THE COMPARATIVE EFFECTS OF INSIDER HELPING MOTIVES ON NEWCOMER ADJUSTMENT By ALEX L. RUBENSTEIN A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR T HE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2014
Â© 2014 Alex L. Rubenstein
To the curious
4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would foremost like to thank John Kammeyer Mueller for his close support and gu idance through my years in the doctoral program. His professional advice has been incredibly valuable in shaping me into the researcher I am today, while his friendship has shown that even the driest of statistical methods and academic texts can have their humorous sides. Second, I thank my other committee members Mo Wang, Joyce Bono, and Walter Leite fo r generously working with me to strengthen the contributions of this dissertation. Third, I thank my family for their unconditional support throughout my li fe, for keeping me motivated when I needed a push, and for reinforcing value s of lifelong learning. Finally, to my colleagues Bradley Owens, Terence Mitche ll, Tom Lee (and notable others), thank you for introducing me to this field of study, because withou t you, I might have never found my calling. Virgil : Felix qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas, Quique metus omnis, et inexorabile fatum, Subjecit pedibus, strepitumque Acherontis avari (Georgics, II 490 492) ngs, and who has put under his feet all
5 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 4 LIST OF TABLES ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 7 LIST OF FI GURES ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 8 ABSTRACT ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 9 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 11 2 LITERATURE REVIEW ................................ ................................ .......................... 17 Social Forces in Newcomer Socialization ................................ ............................... 19 Motivational Antecedents of Helping Behavior ................................ ........................ 22 3 THEORY AND HYPOTHESES ................................ ................................ ............... 31 Insider Helping Motives ................................ ................................ ........................... 32 Self Oriented Helping Motives ................................ ................................ .......... 32 Other Oriented Helping Motive ................................ ................................ ......... 36 Normative Helping Motives ................................ ................................ ............... 39 Hypotheses Linking Moti ves to Helping Behavior ................................ ................... 43 Self Oriented Motives and Helping Behavior ................................ .................... 44 Other Oriented Motive and Helping Behavior ................................ ................... 47 Normative Motives and Helping Behavior ................................ ......................... 49 Helping Behavior Mediates the Motives to Adjustment Outcomes Relationship ..... 52 Insider Helping and Instrumental Adjustment Outcomes ................................ .. 54 Insider Helping and Attitudinal Adjustment Outcomes ................................ ...... 55 Insider Helping and Social Adjustment Outcomes ................................ ............ 57 Insider Helping and Withdrawal Adjustment Outcomes ................................ .... 58 Mode rating Role of Newcomer Perceived Motives ................................ ................. 60 4 METHODS ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 64 Helping Motives Scale Development ................................ ................................ ...... 64 Sample and Procedure ................................ ................................ ........................... 71 Measures ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 73 Background Data: Control Variables ................................ ................................ 75 Time 1: Helping Motives and Behavior ................................ ............................. 76 Time 2: Adjustment Outcomes ................................ ................................ ......... 78 Instrumental Adjustment Outcomes ................................ ........................... 78 Attitudinal Adjustment Outcomes ................................ ............................... 79
6 Social Adjustment Outcomes ................................ ................................ ..... 80 Withdrawal Adjustment Outcomes ................................ ............................. 81 Time 3: Turnover Behavior ................................ ................................ ............... 81 5 RESULTS ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 83 Descriptive Statistics ................................ ................................ ............................... 83 Tests of Hypotheses ................................ ................................ ............................... 86 Relationships of Motives to Helping Behavior ................................ .................. 89 Mediation of Helping Behavior to Adjustment Outcomes ................................ . 90 Moderating Role of Newcomer Perceived Insider Motives ............................... 93 6 DISCUSSION ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 111 Summary of Results ................................ ................................ .............................. 112 Helping Motives Taxonomy ................................ ................................ ............ 112 Motive Relationships to Helping Behavior and Adjustment Outcomes ........... 112 Moderating Effects of Newcomer Perceived Insider Motives .......................... 11 6 Theoretical Implications ................................ ................................ ........................ 117 Practical Implications ................................ ................................ ............................ 122 Limitations ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 124 APPENDIX A SUMMARY OF HYPOTHESES ................................ ................................ ............ 127 B MODERATION PLOTS ................................ ................................ ......................... 128 C MEASURES AND ITEMS USED IN PI LOT STUDY ................................ ............. 134 D OTHER MEASURES USED IN NEWCOMER STUDY ................................ ......... 160 E CORRELATION MATRIX OF ALL VARIABLES COLLECTED IN NEWCOMER SAMPLE ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 168 LIST OF REFERENCES ................................ ................................ ............................. 176 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ................................ ................................ .......................... 197
7 LIST OF TABLES Table page 4 1 Summary of model fit for the helping motive CFA alternative models ................ 70 4 2 Means, standard deviations, reliabilities, and intercorrelations among helping motives in validation sample ................................ ................................ ............... 70 5 1 Means, standard deviations, reliabilities, and intercorrelations among study variables in newcomer sample ................................ ................................ ........... 96 5 2 Structural equation modeling results for direct effects predicting helping behavior in separate supervisor and coworker models ................................ ..... 104 5 3 Structural equation model ing results for helping behavior direct effects predicting adjustment outcomes in separate supervisor and coworker models 104 5 4 Bias corrected bootstrapped indirect effects predicting adjustm ent outcomes via helping behavior in separate supervisor and coworker models ................... 105 5 5 Structural equation modeling results for moderation hypotheses in supervisor model ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 107 5 6 Structural equation modeling results for moderation hypotheses in coworker model ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 108
8 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 1 1 Conceptual model ................................ ................................ ............................... 16 2 1 Existing classifications of helping motives in various literatures ......................... 29 3 1 Insider helping m otives superordinate classification ................................ ........... 31 3 2 Expanded conceptual model of hypothesized relationships ............................... 44 3 3 Helping behavior and adj ustment outcomes ................................ ....................... 54 3 4 Predicted interaction plot for Hypothesis 10a ................................ ..................... 63 3 5 Predicted interaction plot for Hypothesis 10b ................................ ..................... 63 4 1 Six factor CFA results for helping motives in validation sample ......................... 69 5 1 Summary of supervisor model direct effects ................................ ..................... 109 5 2 Summary of coworker model direct effects ................................ ....................... 110
9 Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy THE COMPARATIVE EFFECTS OF INSIDER HELPING MOTIVES ON NEWCOMER ADJUSTMENT By Alex L. Rubenstein August 2014 Chair: John D. Kammeyer Mueller Major: Business Administratio n Whereas the preponderance of socialization research has focused on organizational tactics and newcomer information seeking as the core agents facilitating newcomer adjustment, comparatively less attention has been devoted to organizational insiders. How ever, there are reasons to believe that these insiders (i.e. immediate coworkers and direct supervisors) are central to the newcomer adjustment process . In this dissertation, I develop and test a theoretical model exploring how i nsider helping motives affe ct transition into new job s . I draw from various literature s to first construct a taxonomy of insider helping motives , distinguished by a self orientation, an other orientation, and a normative orientation. Such a motivational perspective focuse d on insiders has not been previously integrated into socialization theory. Second, I present and test hypotheses that link these motives to helping behavior received by newcomers , and to subsequent adjustment outcomes . Third, I examine the moderating role of newcomer rated motives on helping outcome relationships. Finally, I assess insider newcomer agreement in terms of ratings of insider motives. I test ed the predictions of this model with a sample of 77 new employees and their coworkers and supervisors , operating in a variety of occupations. Results revealed a differential pattern
10 of coworker and supervisor motives influencing helping behavior and subsequent adjustment outcomes. Further, results of interaction hypotheses revealed that newcomer perceived m otives affected the relationship between helping and numerous adjustment outcomes. Implications of the model, future research directions, and limitations of the study are also discussed.
11 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION The first weeks of work at a new job can be a turbulent time. Making sense of, and assimilating into, a new and unfamiliar environment is not easy (Louis, 1980; Moreland & Levine, 1982 , 2001 ); this period can involve a steep learning curve regarding t he t asks one will perform, as wel l as internalizing new social norms and Kelly, Wolf, Klein, & Gardner, 1994). Such n ewcomer adjustment is here defined as the process by which new employees acquire the requisite behaviors and attitudes needed to assume the roles of participating organizational members (Feldman, 1981 ; Bauer, Bodner, Erdogan, Truxillo, & Tucker, 2007 ). Existing theory generally recognizes three agents that help newcomers acquire these requisite behaviors and attitudes: the formal organization, the newcomers supervisor) (Van Maanen & Schein, 1979; Reichers, 1987; Miller & Jablin, 1991; Saks & Ashforth, 1997). Actions from each source respectiv ely bolster or hinder adjustment as a function of how much they help newcomers reduce uncertainty. Studies have predominately cited how the organization and the newcomer proactively aid this process ( cf. Bauer et al., 2007; Saks, Uggerslev, & Fassina, 2007 ). However, most newcomers report that it was their close peers and supervisor who had the greatest impacts on their socialization, compared to other sources (Morrison, 1993). And while much is known about the benefits of being helped (Chiaburu & Harrison, 2008), studies have scarcely
12 perspective into the newcomer adjustment literature is theoretically important, in order to provide better insight into the motivations and beha viors of these influential agents. T he purpose of this dissertation is to better understand the motivations of organizational insiders for helping newcomers, and how different motives comparatively affect newcomer adjustment (Figure 1 1) . The present stud y offers several contributions. As already mentioned, this is the first study to examine the motives behind insider helping behavior. Though studies find that insider help does affect newcomer adjustment (Jokisaari & Nurmi, 2009; Kammeyer Mueller, Wanberg, Rubenstein & Song, 2013), the motives for such behavior are not clear. Drawing from management, psychology, sociology, anthropology, and moral philosophy literatures, I first sought to build a taxonomy of specific helping motives, and then apply this taxo nomy with regard to insider newcomer relationships. For instance, do insiders help ultimately to help themselves (self oriented)? Or, perhaps insiders are truly concerned about the newcomer in question (other oriented)? Equally possible, might they offer h elp only because they are following what others are doing (normative)? Secondly, it is important to assess how each motive comparatively predicts helping behavior, and how this in turn relates to future newcomer adjustment outcomes. If helping is offered for a variety of reasons, there is conceptual value in sharpening our understanding regarding the unique contribution of each of these reason s (De Dreu & Nauta, 2009) . Practically, s hould newcomers ineffectively adjust, many preemptively quit (Griffeth & H om, 2001), effecti vely putting to waste the often substantial resources invested in recruitment and training . Thus, if some motives emerge as stronger predictors than others, this information would be of significant value to organizations,
13 with implication s for how incentives and interventions are to be structured. For example, if self oriented motives predominately drive help and best predict adjustment, managers may seek to design protocols that reinforce such behaviors with individual rewards. Alternativ ely, if altruistic motives foster more positive benefits, extrinsic rewards might instead undermine the spirit of why help was given in the first place. In organizations where helping newcomers is highly valued, future selection procedures could instead en Third, motives may also moderate the relationship between helping behavior and adjustment outcomes. Here, I am interested in whether newcomer perceptions of insider mot ives affect the degree to which help is utilized. This issue is important, because typically, researchers and practitioners assume that help is always beneficial to newcomers. Rather, if the efficacy of help is contingent on how a newcomer perceives an i does not necessarily translate into more favorable adjustment. Instead, insiders may motives. A newcomer who deems that their coworker helped them only out of self interest may question the genuineness of the help, will be less likely to utilize it, and their relationship quality will be hampered in the future, compared to help that was th ought to derive from more altruistic motives. Assessing how different insider motivations influence helping and adjustment also contributes to theory regarding ethics. Historically, society assumed that other oriented motives are morally preferred because they yield the greatest good, which has been underscored by various doctrines prescriptively discouraging self interest (Comte,
14 to have a pejorative tone: in academic circl es, narcissism (which is largely indicated by Machiavellianism and psychopathy (Judge, LePine, & Rich, 2006). Instead, social canons advocate help be given out of the g meaning of charity is to give without asking for anything in return (Rushton, 1980). However, this raises a practical question in practice: would it be wrong for insiders to pursue a self oriented motive for provid ing assistance and support even if their behavior ultimately produces positive outcomes for newcomers? This consequentialist lens of moral decision making shifts judgment of a course of action to the basis of outcomes, rather than from the motivation behin d the behavior itself (Portmore, 2011). For the present study, the consequentialist issue is to determine which motive(s) most help newcomers in need. If self oriented motives are most beneficial in predicting adjustment outcomes, perhaps paradoxically, se eking only to help oneself might inadvertently provide more utilitarian good than might selflessness. This may be because selfish individuals are actually putting in more effort to obtain end rewards. If other oriented motives lead the footrace, then this may provide more objective merit to selflessness, such that reaches beyond authoritarian dogma. Or, if normative motives win out, of them: for as George Bernhard Shaw opined, Last, I used multiple sources to assess helping motivations, helping behavior, and adjustment outcomes. Doing this allows me to compare the agreement in
15 n ewcomer report vs. insider report ratings of motives and helping behavior. among ratings of personality traits or attractiveness ratings. However, there are implications if ins iders and newcomers disagree in their ratings. Particularly, if an insider believes they are helping a newcomer considerably, but the newcomer does not think and whos disagreement in motives may suggest that an insider is perhaps giving off unintended cues to the newcomer as to their motives, and that these cues may have adverse effects. Strong mot ive effects on adjustment, combined with low motive agreement, may therefore demand that insiders be more explicit as to what their motives are, or initiatives be designed to train insiders as to the cues they give off. This dissertation is organized as fo llows. I first provide a review of the newcomer adjustment literature, to position the role of organizational insiders within the more commonly studied newcomer adjustment agents . Second, drawing from related literatures , I outline a taxonomy of six specif ic helping motives spanning the three orientations (self oriented, other oriented, and normative/contextual) . Third, I develop theoretical arguments link ing each of these motivations to insider helping behavior and to subsequent newcomer adjustment outcome s . Fourth, moderation hypotheses are presented, exploring how newcomer perceived motives differentially affect whether insider help is utilized. In the results section, I examine how well insiders and newcomer agreed in rating insider motives as well as ra ting helping behavior .
