292. San Fransisco: Jossey-Bass.
Kristof, A. L. 1996. Person-organization fit: an integrative review of its conceptualizations, measurement, and implications. Psychology, 49: 49.
Kristof-Brown, A. L., Zimmerman, R. D., & Johnson, E. C. 2005. Consequences of
individuals’ fit at work: A meta-analysis of person–job, person– organization, person– group, and person–supervisor fit. Personnel Psychology, 58: 281–342.
Latane, B., & Wolf, S. 1981. The social impact of minorities and majorities. Psychological Review, 88: 438-453.
Li, J. 2006. The interactions between person– organization fit and leadership styles in Asian firms, an empirical testing. Human Resource Management 17: 1689–1706.
Levine, J.M., Moreland, R. L., & Choi, S. 2001. Group socialization and newcomer
30 Louis, M. R. 1980. Surprise and sense making: What newcomers experience in entering unfamiliar organizational settings. Administrative Science Quarterly, 25: 226-251.
Latane, B., & Wolf, S. 1981. The social impact of minorities and majorities. Psychological Review, 88: 438-453.
Merei, F.,1949. Group leadership and institutionalization. Human Relations, 2: 23-39.
Messick, D. M., & Mackie, D. M. 1989. Intergroup relations. Annual Review of Psychology, 40: 45–81.
Meglino, B.M., Ravlin, E.C. & Adkins, C.L. 1991. Value Congruence and Satisfaction with a Leader: An Examination of the Role of Interaction. Human Relations, 44: 481–95.
Mor-Barak, M. E., & Cherin, D. A. 1998. A tool to expand organizational understanding of workforce diversity: Exploring a measure of inclusion-exclusion. Administration in Social Work, 22: 47–64.
Moreland, R. L., Levine, J.M. 2002. Socialization and trust in work groups. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 5: 185-202.
Moscovici, S. 1980. Toward a theory of conversion behavior. In L. Berkowitz (Eds.), Advances in experimental social psychology, 13: 209-239. San Diego, CA: Academic Press
Moscovici, S. 1985. Social influence and conformity. In G. Lindzey & E. Aronson (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology, 3rd. ed., 2: 347-412. New York: Random House.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Moorman, R.H., & Fetter, R., 1990.
Reichers, A.E. 1987. An Interactionist Perspective on Newcomer Socialisation Rates. Academy of Management Review, 12: 278–87.
Saks, A. M., & Ashforth, B. E. 1997. A longitudinal investigation of the relationships between job information sources, applicant perceptions of fit, and work outcomes. Personnel Psychology, 50: 395–426.
Schneider, B. 1983. An interactionist perspective on organizational effectiveness. In L. L. Cummings, & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior: 1–31. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Schneider, B., Goldstein, H. W., & Smith, D. B. 1995. The ASA framework: An update. Personnel Psychology, 48: 747–773.
Schuetz, A. 1944. The stranger: An essay in social psychology. American Journal of Sociology, 49: 499- 507.
31 Silverhart, T.A. & Hinchliffe, R.H. 1996. New Selection Tool Assesses Candidate/Agency Fit. Limra’s Marketfacts, 15(3): 4–6.
Sundstrom, E. 1999. The challenges of supporting work team effectiveness. In E. Sundstrom & Associates (Eds.), Supporting work team effectiveness: Best management practices for fostering high performance: 3–23. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Tajfel, H. 1982. Instrumentality, identity and social comparisons. In H. Tajfel (Eds.), Social identity and intergroup relations: 483-507. Cambridge, England: Cambridge,University Press
Tajfel, H., & Tumer, I. C. 1985. The social identity theory d intergroup behavior. In S. Worchel & W. G. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (2nd ed.7-24). Chicago: Nelson-Hall.
Tanford, S. E., & Penrod, S. 1984. Social influence model: A formal integration of research on majority and minority influence processes. Psychological Bulletin, 95: 189-225.
Tsui, A. S., Egan, T. D., & O’Reilly, C. A. 1992. Being different: Relational demography and organizational attachment. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37: 549–579.
Tumer, I. C. 1982. Towards a cognitive redefinition of the social group. In H. Tajfel (Eds.), Social identity and intergroup relations: 15-40. Cambridge, England: Cambridge
University Press.
Tumer, J. C. 1984. Social identification and psychological group formation. In H. Tajfel (Eds.), The social dimension: European developments in social psychology, 2: 518-538. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Van Maanen, J. 1977. Experiencing organization: Notes on the meanings of careers and socialization. In J. Van Maanen (Eds.), Organizational careers: Some new perspectives.
Van Maanen, J., & Schein, E. H., 1979. Toward a theory of organizational socialization. In B. Slaw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior: An annual series of analytical assays and critical reviews: 209- 264. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Vaught, C., & Smith, D. L. 1980. Incorporation and mechanical solidarity in an underground coal mine. Sociology of Work and Occupations, 7: 159-187.
Warner, R., Hornsey, M. J. & Jetten, J. 2007. Why minority group members resent impostors. European Journal of Social Psychology. 37:1
Weiss, H. 1978. Social Learning of Work Values in Organisations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 63: 711–8.