16 Figure 1 1. Conceptual m odel
17 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW After accepting membership into an organization, new employees are exposed to an array of novel experiences, from new job tasks and projects, to meeting the people with whom they will work, to forging their unique role within the broader organization. , and t herefore, it is important that newcomers successfully acclimate (Mowday, Porter, & Steers, 1982). Resea rchers have labeled this transition process as newcomer adjustment . As mentioned at the outset, adjustment consists of learning the behaviors and developing the attitudes expected of functioning employees ( Bauer et al. 2007). effective adjustment involves eliminating or successfully reducing the inherent uncertainty that exists in this new work environment ( Lewin, 1951 ; Louis, 1980). On the one hand, uncertainty exists as information asymmetry, in that newcomers lack the inform 1991; Morrison, 1993). Additionally , uncertainty exists about whether or not the into their new job and w ith the people in it (Chao et al., 1994; Cable & Parsons, 2001). In the present chapter, I review literature on how various agents particularly organiza tional insiders uncertainty. I then segue into the first purpose of this re search, which was to develop a taxonomy of motivations guiding insider helping newcomers . To date, m uch of the extant management literature regarding behavioral motives la cks a strong theoretical basis. Much foundational socialization research sought to better understand the ways in which people manage uncertainty in unfamiliar environments. More precisely, scholars
18 tionism argued that reality and meaning are inherently social constructions, and that individuals cannot be independently parsed from the settings in which they occupy (Stryker & Statham, 1985) . Later, social identity and social categorization theorists (T ajfel & Turner, 1986; Swann, 1987; an identity , and how commitment or identification to role membership motivates subsequent behavior. Applied to organizations , early socializa tion lenses offered three explanations for how new employees manage uncertainty. First, the organization tactics explanation suggests that organizations seek to mold newcomers in their desired image of an employee through deliberate intervention s (Van Maan en & Schein, 1979; Jones, 1986). own, the organization promotes a tactic whereby all new employees undergo a common , formal experience to learn how the organization wis hes them to act (Ashforth & Saks, 1996 ; Saks et al., 2007 ). Second, the proactive information seeking explanation suggests that newcomers reduce uncertainty through their own initiative (Miller & Jablin, 1991; Ashford & Black, 1996; Grant & Ashford, 2008 ) . Since the organization cannot prepare newcomers for every possible contingency that could arise during work (Miller & Jablin, 1991), those employees who seek out information and feedback from coworkers and/or supervisors, who try to build communication n etworks, and who generate self confidence in response to receiving instrumental information are expected to have more positive
19 adjustment outcomes than those who do not (Ostroff & Koslowski, 1992; Wanberg & Kammeyer Mueller, 2000; Harrison, Sluss, & Ashfor th, 2011). Finally, a third perspective recognizes that both newcomer and social forces simultaneously operate to socialize newcomers (Riordan, Weatherly, Vandenberg, & Self, 2001) , and therefore claim that studies should subsequently measure both to have a comprehensive understanding (Moreland and Levine, 1982; Reichers, 1987; Kim, Cable, & Kim, 2005; Gruman, Saks, & Zwieg, 2006). Specifically, this third perspective emphasizes a reciprocal and interpersonal exchange between current organizational members and newcomers during adjustment. Beyond providing formal training, an organization as a large and abstract entity, provides little information to a new employee that will aid in his or her adjustment. Rather, those who are most regularly in contact with t he newcomer his or her immediate peers and supervisor are the most likely sources to help reduce uncertainty (Reichers, 1987; Miller & Jablin, 1991). Social Forces in Newcomer Socialization A common thread in this review is that discussions of socializatio n are incomplete if they focus solely on the newcomer and neglect the social forces that contribute to adjustment. This is a departure from the historically psychological focus on the individual , and towards an emphasis on relational dynamics and their eff ects ( Graen, 1976; Berscheid, 1999). In the newcomer adjustment literature, research has not yet considered the reasons why people aside from the newcomer would want to encourage a newcomer to be socialized. However, organizational insiders may also be int erested in having their new coworker or subordinate be less uncertain about their roles and responsibilities, in order for him or her to become a positive contributor to the work environment as quickly as possible. Reduced newcomer uncertainty may also
20 mea In this way, socialization can be viewed as an ongoing process of reciprocal influence between relatively stable systems (i.e. organization s , and anyone or anything that currently operates wi thin them ) and the members who enter them (Saks & Ashforth, 1997). Organizational influence can come in the form of structured designs like formal orientation programs (Klein & Weaver, 2000), or as more informal , disjunctive exchanges between newcomers an d insiders , such the newcomer (Van Maanen & Schein, 1979) . Helping behavior is here defined as cooperative assistance that positively contributes to the knowledge, skills, and/or performance behavior of another. Surpris ingly, though conceptual work has recognized that these agents can and do affect newcomers (e.g., Miller & Jablin, 1991; Reichers, 1987; Moreland & Levine, 2001), insiders have largely been relegated to a passive role: for instance, it is only after newcom ers proactively ask someone for help that their effect is seen . This neglects the possibility that insiders might offer help in the absence of that it will have positive effects accruing to both t he newcomer and to the established insider who offers the help (Morrison, 2002) . This dearth of research is surprising given the substantial body of literature espousing the myriad benefits of helping ( cf. Schwarzer & Leppin, 1989; Viswesvaran, Sanchez, & Fisher, 1999). Major and coauthors cautioned that since early work should not overcompensate by disregarding the significant role of organizational (Major, Kozlo wski, Chao, & Gardner, 1995, p. 420 1).
21 Yet, t o date, I am aware of only three empirical studies that have explored relationships between insiders and newcomers, and the role of specific insider behavior in facilitating newcomer adjustment. Fisher (1985) s howed that newcomer perceived social support was positively related to newcomer job attitudes, self rated performance, and negatively related to turnover intentions. Second, using a latent growth modeling approach, Jokisaari and Nurmi (2009) found that dec lines in supervisor support were related to lower newcomer role clarity, job satisfaction and salary growth over time. Third, Kammeyer Mueller and colleagues (2013) examined how changes in supervisor and coworker support and undermining predicted work proa ctivity, social integration, commitment, and withdrawal during the first 90 days on the job. Together, these studies begin to tell a story that emphasizes the growing importance of interpersonal relationships at work . It is not only newcomer behaviors or t he organization that affect adjustment, but also those with whom newcomers interact that play a strong role (Chiaburu & Harrison, 2008 ; Ferris , Liden, Munyon, Summers, Basik, & Buckley, 2009). Despite research supporting the view that insiders positively affect newcomer adjustment through their help , little is known about the antecedents that drive this behavior. Why is it that insiders choose to help newcomers adjust, especially if newcomers might not have explicitly asked for help, or if the insider migh t not receive anything in return? (1998, p. 144), so understanding why insiders help (or do not help) newcomers is essential if helping is to be encouraged. With these questions in mind, my first goal was to develop a taxonomy of insider helping motives .
22 Motivational Antecedents of Helping Behavior Rather than motives, m ost research on helping has tended to focus on either the outcomes associated with received help (e.g., Chiaburu & Harrison , 2008), or how help functions as a buffer to stress or other negative life events (Cohen & Wills, 1985; Fisher, 1985; Alloway & Bebbington, 1987 ) . Yet, a motivational lens to examine insider helping behavior is important when one considers the costs of in effective newcomer adjustment. As helping can improve individual and organizational outcomes (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Paine, & Bachrach, 2000; Chiaburu & Harrison, 2008 ), m anagers should be interested in better understanding the multiple reasons why employee s help, if they seek to create an environment where such behavior is commonplace. Indeed, t wo insiders may have altogether distinct reasons for help ing , and each may potentially have multiple motives operating (Perlow & Weeks, 2002) . Therefore, one incenti ve to help may not work equally for two insiders, because of differing motives. Instead of focusing on the resources needed to initiate a behavior ( i.e. its motives, Piliavin & Callero, 1991), many researchers use a functional approach, where one is primar ily interested in the functions a behavior serves (Snyder, 1993; Penner et al., 1997) . What are the specific motives for helping newcomers? Theories in social psychology, sociology, and ethics ha ve tended to dichotomously consolidate behavioral motives as either being egoistic or altruistic ( LatanÃ© & Darley, 1970; Batson & Shaw, 1991; Miller, 1999). Egoistic motives mean performing a behavior out of self interest, while altruistic motives consist of any other reason that helps another person, unclassifiabl e as producing self benefit. However, this description is somewhat facile , and there are reasons to question whether this is a comprehensive accounts for helping motives at work , and more specifically, to the context of newcomer adjustment .
23 I propose that three superordinate motivations explain why insiders offer help to newcomers during their early weeks on the job, and subsequently, how these motives each affect newcomer s future adjustment. These motives are: self oriented, other oriented , and normative . I will discuss the theoretical basis for each motive in turn , and the specific motives within each category . I developed this taxonomy based on (a) an in depth review of the broader literature on helping behavior, and (b) using related classifications. I then considered and adjusted these classifications with regard to the unique lens of the newcomer adjustment process. Figure 2 1 provides a review of behavioral motives similar to newcomer helping . Three broad motive categories emerged from this review. First, the self oriented motives category suggests that a primary reason for helping is to provide some benefit to the helper, whether it be tangible, emotional, or psychological. For instance, Clary and colleagues suggested that some individuals offered t heir volunteer services in order to obtain resume fodder, or to boost their own ego. Similarly, Rioux and Penner (2001) and Grant and Mayer (2009) suggested that many people perform organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) so that such behavior changes ot perhaps leading to future rewards. Batson and Powell (2003) also noted that many people engaged in altruistic behavior so it would instrumentally improve their mood. Together, these motives are similar in emphasizing that the fir st concern for offering help is to benefit the self. Second, other oriented motives emphasize the receiver of help as the primary object of concern, rather than focusing on how helping benefits the helper (i.e. the insider coworker or supervisor). As shown in Figure 2 1, many of these
24 others is important, and that helping provides relief to others, regardless of personal expense. Third, normative motives emphasize the external context, where social forces drive helping. This is different from the first two categories in that helping extends beyond the helper and the helped, but also reflects pressures from others who typically engage in helping behavior, or from those b elieve that such behavior is simply expected of others. The common thread in this third category is that help occurs because of anticipated social sanctions or personal angst (e.g. guilt, shame) if one were to not help. Within each superordinate category, I also allowed for more fine grained motives, which I elaborate on in the next section. I t is also prudent to distinguish helping motives in the newcomer context from those of normal organizational functioning that is, those times when employees are no lon ger , or acquiring information needed to perform core responsibilities . Specifically, though one study has explored the reasons behind giving assistance at work (Rioux & Penner, 2001), there are several reasons why helping motives and h elping behavior would differ between newcomers and non newcomers. Specifically, self oriented motives will be different in the newcomer adjustment context because interactions during socialization tap into the infancy of a relationship, where newcomers are consistently in need of help ( Nelson & Quick, 1991; Chao et al., 1994) . In other words, there is a greater power differential between newcomers and insiders in terms of the resources each party brings to the work relationship one that most always favors i nsider s (Sinclair & Tetrick, 1995). Insiders may therefore help newcomers with a greater instrumental sense that the newcomer will owe something back to them in the future for their valued help. However, o nly until such a time when the newcomer turned -
25 insi der holds resources that can be offered as valued reciprocation will a true exchange relationship exist with long term potential ( Blau, 1964; Kram, 1985 ; Dwyer, Schurr, & Oh, 1987). In contrast, for coworkers who have a history of interdependence and where resources are on more equal footing (Ferris et al., 2009 ), more formal, immediate reciprocated help occurs, and fewer obligations on behalf of the person helped should be expected. I also expect other orientation to differ in terms of why help is provided to newcomers versus more tenured employees. The most purely altruistic behavior tends to occur when someone is particularly vulnerable (Eagly, 1987; Oliner & Oliner, 1988). Since newcomers who must learn everything about a job for the first time, such vul nerability is much more potent, and other oriented insiders will experience much coworker needed help. Third, normative motives will also differ in the newcomer context c ompared to normal organizational functioning. On the one hand, norms are likely to propagate such that insiders give more help to newcomers than to other insiders. Research in anthropology emphasizes that more help is provided to those who require the grea test provisions (e.g. nursing young, or others in the species that have difficulty helping themselves) (Jamieson, 1991; Cockburn, 1998). In this case, newcomers will receive more help because they need more help, while insiders will receive comparatively l ess, because after a certain amount of time, other insiders will expect them to know how to perform certain tasks, to know where things are, etc. On the other hand, norms may propagate such that newcomers receive less help than insiders. As newcomers opera te at the periphery of the in group, they are significantly less embedded in the organizational network than are other insiders. Theory on group
26 selection (Smith, 1964) submits that individuals may disproportionately provide help to those whom they have st ronger ties, as a means of promoting social solidarity. This would suggest that insiders could be skeptical about giving help to newcomers. Thus, while it may be typical that people help each other out at a given organization, different expectations could exist for helping newcomers versus helping other coworkers. Such selected allocation of help offered to specific in group members has been referred to as parochial altruism (Amato, 1990; Bernhard, Fischbacher, & Fehr, 2006). Next, not only will helping mo tives differ between the adjustment context and normal organizational functioning, helping behavior will also differ. That is, the type of help provided to newcomers is qualitatively different from that given to established organizational members. Based on a review of the literature, newcomer helping can be considered a specific form of OCB , though it operates in a unique context. More precisely, newcomer helping is OCB directed at individuals at a specific point in time, rather citizenship that can also be directed toward anyone or anything including the broader organization (Williams & Anderson, 1991). As citizenship behavior is defined as any sort of action that supports the social and psychological environment in which task performance occurs (Organ, 199 7) , this would include any constructive work behavior not explicitly classified as in role performance . Newcomer helping behavior is necessarily dyadic in nature (Hoffman, Blair, Meriac, & Woehr, 2007), and touches on different content points than does hel ping more tenured employees who have different needs. The OCB literature does not provide such a fine grained discussion regarding the specific aspects of helping, particularly with regard to the help newcomers need (Chao et al., 1994). Compared to more te nured employees , newcomers tend to seek
27 out information of a different ilk (Morrison, 1993). For example, after a sufficient amount understanding how to perform job tasks history/culture yet, these are central objectives for new employees (Chao et al., 1994). Thus, by considering theory on OCB alongside the present analysis of newcomer adjustment, we can enrich the criterio n space of helping behavior. A final, yet still significant drawback of existing models is that research has not effectively tied theoretical models of helping behavior to explain a typology of motives. Rioux & Penner (2001) relied on exploratory factor a nalysis to derive motive categories, rather than building from true theory. This lack of conceptual grounding is problematic because it potentially omits certain motives from comprehensively describing why one helps, even if certain motives are distinguish ed from others. For instance, while Rioux and Penner (2001) did consider impression management as a motive for overall organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) (similar to the present tangible gain self oriented motive), they did not consider the menu of other gains that someone might anticipate receiving for helping (e.g. status benefits, ego affirmation, positive emotions, motive for OCB, a closer inspection at many item toward others, but it might equally represent a tangible motive to acquire friends. To summarize, the first purpose of this research was to answer the question: why do insiders help newcomers? To this end, I develop ed a theoretically grounded taxonomy of insider helping motivations in the newcomer adjustment context . Drawing
28 from other classifications as well as theory in the broader he lping literature ( Figure 2 1), my taxonomy arrived at three broad motive categories to explain why insiders help newcomers. These three broad motives are: self oriented, other oriented , and normative . After outlining each motive category and their respecti ve submotives in turn , my second goal is to present hypotheses linking motives to helping behavior , and subsequently , to newcomer adjustment outcomes (Figure 1 1) . Third, I consider how ween helping behavior and adjustment outcomes, in order to examine how help differentially affects vs. other oriented).
29 Figure 2 1. Existi ng classifications of helping motives in various literatures
30 Figure 2 1. Continued
31 CHAPTER 3 THEORY AND HYPOTHESES To generate support for the taxonomy of insider helping motives, I drew from both existing classif ications and a review of conceptual and empirical articles. The results of this search are reported in Figure 2 1. Based on these results, I reasoned that all of these motives could be organized in terms of three superordinate categories (Figure 3 1) . Firs t, tangible gain motives comprise any form of helping undertaken with the ultimate orientation of self benefit . Second, other oriented motives comprise any form of helping undertaken with the ultimate orientation feelings or needs . Thir d, normative motives comprise of any form of helping undertaken with the ultimate orientation of upholding some social, moral, or universal standard . In the present section, I first delve into greater detail to explain each motive in turn, and then present hypotheses relating each to newcomer received helping and subsequent outcomes. Figure 3 1. Insider h elping m otives superordinate c lassification
32 Insider Helping Motives Self Oriented Helping Motives When examining the motives behind most and in some sch all of human behavior, one need not look far to find ample reference to self interest. A 2013 PsycINFO search of peer 1,000 hits, with over 600 of those hits having been published since the year 2000. Notwithstanding this recent research, recognition of self interest as a primary motivation for behavior has a rich history dating back to the moral and political discourses of Plato. In his Republic ( Grube & Reeve, 1992, Book II: 360c ; 367c), Plato argued that self sole concern for positive outcomes for the self, is our default , natural setting. Since injustice would tend yield more self benefits than would just ice, those who practice justice must do so either because they a) do not realize they are doing justice, or b) they lack the political power to exercise injustice with impunity (see also Republic : 392b). Cen turies later, philosophers, political scientists, economists, and still others 1967) . Leviathan (1651 /1969 ) argued that an orientation towards self benefit is the first human motive, and that collective intervention is necessary in order to (1759/1982) proposed a theory of moral sentiments describing how egoistic behavior c ould ultimately serve the general good. In his seminal 1872 work On the Origin of Species , Charles Darwin suggested that traits are selected for and retained only as they enhance the
33 reproductive fitness of the individuals who bear them. Shortly thereafter, Social Darwinists applied such logic specifically with regard to self interest (Huxley, 1860; Hofstadter, 1944), reinforcing the virtuous ideology of rugged, laissez faire individualism. Edgewo rth (1881) purported that the first principle of economics is that every agent is actuated purely by self interest, while Ayn Rand ( The Virtue of Selfishness; Atlas Shrugged ) developed a rational moral ist philosophy around the pragmatic value of self inter est and egoism. Numerous other rational choice theorists (e.g., Freud, Nietzsche , Paine, Sidgwick) have also reinforced the idea that self interest is a necessary corollary of self preservation, and therefore such behavior is natural, appropriate, and wise (Kohn, 1990; Frey, 1997) . Indeed, maximizing self wants is at the core of many prominent motivational theories (e.g. equity theory [Adams, 1965]; expectancy theory [Vroom, 1964]) . Given its reference across many disciplines and research findings , self int erest clearly drives much individual behavior. Given their emphasis on the self, I refer to a first class of motives as self oriented. Three specific motives underlie this superordinate class: tangible gain, affective gain, and self enhancement. Descripti ons for each of these specific motivations and their related conceptualizations are provided below. Tangible gains are those rewards that can accrue to a helper with well defined value. The economic concept of value includes rewards such as money, time, or effort. The tangible gains motive reflect s the notion that self benefit in the form of material rewards or other remuneration is a primary reason behind helping behavior (Batson et al., 2011 ). This helping motive has also been referred to as material rewa rd helping (Batson & Powell, 2003) , or the empathy reward hypothesis (Batson et al., 1988)
34 highlight ing the tangible basis of rewards a helper can receive. Some employees offer help to newcomers with an ex ante expectation that their actions will result in tangible outcomes such as a bonus or a promotion, reciprocated help, status, future leisure time , or to obtain a new friend or colleague (Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Rioux & Penner, 2001; Barrick, Stewart, & Piotrowski, 2 002). Such a motivation is especially true in organizations where behaviors like citizenship can and do bear on overall performance evaluations (Allen & Rush, 1998; Bachrach, Powell, Bendoly, & Richey, 2006 ; Organ, 1997 ). In such situations, an insider doe s not help a newcomer because of their pure generosity, but out of an ulterior motive: help is offered only when another notices, as often occurs with regard to For instance, re search on information mentoring has suggested that many insiders will only take on mentoring roles if organizations will reward them for doing so (Aryee et al., 1996). That people are motivated to help others largely out of an expectation for material gain is not so bold a view when one considers how extrinsic rewards can quickly undermine intrinsic enjoyment , a finding that has been seen in humans as early as during infancy (Miller, 1999; Deci, Koestner, & Ryan, 1999; Warneken & Tomasello, 2008). Others m ay help not necessarily under the expectation of immediate material gain, but instead because they expect their efforts to be reciprocated at some point in the future (Gouldner, 1960; Blau, 1964; Trivers, 1971). In this way, helping is still motivated by s elf oriented tangible gain, as it is instrumental as a future investment that will yield personal returns (Dovidio, 1984). However, such delayed outcomes may be