32 Wood, W., Lundgren, S., Ouellette, J. A., Busceme, S., & Blackstone, T. 1994. Minority influence: A meta-analytic review of social influence processes. Psychological Bulletin, 115: 323–245.
Zander, U., & Kogut, B. 1995. Knowledge and the speed of the transfer and imitation of organizational capabilities: An empirical test. Organization Science, 6: 76–92.
33 APPENDIX
TABLE 1
Factor analysis variable Person-Role Fit
Component
1 2
Need-supplies 1; There is a good fit between what my job offers me and what I am looking for in a job
.969 -.053 Need-supplies 2; The attributes that I look for in a job are
fulfilled very well by my present job .932 .017
Need-supplies 3;The job that I currently hold gives me just about everything that I want from a job
.869 .071 Demand-ability 1;The match is very good between the
demands of my job and my personal skills
.350 .579
Demand-ability 2;My abilities and training are a good fit with the requirements of my job
-.010 .939
Demand-ability 3;My personal abilities and education provide a good match with the demands that my job places
34 TABLE 2
Factor analysis variable of leader behavior scale
Component
1 2 3 4 5
Transformational leadership style
1.Has a clear understanding of where we are going. .712 -.004 .051
-.171 .341
2.Paints an interesting picture of the future for our group. .550 .020
-.291
-.087 .287
3.Is always seeking new opportunities for the organization .314 .130 .052 .133 .536
4.Inspires others with his/her plans for the future. .473 .013
-.199 .095 .418
5.Is able to get others committed to his/her dream. .484 .032
-.198 .130 .221
6.Leads by “doing,” rather than simply by “telling.” .636 -.001
-.220
-.084 .119
7.Provides a good model for me to follow. .653 -.017
-.190 .062 .068
8.Leads by example. .723 .022
-.220 .084 .007
9.Fosters collaboration among work groups. .900 .007 .051 .096
-.158
10.Encourages employees to be “team players.” .780 .244 .244 .242
-.148
11.Gets the group to work together for the same goal. .738 -.009 .005 .187 .021
12.Develops a team attitude and spirit among employees. .651 .121
-.048 .243 .003
13.Shows us that he/she expects a lot from us. .154 -.111
-.126 .524 .225
14.Insists on only the best performance. .148 -.054 .070 .073 .737
35
16.Acts without considering my feelings. (R) -.150 .959 .064 .122 .023
17.Shows respect for my personal feelings. .298 .551
-.095 .108
-.036
18.Behaves in a manner thoughtful of my personal needs. .078 .653
-.187
-.114 .123
19.Treats me without considering my personal feelings. (R) .019 .889 .037
-.106 .053
20.Challenges me to think about old problems in new ways. -.037 -.040
-.018 .920
-.055
21.Asks questions that prompt me to think. -.023 .057 .051 .918 .051
22.Has stimulated me to rethink the way I do things. .058 .003
-.131 .762 .050
23.Has ideas that have challenged me to reexamine some of basic
assumptions about my work. .128 .001
-.108 .692 .056
Transactional leadership style
1.Always gives me positive feedback when I perform well. .065 .155
-.761 .053
-.149
2.Gives me special recognition when my work is very good. -.058 -.044
-.942 .106 .015
3.Commends me when I do a better than average job. .025 -.014
-.872 .080 .062
4.Personally compliments me when I do outstanding work. .011 .001
-.870 .047
-.002
5.Frequently does not acknowledge my good performance. (R) .123 .447
36 TABLE 3
Descriptive statistics, correlations, complete dataset
37 TABLE 4
Descriptive statistics, correlations, newcomer set
38 TABLE 5
Descriptive statistics, correlations old-timer set
39 TABLE 6
Results of Hierarchical Regression Analyses Predicting acceptance of the newcomer
TABLE 7
Step and variables b SE b
1.Constant 4.30 0.56
Gender 0.35 0.2
Age -0.01 0.01
2.Constant 4.36 0.57
Person-role fit 0.07 0.10
Transformational leadership style 0.08 0.11
Newcomer/old-timer 0.07 0.25
3.Constant 4.32 0.59
Person-role fit X transformational leadership style 0.06 0.11
Person-role fit X newcomer-old-timer 0.08 0.33
Transformational leadershipstyle X newcomer-old-timer -0.01 0.25
4.Constant 4.25 0.61
Transformational leadershipstyle X newcomer-old-timer -0.07 0.11 X personrole fit
40 Results of Hierarchical Regression Analyses
Predicting influence of the newcomer
Step and variables b SE b
1.Constant 3.35 0.53
Gender 0.38 0.19
Age 0.01 0.01
2.Constant 3.76 0.48
Person-role fit 0.31* 0.08
Transformational leadership style -0.05 0.09
Newcomer/old-timer 0.75* 0.21
3.Constant 3.89 0.49
Person-role fit X transformational leadership style -0.04 0.09
Person-role fit X newcomer-old-timer 0.32 0.27
Transformational leadershipstyle X newcomer-old-timer 0.13 0.20
4.Constant 3.99 0.5
Transformational leadershipstyle X newcomer-old-timer 0.09 0.09 X personrole fit