35 less easy to track in a socialization context given that newcomers on average have disproportio nately less resources to offer insiders that would be considered of value. Second , self interest may not always be aimed toward tangible gain, but instead could be obtained in the form of gains that do not make one materially better off , such as helping to get into or maintain a positive mood. motivation for helping may often be to instrumentally improve his or her own emotional welfare (Isen, 1970; Isen & Levin, 1972). Such motivation is still self interested in the sense that an insider still directly seeks something in return for their action, however the outcome is not a material reward , but rather an emotional one (Enzle & Lowe, 1976; Cropanzano, Goldman, & Folger, 2005). I refer to a second self oriented motive as aff ective gain , reflecting that helping behavior is provided instrumentally and with aforethought, so as to ultimately confer emotional benefits to the self . In this form of helping, the individual still consciously calculates whether helpful actions will suf ficiently elevate mood to justify the time or resource it costs. Other literatures have sometimes referred to affective gain helping as subjective reward helping (Batson & Powell, 2003). Third , a review of the literature on interpersonal helping suggests that many people behave so as to boost their ego and assert their strengths (Clary et al., 1998). Clary and coauthors noted with regard to volunteerism, ions related to personal growth and self As another instance, Aryee and colleagues (1996) suggested that some people are motivated to informally mentor less experienced employees in order to demonstrate their skills and affirm their self concept. Such self enhancing motivation is arguably more psychologically complex than
36 emotional improvement, and the potential gains are not of a tangible/material nature such a motive identity, reinforcing compe tencies, and present ing oneself as a asset to others in their work environment. As such, I refer to a third self interested motive as self enhancement. Other Oriented Helping Motive I now introduce a second class of helping motives, which I refer to as oth er oriented . An other oriented motive reflects an ultimate goal of increasing another (Batson et al., 2011; Penner et al., 2005; Grant, 2008 ). Such actions primarily intended to benefit others has been referred to by various names, such as altruism (Comte, 1851 /2009 ; Rushton, 1980) or prosocial behavior (Grant, 2008). Importantly, while scholars espousing other orientation do not deny that self interest drives much of human behavior, they also recognize that s ome people, to some degree, act in such a way that concern about the welfare of others exists sui generis . There are multiple instances in which help does not directly yield personal gains , which would call into question a motivational moni sm that is self interest (J encks, 199 0). People give gifts to others without expectations of reciprocity, donate to charities anonymously, become members of communes or kibbutzim where group viability overrides individual concern, and engage in behavior th at clearly costs more personal resources than it provides personal yields ( LatanÃ© & Darley, 1970). In the case of other orientation, the explicit, primary goal of helping is to see that others are better off. Other orientation can therefore be distinguish ed from affective gain. For the latter motive, helpers consciously focus on the self rather than another person. By extension, affective gain driven helping first involves preliminary deliberation
37 as to whether the behavior is worth the expenditure, wherea s other orientation does not involve any conscious, rational pre calculation. Even though other oriented insiders may experience distress at the sight of a newcomer having difficulty and successful helping relieves both of their distresses their primary fo the behavior, they do not choose to help in order to achieve mood improvement, but rather are only interested in making thing s better off for the newcomer. Why do people choose to help if they do not expect to directly benefit from it ? Adam Smith (1759/1982) , in his Theory of Moral Sentiments (see also Hume, 1751) argued that to varying degrees, human beings are inherently predi sposed to ex perience the emotions of others; a s such, we cannot be considered completely selfish (Batson, 1995). There is also evidence that humans are known to id oneself toward others (Smith, 1759/1982; Thompson, Cowan, & Ros enhan, 1980 ) . Indeed, research suggests that individuals differ in the degree to which they and attend to others who need care (Haidt, 20 13) . William James (1890) noted that individuals tend to give varied Who identification to greater incorporation of social or communal identification. Independent observers are also able to relia bly distinguish how other oriented or altruistic a given person is (Rushton, 1980). At the negative pole, psychologists view excessively low levels of an other oriented and prosocial predisposition as being socially maladap tive or pathological. P sychopathy is often diagnosed as an absence of empathy or process
38 emotional information ( Blair, Jones, Clark, & Smith, 1997; Kiehl et al., 2001). Such pathology can usually be measured physiologically, registering as reduced acti vity in emotional centers in the brain (e.g. the amygdala) when subjects are exposed to videos of others in distress (Kosson, Suchy, Mayer, & Libby, 2002). In this sense, an individual focuses on helping another before ever thinking about what personal gai ns could arise from doing so. In sum, there is emerging research c onsistent with the notion of an innate, other oriented disposition , in which individuals may be stably di fferent from others in terms of how much they tend to be concerned with themselves re lative to their concern for others (Rushton, Chrisjohn, & Fekken, 1981; Simon, 1990; Miller, 1999; Meglino & Korsgaard, 2004). O ther oriented tendencies may stem to some degree from genetic origins (Krueger, Hicks, & McGue, 2001). Those who are more other oriented are especially sensitive to they experience significant aversion at the sight of tension through prosocial behavior that, foremost, aim predicament (and as a result, their own aversive state; Batson et al., 1988); conversely, those low in this disposition may be indifferent to , or incapable of, such states (Premack & Woodruff, 1978 ; Baron Cohen & Wheelright, 2004 ). An other oriented perspective effectively challenges traditional rational models of self interest, which would posit that individuals choose to help others only after consciously calculating the utility of helping , or weighing the relative cost to benefit to the self (Meglino & Korsgaard, 2007). Instead, as theorized by philosophers such as David Hume (1739/2003),
39 instinctual emotional sentiments toward others ultimately drive much of our behavior, while reason serves largely a post hoc function that justifies our decisions into a coherent narrative. Other oriented, prosocially motivated individuals naturally feel for another first and offer support , not rationally factoring in self return s (Korsgaard, Meglino, & Lester, 1996 ; Haidt, 2013 ). Normative Helping Motives A third and final class of motives I discuss are classified as normative . By normative, I propose that the ultimate concern for helping a newcomer is to neither benefit the sel f directly nor to benefit the newcomer, but rather to uphold some social, moral, or universal standard and to avoid anticipated social sanctions that would result if norms were violated . In their broadest sense, norms are perceptions of expected behavior o r customary rules that can induce people to act in ways that may be contrary to their personal preferences (Miller & Prentice, 1996). An evolutionary perspective to norms suggests that humans developed into social animals as individuals developed shared m ental representations regarding the far achieve greater ends and get more spoils tha n if each person work ed alone. Intergroup competition replaced individual competition, underscoring the need to foster in group cohesion and solidarity. Over time, such a system of cooperation fostered expectations regarding how people were supposed to act , and group members intuitively felt negativity when others violated these expectations (Tomasello & Carpenter, 2007). group dissolution resulted from violation of a colle ctively legitimized order and direction
40 (Durkheim, 1950). Norms therefore serve to uphold an often precarious web of group and the value of collective ideals irrespective of individual preferences. Soci ologist Ã‰mile Durkheim Homo Duplex reflects this duality of human nature: one nature focuses on valuing the individual and their personal aims, while a separate nature transcends the individual and considers collective agency and normative consensus. It was the latter nature, literally suggested that suicide would be a repercussion should people not have a social, moral compass to guide them (Durkheim, 195 1). Typically, normative motive s ha ve been discussed as consisting of two distinct types with different underlying moral assumptions : descriptive norms and injunctive norms (Cialdini, Reno, & Kallgren, 1990; Lapinski & Rimal, 2005). Perceptions of norm sal ience emerge through both passive and active social influence. Role theory suggests that adherence to norms arises as individuals internalize the expectations of themselves and others for the roles that they play (Stryker & Statham, 1985). Ergo, being an information processing model holds that norm adherence can arise from overt attitude s notice when newcomers need help and then do something about it ), or by stimulating personal reactions based on
41 wow, it seems that other employees tend to help newcomers a lot maybe I am generally perceptions about the popularity of that behavior they are beliefs about those behaviors that are overtly and typically exhibited by others in a social environment (Wilson & Kelling, 1982; Cialdini et al., 1990). Work, like many aspects of social life, are structured environments (Goffman, 1959), and so conforming to descriptive nor ms avoids the potential social conflict that could arise if one were to challenge them. similarly (Darley & Fazio, 1980; Cialdini et al., 1990). This form of mirrored imitation is adaptive in the sense of learning from others appropriate behavior in uncertain and novel situations (Iacoboni, Woods, Brass, Bekkering, Mazziotta, & Rizzolatti, 1999). It is most obvious to follow what others are doing when you do not know what to do y ourself. Such behavioral (1951) conformity study where responding contrary to the (confederate) majority was clearly correct, yet participants often still followed them . Grant, Dutton, & R osso (2008) recently showed that when employees see others helping their coworkers, they viewed such behavior as a legitimate and expected behavior in their organization (Salancik & Pfeffer, 1978) . Within the context of newcomer socialization, descriptive helping norms first start work , an expectation born e out of repeatedly observing help provided to newcomers in the past
42 (Reno, Cialdini, & Kallgren, 1993; Kallgren, Reno, & Cialdini, 2000 ). Therefore, the not in their objective existence , and that individuals may often over or under estimate the prevalence of a descriptive norm (e.g. Perkins & Wechsler , 1996; Borsari & Carey, 2003), which can have consequences in terms of their likelihood of con forming. In comparison with descriptive norms, injunctive norms are prescriptive in nature they are perceptions about the social consensus of what actions should , or ought to be performed , rather than only those actions that are performed ( Cottrell, 1942; Deutsch & Gerard, 1955). Individuals who are strongly motivated to adhere to injunctive norms often do so because they fear negative social sanctions if he or sh e were to approval of specific behaviors in specific situations role performance) . The more an individual believes others who are importa nt to him or her actively reinforce engaging in a behavior, the more they themselves are also likely to engage in it ( de Waal, 1991; Berkowitz, 2004). The difference between injunctive norms and an other orientation lies in the different sources of felt pr essure to help: with injunctive norms the pressure comes from external, social prescriptions, while with other orientation the pressure to help is an internal, dispositional prescription. The effect of injunctive norms on behavior is rooted in the theory o f reasoned behavior, normative beliefs regarding salient social pressures drive intentions and subsequent behavior . Moreover, the theory argues that may exert
43 dless of the accuracy of those perceptions ( Ajzen, 1991; Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980). With regard to the present research, a salient injunctive helping norm would exist such that an insider feels that every employee expects they should help newcomers during th eir first weeks. regarding help that was given when they were newcomers, and could result in sanctions ranging from verbal scorn to withheld help in the future. Indivi duals are willingly enter into and maintain cooperative relationships with them . The concept of social norms thus reflects a contextual component inherent in the socialization process. To date, I am aware of no research that has considered normative influences on newcomer adjustment . Nevertheless , numerous researchers have suggested that situational context s can strongly affect individual attitudes and behavior (Cappelli & Sherer, 1991; Johns, 2006). In the next section, I present hypotheses that link each specific motive tangible gain, affective gain, self enhancement, other oriented, and descriptive and injunctive norms to helping, and from helping to subsequent newcomer outcomes. Hypotheses Linking Motives to Helping Behavior The conceptual model guiding this dissertation is shown in Figure 1 1 . On the left side of the model is each specific motive. In the present section, I develop hypotheses specifically linking these insider motives to helping (Hypotheses 1 through 6) . D irect (unmediated) links between motives and newcomer outcomes are not hy pothesized,
44 and so are not depicted . However, via newcomer perceived helping as a mediator, I do hypothesize overall links between motives and newcomer outcomes (Hypotheses 7 through 10) . The expanded conceptual model is shown in Figure 3 2. Figure 3 2. Expanded conceptual m odel of hypothesized relationships Note: A ll relationships positive unless designated otherwise . Self Oriented Motives and Helping Behavior Regarding self oriented motives, I first hypothesize d a positive relationship between a tangib le gain motive and newcomer received help. Most readily, social exchan ge theory (Blau, 1964) suggests that help is a service given with the intention that it will be reciprocated with commensurably valuable services and/or goods (e.g. future help, favors, compensation, status) highlighted
45 how exchange behaviors would most likely be motivated by the expected returns for engaging in them . However, as Bourdage and colleagues note (Bourdage, Lee, Lee & ch] has taken the perspective that [helping] behaviors can be Unlike traditional social exchange perspectives emphasizing equity and quid pro quo , for newcomers and insiders, exchange relationships tend to be, from th eir inception, inequitable . Insiders have considerab ly more resources at their disposal (gained over their accumulated tenure ), such as technical or social knowledge (Morrison, 1993). In comparison, newcomer s usually have few resources that would be consid ered of exchange value to insider s ; this necessarily brings into question whether insiders operating under such a motive offer help with explicit expectation s that a newcomer can and will reciprocate (at least in the short term). Such an imbalance can fost er what has been referred to as reciprocation wariness , or the fear of being exploited in an exchange relationship (Eisenberger, Cotterell, & Marvel, 1987). Rather, then, the tangible gains that the insider seeks will likely not be obtained from the newcom er at least not initially but from others who value helping newcomers and will reward such behavior , own superior . I mpression management theory can provide insight into the link between tangible gain motive and help ing . Impression management to influence the image that one holds of the actor (Bolino & Turnley, 1999), and was one motive offered by Rioux and Penner (2001) to predict OCB ( Figure 2 1). The theory suggests that help will be offered by employees so as to garner favorable impressions from someone else holding valuable resources, such as a supervisor giving rewards to
46 his or her subordinates like status, bonuses or promotions (Higgins, Judge, & Ferris, 2003). In this way, insiders offer their help with a clear intention that someone else will notice them doing it (Bolino, Varela, Bande, & Turnley, 2006). Since the insider believes that the resource holder both values and rewards those who help others, they expect such actions to be viewed positive ly , and for them to be reinforced (Skinner & Ferster, 1957). As to managers valuing those who help others, research has found that managers often take citizenship behaviors into account when evaluating overall employee performance (Allen & Rush, 1998). As to managers actually rewarding those who help, research again points in the affirmative: helping can be instrumental: Hui, Lam, and Law (2000) found that many employees intentionally use OCB as a means to be promoted (Allen, 2006), and thereafter giving help , such behavior declines significantly. Beyond the subjective arena of performance evaluations, Allen and Rush (1998) found a significant link between OCB and reward recommendations, while Newby and Heide (1992) showed that informal mentoring can provide t angible gains such as salary increases and future assistance on work tasks . Hypothesis 1 : A tangible gain motive is positively related to insider helping behavior. Second, I hypothesized that an affective gain motive will positively predict helping behavio affective state. Affective gains are rooted in hedonistic theory (Cialdini & Kenrick, 1976), which reflects how behavior is often undertaken as a means of increasing pleasure and/or decreasing displeasure (Isen, 1970; Isen & Levin, 1972) . M ost people are averse to negative moods, as they are a negative deviation from normal. When in such a state, insiders will be prompted to seek out relief (Weiner, 1948) . Helping others is one option
47 of problem focused coping to reduce or eliminate such imbalance and repai r mood (Cialdini & Kenrick, 1976; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984 ). As such, offering help is a the OCB (Glomb, Bhave, Miner, & Wall, 2011) and volunteerism literatures (Steger, Kashdan, & Oishi, 2008). Hypothesis 2: An affective gain motive is positively related to insider helping behavior. Th ird, a self enhancement motive is also expected to positively predict helping behavior. Research suggests that helping can be instrumental in aiding the ego, and believe that helpi ng others can and will provide them with gratification and self affirmation (Harris, 1977) , or that it can enhance self efficacy by demonstrating their task competence to another (i.e. the newcomer; Bandura, 1997). For self efficacy, indeed, the very act o f being able to offer another person help is an indication that an employee has the capacity to do his or her job. For a self enhancement motive, helping does not necessarily just provide an insider with positive feelings, but also allows them external and perhaps objective affirmation of their skill set in different areas in which they helped. Clary and colleagues (1998) found that one volunteering motive was for personal development, which hints at so mething more complex than mere mood improvement . Hypoth esis 3: A self enhancement motive is positively related to insider helping behavior. Other Oriented Motive and Helping Behavior Next, I turn to the link betwee n an other oriented motive and helping. As noted earlier, numerous individuals have espoused phil osophies stressing the existence of a empathetic human instinct allowing people to direct energies to others without explicitly
48 considering personal gain as a primary outcome (Rushton, 1980 ; Grant, 2008a ). According to Davis (1983), e mpathy can be defined as a cognitive and emotionally Theory and research suggest that many individuals are naturally inclined to feel concern and obligation to help, and dispositional differences have been found in to the degree to which people extend their perceived moral obligations beyond immediate kin to include friends or even strangers (Oliner & Oliner, 1988; Amato, 1990; Einolf, 2010). Empathy allows for smoother social functioning, specifically when perspective taking is focused limited concerns as to the costs of assisting (E isenberger & Miller, 1987). Eisenberger egoistically motivated assisting, that is, prosocial behavior motivated by the desire to affective gain motive. I hypothesize that other oriented motivation will positively predict helping behavior because it is in t inherent nature to attend to the needs of others (De Dreu, 2006 ; Grant, 2008a ) Cohen & Wheelright, 2004). Contrary to assumptions of self interest, research shows that m any individuals (males in particular) are often quick to help others in dramatic situations where extreme danger to the self is clearly present (Eagly, 1987; Eagly & Crowley, 1986), without having rationally considered how they will be reciprocated
49 ( LatanÃ© & Darley, 1970). I den tity theory ( Baumeister, 1982; Swann, 1987 ) posits that once we develop an idea about who we are, we strive to confirm this view , which is often exhibited through our behavior. Simply put, those who define themselves as oriented towards others will be more likely to seek out opportunities to help others in need because it is an action that they find to be consistent with self perceptions. If definition, explicit consideration of material, emotional, or reputational gain is no t always necessary to motivate helpful actions. Empirically, De Dreu and Nauta (2009) found that other orientation was related to pro social behavior, even after controlling self interested motives. Similarly, Grant, Dutton, and Rosso (2008) showed that p ro social identity was positively related to giving to a support program. Dispositional empathy has also been found to positively predict helping behavior (Davis, 1994; Eisenberg & Miller, 1987). This latter finding is particularly germane to the context o f socialization given that, having once been newcomers themselves, it should be easy for insiders to recall the discomfort and uncertainty when starting a new job. Such feelings of empathy situation will incite more other oriented ins iders into action. Hypothesis 4: An other oriented motive is positively related to insider helping behavior. Normative Motives and Helping Behavior I also expect ed norms to play a strong role in predicting helping. Cialdini, Reno, and Kallgren define norms norm al (emphasis original). It is what most people do, and it motivates by providing evidence as to what will likely be effective 1015). N ormative antecedents represent a contextual influence overlaying the work environment (Johns, 2006). Despite the subtle yet powerful presence of context, few
50 studies have explored their effects on individual behavior. As Bommer, Miles, and Grover point out (2003, p. 182). Within the motives typology I have offered, I examined the specific impact of descriptive (what i nsiders commonly do regarding newcomers) and injunctive (what insiders approve/disapprove of regarding behavior toward newcomers) helping norms on help received by newcomers. I first hypothesize that descriptive norms would positively predict insider helpi ng behavior. emphasizes that social norms influence behavior through a cognitive process whereby t and accessible to memory (e.g. the particular behavior in question) (Higgins & Bargh, 1987). While norms may become salient insofar as some people are dispositionally more attentive than others to cues around them, it is equally likely that strong situat ional cues can activate norm salience (Jonas, Martens, Niesta Kayser, Fritsche, Sullivan, & Greenberg, 2008). Specifically, for explaining descriptive helping norms, the focus theory of normative behavior suggests that previous exposure either as a witness or direct beneficiary to a newcomer receiving help from another insider (or to any sociocultural value emphasizing the importance helping others in need), can provide an insider with a salient cue to imitate the behavior themselves and offer help. Furthe r, s ocial learning theory (Bandura, 1977 ) contends that when unsure of how to act in a given situation, individuals look proximal others in their environment to gauge what behaviors are appropriate or expected of them (and those that are not). The
51 more tha t employees model helping, the more a descriptive norm will promulgate to all insiders that helping is a normal behavior that everyone commonly engages in. Subsequently, the greater the awareness of a descriptive norm, the more likely individuals will be t o act in accordance with it (Cialdini et al., 1990; Bommer et al., 2003). Empirical findings show that where there is an expectation that others exhibit behaviors like helping frequently will lead people to act similarly (Schwartz, 1977; Reiter & Samuel, 1 980). Hypothesis 5: Descriptive newcomer helping norms are positively related to insider helping behavior. Second, I predict that injunctive norms will also predict insider helping. Norms are effective insofar as people feel a sense of pressure and/or re sponsibility to uphold them (Schwartz, 1973, 1977). The literature on organizational climate proposes that a structures, support and increasing expectations of employees and ma nagement (Schneider, 1990; Hofmann, Morgeson, & Gerras, 2003). In the present context, i ndividuals become pressured to help others in order to avoid anticipated guilt and/or perceived social sanctions that c ould result if they did not help yet believed tha t others expected them to ( Batson, et al., 2002; Batson & Powell, 2003) . Help is here offered in order to get peace of mind (Sharp, 1928) . By definition, injunctive norms comprise those feelings where an insider perceives that helping newcomers is a social ly approved and prescribed behavior, regardless of how often they witness others engaging in it . Interestingly, as La descriptive norms are congruent. For example, individuals who attend a formal meeting may notice that, because most others are silent and attentive (descriptive norm), they
52 will also be required to act similarly, and that they may incur social sanctions if they do (2005, p. 131) The theory o f reasoned action (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980) provides more concrete conceptual support for this prediction. According to the theory, injunctive norms are beyond their priv expec ted sanctions that that would occur for norm violation (Bendor & Swistak, 2001; Lapinski & Rimal, 2005). Aside from only feel ing bad for not helping an intrapersonal sanction injunctive norm violations are expected to carry additional social, interpersonal sanctions , such as verbal scorn or ostracism . Meta analytic findings have shown support for injunctive norm effects, as research finds that subjective norms (which map onto injunctive norms) account for unique variance in behavi oral intentions (Ajzen, 199 1; A r m itage & Conner, 2001). Hypothesis 6: Injunctive newcomer helping norms are positively related to insider helping behavior. Helping Behavior Mediates the Motives to Adjustment Outcomes Relationship I predict that the effects of insider motives on wo rk outcomes will be mediated through helping behavior. There is considerable evidence for a positive link between coworker and supervisor behaviors and important employee outcomes (Chiaburu & Harrison, 2008). Moreover, such effects have been theorized to b e especially relevant for newcomer adjustment (Jokisaari & Nurmi, 2009; Kammeyer Mueller et al., 2013). While the relationship between helping and significant outcomes has been previously
53 demonstrated, the contribution of the mediating hypotheses is showin g that motives for helping can drive some of these behaviors known to provide favorable outcomes, and moreover, that helping behavior provides a mechanism which links these motives to newcomer adjustment. In the present study, I focused on a multitude of adjustment outcomes (Figure 3 3) that are consistent with some of the most important and commonly studied behavioral and attitudinal constructs in the socialization and broader management literatures (Bauer et al., 2007). Further, all outcomes were measur ed by both newcomers and of view, rather than ascertaining the degree to which others in his or her work environment view how well adjustment has progressed. I considered four broad groups of outcomes: instrumental, attitudinal, social, and withdrawal. Though I do not offer direct effect hypothes es from helping to these outcomes, they are implicit to mediation hypotheses linking together the f ull conceptual model of Figure 3 2 . Data were collected for these outcomes at two separate times, and so I was able to examine how perceptions of these outcomes changed during the adjustment period, and whether changes were a function of these social interactions.
54 Figure 3 3. Helping behavior and adjustment outcomes Note: All relationships positive unless designated otherwise . Insider Helping and Instrumental Adjustment Outcomes I nsiders are instrumental to newcomers in that they can provide concrete information regarding how to perfo rm work tasks and achieve goals. Not only are a sources of explicit information (e.g. showing where things are, providing instructions for operating equipment , explaining what the policies and procedures are for work, and outlining what responsibilities are incumbent upon each individual in a work role ), but they also have access to tacit knowledge that is not encoded in formal placards or training manuals. As such, despite their proactivity, newcomers may st ill be unable to obtain all the information they need,
55 and insiders can help them where other sources are lacking . Research suggests that the primary forms of information that newcomers seek are of a technical or referent nature (i.e which is most commonly obtained from peers and supervisors rather than more impersonal sources (Reichers, 1987; Morrison, 1993). Consistent with the tenets of role theory and socia lization theory, insiders are therefore a primary means by which newcomers obtain role information (Miller & Jablin, 1991). The more that insiders are motivated to provide newcomers with this information, the more likely they are to actually do so, and subsequently, the more the newco mer will understand how to do his or her job. Complementing this role based conceptualization, socia l learning theory (Bandura, 1977 ) argues that insider modeling of task behaviors are an effective means to improve newcomer confidence and subsequent perfor mance. Thus, helping directly aids newcomers in increasing knowledge needed for performance (Hill, Bahniuk, & Dobos, 1989). As such, I hypothesized that helping mediates the relationship between motives and instrumental outcomes of task performance as well as role clarity. Insider Helping and Attitudinal Adjustment Outcomes I next hypothesized that helping mediates the relationship between motives and attitudinal outcomes. Specifically, I examined dependent variables of job satisfaction, organizational comm itment and general stress. These outcomes are some of the most commonly studied outcomes of socialization (Bauer et al., 2007), and represent an important appraisal of progress and adjustment to a new job (Feldman, 1981). Between helping and job satisfacti on and organizational commitment, respectively, I expected a positive relationship, while for stress I expected a negative relationship.
56 J ob satisfaction i s an evaluative state expressing contentment with, and positive (Judge & Kam meyer Mueller, 2012) . Organizational commitment represents a desire to remain a member of an organization. Perceived resources (Colquitt, LePine, & Wesson, 2013). These defini tion s incorporate both cognitive and affective components. Multiple studies have shown favorable relationships between insider interactions and employee attitudes ( Major et al., 1995; Chiaburu & Harrison, 2008). However, t heoretically, it is important to a lso show how this relationship pertains to the newcomer socialization context (Bauer & Green, 1998). According to the buffering and coping hypotheses (House, 1981; Seers, McGee, Serey, & Graen, 1983), helping behavior favorably contributes to job attitudes because the effective exchanges between newcomers and organizational insiders are a primary means to reduce uncertainty or other negative reactions to work (French, Rogers, & Cobb, 1974; Beehr & Drexler, 1986), and to improve well being (La Rocco & Jones, 1978; Major et al., 1995). Indeed, the specific outcomes in these conceptualizations are job satisfaction and stress. Role theory (Katz & Kahn, 1978 ; Stryker & Statham, 1985 ) would posit that socialization is primarily a process of individuals transitioni ng into new organizational roles ( cf . Van Maanen & Schein, 1979). As previously noted, o rganizational insiders are key providers of role information for newcomers , such as havior (Miller & Jablin, 1991; Ostroff & Kozlowski, 1992). As such, greater inside r help should improve satisfaction and commitment and reduce perceived job stress because such behavior effectively facilitates role clarity and mitigates role conflict and a mbiguities
57 (Seers et al., 1983; Jackson & Schuler, 1985). Motivated helping from insiders will make a newcomer more confident in his or her abilities, subsequently fostering a positive approach to his or her work. Both of the two empirical studies of insid er support and newcomer socialization (Jokisaari & Nurmi, 2009; Kammeyer Mueller et al., 2013) found positive effects with job attitudes. Insider Helping and Social Adjustment Outcomes mers adjusting to work group norms and values, establishing effective work relationships with peers, describing the leadership or behavioral styles of other employees, and learning ozlowski, 1992; Bauer et al., 2007). As such, much of the research within this literature specifically the newcomer proactivity and organizational tactics perspectives concerns understanding how newcomers obtain information about their relationships with o thers, and providing newcomers with an experienced insider to guide them (Miller & Jablin, 1991; Jones, 1986). In the present study, I examined two social adjustment outcomes: relationship satisfaction, as well as a measure of reciprocated citizenship beha vior. The second of these measures is concerned with the degree to which newcomers return the help they received from insiders at a later time (i.e. the help they receive at Time 1 and the help the newcomer reports giving back at Time 2 ). Conceptually, job e mbeddedness (Mitchell, Holtom, Lee, Sablynski, & Erez, 2001) and social exchange theories (Blau, 1964) propose that helping behavior is a socially affiliative action that can develop and strengthen to others . Newcomers are expec ted to feel a stronger positive connection to insiders when such individuals have made a token effort to offer help, and will also be more likely to
58 reciprocate that social investment with continued exchanges (Hom et al., 2009; Harris, Wheeler, & Kacmar, 2 011). Conversely, newcomers who report receiving less help will be less likely to believe they hold positive relationships with insiders, and should be less likely to offer help to such insiders with whom they do not frequently interact (Chiaburu & Harriso n, 2008). Methodologically, a causality concern may arise here, in that one might expect relationship quality to positively predict helping behavior, not the other way around. However, it is important to note that within the newcomer context, because relat ionships are so nascent, it is unlikely that enough time has passed where newcomers and insiders genuinely know each other well enough to establish trust (i.e. based on interaction frequency, and reliable role performance; McAllister, 1995). As such, an in behavior translates to outcomes like future relationship quality. Insider Helping and Withdrawal Adjustment Outcomes Besides these more positive and affiliative adjustment, I also examined a set of potentially unfavorable withdrawal related outcomes. G iven the significant staffing costs arising from ineffective socialization , it is no doubt that withdrawal, turnover intentions, and turnover behavior are some of the most important c riteria within the socialization literature (Bauer et al., 2007). Indeed, voluntary t urnover is most likely to occur within the first two years of employment (Griffeth & Hom, 2001). To the degree that s formal efforts) significantly affects these outcomes, there is considerable value in better understanding how to promote helping behavior. Role theory (Katz & Kahn, 1978) frames the socialization process as a transition into new roles, and that role clar ity substantially affects how newcomers feel they will
59 role theory literature links role conflict, role clarity and acceptance to successful newcomer assimilation. The role taking and role making process is less problematic for ; low role clarity reflects high uncertainty, which can predict early quitting (Wanous, 1 977; 1 980). Further, Bauer et a peers will have a strong attachment to the organization that will prevent them from relationships u nderscored by repeated positive interaction (i.e. mutual helping) can lead to lower work withdrawal and turnover (Kammeyer Mueller et al., 2013). T o summarize this section, I hypothesize d that insider helping partially mediates the relationship of insider helping motives to instrumental, attitudinal, social, and withdrawal outcomes. I expected positive relationships between helping and instrumental, attitudinal (with the exception of job stress), and social outcomes, and negative relationships to withdrawal outcomes. Hypothesis 7: Insider helping behavior mediates the relationship between self oriented motives (tangible gain, affective gain, self enhancement) and (a) instrumental outcomes (+, H7a); (b) attitudinal outcomes (H7b); (c) social outcomes (+, H7c ); and (d) withdrawal outcomes ( , H7d). Hypothesis 8: Insider helping behavior mediates the relationship between an other oriented motive and (a) instrumental outcomes (+, H8a); (b) attitudinal outcomes (+, H8b); (c) social outcomes (+, H8c); and (d) wit hdrawal outcomes ( , H8d). Hypothesis 9: Insider helping behavior mediates the relationship between normative/contextual motives (descriptive and injunctive norms) and (a) instrumental outcomes (+, H9a); (b) attitudinal outcomes (H9b); (c) social outcomes (+, H9c); and (d) withdrawal outcomes ( , H9d).
60 Moderating Role of Newcomer Perceived Motives Finally, I expected that helping motives would affect the magnitude of the relationship between perceived help and adjustment outcomes. Throughout the manuscript I have argued that help is unequivocally beneficial; however, helping can only be beneficial to the extent that newcomers utilize help provided. While motives to if an d how help is utilized, and their reactions to help offerings. behaviors toward others are partly shaped by how they perceive and explain the causes describes how external events precipitate some behavior from an individual, to which another individual responds, after considering how responsible the person was for their behavior. For example , if, on an exam (the event), a student performs poorly (the the student as lacking aptitude; however, if they performed poorly because they lack motivation (but do possess aptitude), the more suitable reaction may be anger. Early tests of this theory concerned student achievement, and how ability to achieve as well For the present context, the event would be a newcomer needing help, the behavior is the insider choosing to help the newcomer or not to help, and the judgment or perhaps anger and re sent if the insider could have helped but did not). Newcomers helping motives. I propose that newcomers who perceive insiders as having more self -
61 oriented motives will react more negatively to help offerings, while those who perceive insiders as having more other oriented motives will react more positively to help offerings. That is, I expected newcomer perceived helping motives to moderate the relationship between helpi ng and adjustment outcomes, where attributions of self oriented insider motives weaken these relationships, while attributions of other oriented insider motives strengthen relationships. 1 Research supports the notion that attributions moderate relationshi ps between (Thomas & Pondy, 1977; Schlenker, 1980). Theoretically, this is because reacting to of that behavior, which involves interpreting their intentions (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980). As e The preceding discussion implies that newcomers who attribute insider helping (or any behavior) as being more authentic and sincere (i.e. other oriented) will react with more positive evaluations because such behavior is purely focused on the newcomer, while those who attribute behavior to manipulative and self oriented ends will react with more negative evaluations (Ferris et al., 1995). The more newcomers attribute the h elp they received to self serving insider motives, the more they realize that the focus of the help is not so much about helping them adjust, but rather only about benefitting the 1 ntal, attitudinal ( with the except of stress), and social; I expect ed the reverse effect to operate for stress and withdrawal adjustment outcomes .
62 insider. Consequently, newcomers should be more suspicious about the help, m ay doubt its utility, and may subsequently come to resent the insider (Dasborough & Ashkanasy, 2002). These affective reactions toward a given insider may have broader envi ronment may have difficulty distinguishing the motives of specific insiders from those of the broader organization. This reflects an atomistic fallacy, in which an individual characteristic is perceived to operate the same way at a higher level of analysis . In other words, a newcomer who feels as if their coworker is helping only to benefit themselves may come to view his or her workplace as a whole as less benevolent, less accepting of him or her, and/or less reliable as a source of social support. Thus, n hampered, but other adjustment outcomes such as job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and withdrawal will be affected as well (Figures 3 4 and 3 5) . Empirically, ingratiation resear ch (e.g. Liden & Mitchell, 1988; Gordon, 1996) suggests that intentions affect the relationship between ingratiation and evaluations (e.g. likability, performance appraisals). In the leader member exchange literature, Ferris, Bhawuk, Fedor, and Judge (1995 ) theorized that the link between impression management behaviors and reactions would first be screened by recipients in terms of attributing actors (i.e. insid ers) as having more self interested or manipulative intentions would react more negatively than if they had more altruistic, other oriented intentions. Unfortunately, few studies have explicitly tested these propositions. Still, the newcomer context is par ticularly interesting to explore such relationships, as they represent a new
63 dynamic in which newcomers have had only limited interactions with insiders, and thus are making their very first attributions (Ferris et al., 1995). Hypothesis 10: The relationsh ip between insider helping behavior and adjustment outcomes is moderated by newcomer perceptions of insider motives, such that the more newcomers believe insiders hold self oriented motives, the weaker (i.e. less positive) this relationship becomes (H10a); the more newcomers believe insiders hold other oriented motives, the stronger (i.e. more positive) this relationship becomes (H10b). Figure 3 4. Predicted interaction plot for Hypothesis 10a Figure 3 5. Predicted interaction plot for Hypothesis 10b
64 CHAPTER 4 METHODS Helping Motives Scale Development No existing measures specific to newcomer helping motives could be found during a literature search. As such, I developed helping motive measures following the deductive approach suggested by Hinkin (1 (1999) content validation method. The first step in this approach involved generating a list of items reflective of the phenomenon under investigation (greater than was ultimately retained), based on a thorough rev iew of the relevant literature, so as to make sure that the construct domain was fully represented. Participants were then provided a definition of each construct of interest and were told to rate on a 1 (The item is a VERY POOR match to the concept define d above) to 5 (The item is a VERY GOOD match to the concept defined above) scale the extent to which they believed each respective item was consistent with the construct definition. It is typically recommended that item to respondent ratios are at least 1: 5 for conducting later factor analysis (Hinkin, 1998), and for obtaining adequate variance in item responses. Next, a confirmatory factor analysis was performed on the item variance covariance matrix to assess adequate goodness of fit of the theoretically defined measurement model, compared to a single factor model (Kline, 2005). Correlations among expectedly similar and distinct measures were then used to assess convergent/discriminant validity. Finally, the finalized measure was utilized in another sample to replicate results (Hinkin, 1998). Drawing from an extensive literature review (Figure 2 1), I first generated items for each of the expected six motives, specifically highlighting the motive referent as helping newcomers. Twenty items were developed f or the tangible gain motive, 33
65 items were generated for the emotional gain motive, and 11 items were generated for the self enhancement motive. Regarding other orientation, I used items adapted from De Dreu and Nauta (2009). However, this scale only consi sted of three items. Due to concerns about potentially weak psychometric properties of a three item scale, 17 additional items were generated consistent with the operating definition of other orientation. For descriptive and injunctive norms, I adapted ite ms from Park and Smith (2007) for the specific context of norms about helping newcomers. The Park and Smith measure specifically concerns organ donation norms, with three descriptive norm items and three injunctive norm items. A sample descriptive norm ite m for the Park and Smith le in this organization approve orientation measure, to improve the reliability and other psychometric properties of this scale, as part of an initial pilot study, I developed 17 a dditional items for each norm. For this pilot study, undergraduate students ( N = 425 430) were recruited from a Management course in a large southeastern university to participate in an online survey for course credit. Each motive definition was provided, followed by each item for that motive, across all six motives. For the tangible gain motive, participants were told that
66 newcomers based on the material outcomes they think th motivated to help newcomers based on the positive emotions they think they will enhancement motive wa orientation motive was defined as degree to which an individual is concerned with the interests, need s, and desires of that helping newcomers is a typical, common, and normal behavior engaged in by a The degree to which one perceives that helping newcomers is an approved, prescribed, or expected behavior that a group of individuals should engage in at work As previously noted, each participant rated how well the item reflected the definitio n of the concept provided. Ultimately, I selected for use in a subsequent validation sample 5 6 items (1998) recommendation that scales should ultimately consist of be tween 4 6 items, and given concerns about fatiguing participants who were asked to answer questions about multiple motives. Further, as I had an a priori theoretical expectation that specific items should load onto respective motive factors, a confirmatory factor analysis was appropriate to analyze the factor structure of the motive items (Kline, 2005). A second validation study was then used to assess the factor structure of the retained motive items. This study consisted of a convenience sample of 230 emp loyed individuals. Participants were provided with the 5 6 items for each helping motive
67 (motive items shown in Figure 4 1) and were asked to rate the degree to which this would be a reason they would help a newcomer at work (rather than the sample of unde rgraduates, who were only asked how well the items matched a definition). Results of a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) supported the dimensionality of the theoretically derived six factor model relative to several theoretically plausible alternatives ( 2 = 876.77 [ df = 480 ] , p <.01, Comparative Fit Index [CFI] = .94, Tucker Lewis Index [TLI] = .93, Root mean squared error of approximation [RMSEA] = .06, standardized root mean squared residual [SRMR] = .05) . For instance, based on a chi square difference test, a four factor model consisting of all self oriented motive items as one factor, other oriented items as a second factor, and the two distinct normative factors fit significantly worse than the six factor model ( 2 = 2143.70 [ df = 48 9] , p <.01, CFI = .73, TLI = .71, RMSEA = .12, SRMR = .11). A model wherein self orientation was modeled as a second order latent factor (based on first order latent factors of each self oriented motives) along with a second other oriented factor and a third second order l atent normative motive factor ( 2 = 901.67 [ df = 48 7] , p <.01, CFI = .93, TLI = .93, RMSEA = .06, SRMR = .07) also did not perform as well as the theoretically specified model. Lastly, I tested a model with a second order latent self oriented factor, a second other orientation factor, a nd separate normative factors, which also fit worse ( 2 = 901.63 [ df = 48 6] , p <.01, CFI = .93, TLI = .93, RMSEA = .06, SRMR = .07). Thus, I chose to retain the separate six factor model based on the results of this CFA ( Figure 4 1 has results of the six f actor CFA, Table 4 1 has a summary of all CFA models tested). Descriptive statistics for this validation sample, as well as the phi matrix showing latent factor correlations and reliability information are shown in Table 4 2 . This table
68 shows that the dif ferent motive categories were indeed empirically distinct from one another. Tangible gain motives were not the same as affective gain or self enhancement motives, nor were these self oriented motives the opposite of other orientation, consistent with previ ous research (e.g. Grant & Mayer, 2009). Descriptive norms also only moderately correlated with injunctive norms. As such, it appears that the six motive categories can be considered separate from one another. Further, it is worth noting that there were no t strong ceiling effects in these results. While mean responses leaned toward the higher end of scale maxima, they were not so high as to suggest strong levels of socially desirable responding. Moreover, there is considerable variance in all motive scores to suggest that employees differed in the degree to which they would be motivated to help newcomers for each respective reason. Reliabilities for each motive in the validation sample were quite good: for tangible gain (5 items), = .93; for affective gain (5 items), = .93; for self enhancement (6 items), = .90; for other orientation (5 items), = .92; for descriptive norms (6 items), = .95; for injunctive norms (6 items), = .91.
69 Figure 4 1. Six factor CFA results for helping motives in validation sample
70 Table 4 1 . Summary of model fit for the helping motive CFA alternative models Table 4 2 . Means, standard deviations, reliabilities, and intercorrelations among helping motives in validation s ample
71 Sample and Procedure Having developed and validated helping motive scales, I then tested the conceptual model of Figure 3 2 with a sample of individuals entering new jobs. P articipants for the newcomer study were re cruited two ways: first, emails were obtained through the University of Florida Career Resources Center (CRC) of individuals who had interviewed with a potential employer but had not yet begun work . A message was sent to these individuals asking those star ting new jobs soliciting participation in a longitudinal study regarding adjustment after graduation. Further, I visited the interview center at the CRC at random time periods to recruit people who were applying for jobs, and contacted individuals via emai l from the subset of the total pool of interviewees. While I tried to contact everyone, with over 1,000 people interviewing over a course of a semester, this was not feasible, and instead I recruited at random. Second, a convenience sample was recruited us ing the social networking services Facebook and LinkedIn, specifically seeking out individuals starting, or who had recently started, new jobs. Potential participants were told of the general purpose of the study to gain a better understanding of the relat ionship s among newcomers and the people with whom they work and were given an overview of participation requirements. Participants were asked to complete four online surveys: the first before starting work or within the first four weeks of starting a job , a second after being on the job for roughly 1 2 months , a third survey one month after the second survey, and a fourth six months after the third survey. Three reminder emails were sent if participants did not complete surveys in a timely manner. If newcom ers did not respond to surveys after the reminders, they were removed from the study pool. During the second survey, participants were asked to provide the names and email addresses of their immediate
72 supervisor as well as 1 3 coworkers who would be willin g participate as well . The newcomer survey asked for up to three coworker contacts due to potential concerns that newcomers would only report coworkers with whom they have the best relationships or from whom they received the most help. However, only one o f the (up to) three coworkers was ultimately selected for participation. I used a random selection procedure offered in the online survey system to determine which coworker would participate. Newcomers provided a mean of 1.61 emails coworker emails (out of up to three requested). Of the 972 individuals who interviewed through the CRC in Spring 2013 and 2014 or who were recruited to participate via Facebook and LinkedIn, 221 responded by completing the background survey (23% initial response rate). Because not all of the 972 individuals who interviewed through the CRC obtained jobs, and because many of the individuals graduating may no longer have had access to the same e mail addresses they had at the time of initial solicitation, the response rate percenta ge of those who interviewed, obtained jobs, and agreed to participate was unavailable. Of those 221 who completed the background survey, at the time of this writing, 77 had completed the Time 1 survey (35% of first yield), 73 had completed the Time 2 surve y, and 52 had completed the Time 3 survey. At Time 1 , newcomers were asked to provide contact information for their supervisor and up to three coworkers. Of the 77 newcomers who participated, 69 provided at least one coworker email (90%). Emails were sent to one coworker chosen at random. Of those 69 coworkers, 46 completed the first coworker survey (67% coworker response rate), and 39 of the 46 had completed the second coworker survey (85% yield) at the time of this writing. For supervisors, 62
73 names and e mails were provided, of which 47 responded to the first supervisor survey (76%), and at the time of this writing, 34 had responded to the second survey (72% yield). These yields also represent responses after two reminder emails were sent to both coworkers and supervisors to solicit participation. For newcomers, participants had a mean age of 24 years old ( SD = 5.42). Forty seven percent of the newcomers were female, 58.9% were Caucasian, 21.5% were Asian, 15.0% were Hispanic/Latino, 3.7% were African Ameri can, 3.7% were Middle Eastern, and 1.8% were Native American. The vast majority of participants had expected working an average of 38.4 hours per week ( SD = 12.83). Newcomers worked for a variety of occupations, including industries such as finance, technology, accounting, retail, shipping, education, legal, and Internet marketing. For coworkers, participants had an average age of 28 years, 46% were female, had been working at their organization for an average of 15 months, and reported that they interacted with average age of 37 years, 49% were female, had an average tenure at the organizatio n rating of 3.98/5.00). Measures Newcomers were asked to complete three online surveys, along with an optional fourth survey. All survey items are reported in Appendix B. The first survey (background) initially determined participant eligibility, to ensure newcomers had been working for fewer than four weeks, and were working at a job with sufficient social interaction. This survey also assessed control variables. The next survey (Time 1 ) had
74 newcomers provide insider contact information, and assessed perceived insider helping behavior and perceived insider helping motives; the Time 2 survey assessed adjustment outcomes; the last survey (Time 3 ) repeated the adjustment outco me measures and also asked about turnover behavior. Insiders were asked to complete two surveys: the first, coinciding with 1 survey, assessed personal background and demographics, their own levels of helping behavior, and their own helpin g motives. The second survey, one 2 survey), included the full list of Data were collected fro m both the newcomer and insider perspectives for theoretical reasons. Specifically with regard to the tested models, coworkers and supervisors provided motives ratings while newcomers provided received helping behavior ratings. Insiders may be the most app ropriate measurement source for motives because, as previously noted, insiders themselves are best able to report as to the reasons why they may have offered help to another, such as for descriptive norms, where perceptions are the primary driver of behavi or. For helping behavior, however, the newcomer is the most appropriate measurement source. Regardless of how much help an insider said he or she provided, the influence of helping on adjustment outcomes ultimately resides in the degree to which a newcomer believes he or she was affected by the amount of help they think they received. In this way, both helping motives and helping behavior rest in the eye of their (respective) beholders.
75 Collecting data from multiple sources as well as at multiple time perio ds was also done to partially mitigate method bias concerns (Doty & Glick, 1987; Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003). Other cautions were taken to mitigate artifactual effects, such as controlling for affective dispositions that could skew respon ses, counterbalancing question order ing , reminding participants to respond as honestly as possible, assuring anonymity was protected, as well as assuring that all survey responses were kept on an encrypted server (Podsakoff et al., 2003 ). Background Data : Control Variables Negative affective d isposition . Previous research has linked personality to adjustment outcomes (Wanberg & Kammeyer Mueller, 2000; Kammeyer Mueller et al., 2013), and personality may also color newcomer perceptions of the frequency with w hich they interact with others, as well as the amount and nature of the help they receive. Further, affective disposition has been linked to helping behavior (Amato, 1990; George & Brief, 1992; Organ & Ryan, 1995; Chiaburu, Oh, Berry, Li, & Gardner, 2011). Given the potential that affective disposition could alternatively explain why some people received more or less help and affect helping motives I controlled for negative affective disposition in all models. This trait was measured with 10 items from PANA S X measure adapted for steady dispositions (Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988). Participants were asked to indicate their agreement with statements about how they Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree). Coefficient alpha for this measure was .90.
76 Time 1 : Helping Motives and Behavior Helping m otives . At Time 1 , the six helping motives measure was given to newcomers, their supervisors, and their coworkers. Newcomers rated their perceptions newcomers due to each motive. For newcomers rating their supervisor, coe fficient alphas were .94 for tangible gain, .91 for affective gain, .94 for self enhancement, .93 for other orientation, .98 for descriptive norms, and .96 for injunctive norms. For newcomers rating their coworker, coefficient alphas were .97 for tangible gain, .95 for affective gain, .98 for self enhancement, .93 for other orientation, .98 for descriptive norms, and .97 for injunctive norms. For supervisors rating their own motives, coefficient alphas were .83 for tangible gain, .93 for affective gain, .95 for self enhancement, .82 for other orientation, .96 for descriptive norms, and .89 for injunctive norms. For coworkers rating their own motives, coefficient alphas were .96 for tangible gain, .93 for affective gain, .97 for self enhancement, .88 for othe r orientation, .96 for descriptive norms, and .96 for injunctive norms. Helping b ehavior . As mentioned at the outset, the newcomer adjustment phase is qualitatively different than is working as a tenured insider. Newcomers have less experience in performin g job tasks, limited knowledge of the situational context or of group and organizational norms/values, and are unfamiliar with the people in their work environment. As such, the help a newcomer receives is much different than the help an insider receives, who has worked at a job for a considerable amount of time. Most extant measures of interpersonal helping behavior are focused on insider to insider helping, such as OCBs, which generically ask about passing along information, helping a coworker with a heav y workload, or just gauging whether or not they helped another.
77 Having been unable to find a specific measure inquiring about helping newcomers, to measure this behavior, I adapted a scale from Chao and colleagues (1994). Both newcomers and insiders comple ted this measure, which allowed for assessing congruence between help newcomers reported receiving and help insiders reported providing. The original Chao et al. (1994) scale measures socialization knowledge dimensions of history, language, politics, peopl e, organizational goals and values, and performance. Theoretically, this content approach to socialization suggests of these content domains. Helping behavior is beneficial to the degree that it increases newcomer levels of each content domain. I adapted this scale to reflect helping behavior on behavior of organizational insiders that helped newcomers to gain such knowledge or skills. For example, an item of the socializati on history dimension revised this item to read (first with the stem: How often has your supervisor. . you learn about the history behind your work group/ from 1 (Not at all) to 5 (Very often). The full list of items can be found in Appendix B. Coefficient alpha for the overall helping behavior scale (across all dimensions) was .97 for newcomers rating help provided by superviso rs, .97 for newcomers rating help provided by coworkers, .95 for supervisors rating help they provided to newcomers, and .97 for coworkers rating help they provided to newcomers. All reliabilities for the individual helping behavior subscales were all abov e accepted standards, with the lowest subscale reliability reported being .86 (supervisors rating the amount of help they
78 Time 2 : Adjustment Outcomes One month after Time 1 , b oth newcomers and insiders received a survey email to answer questions about adjustment outcomes. The Time 2 survey effectively represents newcomers having been on the job for roughly three months, which is consistent with prior research, which emphasizes that the holistic onboarding process for a new job occurs roughly over 90 days (Kammeyer Mueller et al., 2013). Instrumental Adjustment Outcomes Task p erformance. Newcomer task performance was measured with five items from Williams and Anderson (1991). Fo r newcomers, question stems bega work , insiders , question stems bega newcomer for the insider survey include d Question wording stems were revised for newcomers. Responses range d on a five point Likert scale from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree). Coefficient alpha for this scale was .89 for newcomer self and .91 for coworker perceptions of newc Role c larity. Newcomer role clarity was measured with a six item scale from Responses range d on a five point Likert scale from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree). Coefficient alpha for this scale was .91 for new comer
79 Attitudinal Adjustment Outcomes Job s atisfaction. Job satisfaction was measured via a 5 item scale adapted from Brayfi eld and Rothe (1951). For newcomers, question stems bega whereas for insiders newcomer For newcomers, sample items include d my job for t Responses range d on a five point Likert scale from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree). Coefficient alpha for this scale was .90 for .88 for coworker Organizational c ommitment. Both newcomers and insiders responded to three anizational commitment (Mowday, Porter , & Steers finds that his/her tell others that I he/she is part of this organization. Responses range d on a five point Likert scale from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree ) . Coefficient alpha for this General s tress. Newcomers responded to eight adjectives from the Stress in General scale (Stanton, Balzer, Smith, Parra, & Ironson, 2001), regarding how they currently felt about their job. The adjectives, rated on a Likert scale ranging from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree) were: irritating, under control, nerve wr acking, running, overwhelming. As
80 some items reflected less stress, these were recoded such that higher values reflected greater levels of perceived job stress. Coefficient alpha for this scale was .85 for newcomer responses. Social Adjustment Outcomes Relationship satisfaction . Both newcomers and insiders rated the quality of their relationships with one an other (with newcomers separately rating both their coworker and supervisor), using a five it em measure ( Eisenberg, Stinglhamber, Vandenberghe, Sucharski, & Rhoades, 2002 ). For newcomers, item samples included arding your coworker/this Responses range d on a five point Likert scale from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree) . Coefficient alpha for this scale was .93 for newcomer responses toward their supervisor, .94 for newcomer responses toward their coworker, .95 for supervisor relationship satisfaction with the newcomer, and .88 for coworker relationship satisfaction with the newcomer. Returned citizenship behaviors. Newcomers alone rated their agreement with seve citizenship behavior. Newcomers separately filled out this measure for both their coworker if Responses range d on a five point Likert scale from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 5 (Stron gly Agree) . Coefficient alpha for this scale was .85 for newcomers rating citizenship toward their supervisor, and .86 for citizenship toward their coworker.
81 Withdrawal Adjustment Outcomes Withdrawal behaviors. Work withdrawal was measured with a nine ite m scale (Roznowski & Hanisch, 1990) reflecting a variety of behaviors. Both newcomers and the time at Responses range d on a five point Likert scale from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree) . Coefficient alpha for this scale was .84 for newcomer responses, .92 for supervisor perceptions of newcomer withdrawal, and .92 for coworker perceptions of newcomer behaviors. Turnover i ntentions. Turnover intentions were measured using a four item scale adapted from Seashore, Lawler, Mirvis, and Cammann (1982). Question stems bega newcomer insiders . Item h ad responses ranging from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree), while the fourth question range d from 1 (Very Unlikely) to 5 (Very Likely). Coefficient alpha for this scale was .84 for newcomer responses, .84 for supervisor perceptions of newcomer i ntentions, and .92 for coworker perceptions of newcomer intentions. Time 3 : Turnover Behavior Six months after Time 2 , participants receive d an email asking them to complete one final survey, reassessing Time 2 measures, and asking if they were still emplo yed. At Time 3 , focal participants were asked if they had voluntarily left their job , or if they were still working . Insiders were contacted in case newcomers were unable to be
82 reached (and after one reminder email was sent). Responses were coded as zero ( 0) if the employee was still in their same job, and one (1) if the empl oyee voluntarily quit their job . If the employee left the job, they were asked to report the last day they worked. Of those who responded to the Time 3 survey, eight had quit, and 34 we re still working.
83 CHAPTER 5 RESULTS Descriptive Statistics Before delving into specific results, a clear disclaimer should be noted for readers that the sample size in all analyses were very small, and therefore the results should be inte rpreted with caution. Because of the sample size, the conclusions of this study necessarily will require future replication to obtain more c onfident interpretations among relationships of the constructs of interest. The means, standard deviations, and inte rcorrelations among insider and newcomer reported motives, reported helping behavior, and Time 2 adjustment outcomes are shown in Table 5 1. A cursory look at this table reveals some interesting aspects of the data regarding means and variance in motives, relationships among motives, newcomer insider agreement in motives, and relationships with helping behavior and adjustment outcomes. As shown in the table, both insiders and newcomers tended to rate self oriented motives (tangible gain, affective gain, an d self enhancement), quite lower than the other oriented or normative motives. For instance, newcomers rated their supervisors at a mean of 1.84, 2.90, and 2.64 for the three self oriented motives, respectively, and supervisors rating their own self orient ed motives at a mean of 1.72, 2.72, and 2.39. Comparatively, both newcomer and supervisor rated other oriented motives and normative motives all exceeded 4.00. A similar pattern was also found for coworker motives. Interestingly, there was limited agreeme nt between newcomers and insiders regarding motives. For newcomers and supervisors, the highest rating agreement correlation was for descriptive norms at .24, though this was non significant. For
84 newcomers and coworkers, there was a significant agreement r elationship for the tangible gain (r = .37, p <. 05) and descriptive norms (r = .42, p <. 01) motives. Third, insider rated helping motives were differentially related to newcomer rated helping behavior at the zero order level. The only significant correlat ion for supervisors was that descriptive norms were positively associated with newcomer rated help received (r = .38, p <. 05). For coworkers, self ratings of affective gain were surprisingly negatively related to newcomer reported help received (r = .40, p <. 05), and the same was found for self enhancement and helping behavior (r = .38, p <. 05). Time 1 ratings of help from supervisors was positively related to Time 2 newcomer rati ngs of job satisfaction (r = .45, p <. 01) and organizational commitment (r = .37, p <. 05), and negatively related to stress (r = .36, p <. 05). Newcomer rated helping also was associated with their own ratings of relationship quality with their supervisor at Time 2 and Time 3 (however, for supervisors, this relationship was zero), greater citizenship behavior returned to supervisors (r = .59, p <. 01), and less withdrawal. Supervisor self rated motives were generally not significantly correlated with both in strumental and positively associated with newcomer rated organizational commitment (r = .32, p <. 05), otives exhibited negative relationships to this outcome. Lastly, for withdrawal related adjustment outcomes, a general pattern emerged, suggesting that greater self oriented motives reported by supervisors at Time 1 was positively correlated with superviso 2 .
85 Time 1 ratings of help from coworkers was positively related to Time 2 newcomer ratings of job satisfaction (r = .45, p <. 01 ) and organizational commitment (r = .37, p <. 05), and negatively related to stress (r = .36, p <. 05). Newcomer rated helping also was associated with their own ratings of relationship quality with their coworkers at Time 2 and Time 3 (however, for cowork ers, this relationship was zero), greater citizenship behavior returned to coworkers (r = .59, p <. 01), and less withdrawal. Coworker self rated motives was negatively linked to coworker ratings of newcomer performance (r = .39, p ratings of newcomer role clarity (r = .47, p also negatively predicted self and supervisor ratings of performance, while other ra ted performance (r = .29, p <. 05). with newcomer rated job satisfaction (r = .36, p <. 05) and organizational commitment (r = .39, p <. 05), which is in the opposite direc 2 ratings of relationship quality (r = .55 , p <. 01), but other orientation was positively associated wi th this outcome (r = .44, p <. 05). Lastly, coworker motives were generally unrelated to withdrawal adjustment, except that coworker ratings of injunctive norms were negatively related to Time 3 withdrawal (r = .54, p <. 01). In general, the control variabl e of affective disposition was uncorrelated with newcomer ratings of help received from supervisors (r = .14, ns ) or from coworkers (r =
86 .08, ns ). However, it was significantly correlated with supervisor ratings of role clarity of relationship quality with their supervisor. Tests of Hypotheses Hypotheses were tested using structural equation modeling in Mplus version 6.11 (MuthÃ©n & MuthÃ©n, 2010). I tested the proposed relationships in Figure 3 2 using a partially latent structu ral equations model, as scale averages across items were used as a single observed indicator loading of a respective latent factor, and measurement error variances w ere set to alpha)*variance (Kline, 2005), where alpha is equal to the internal cons istency reliability for the measure. Analyses were completed with a weighted least squares estimator allowing for missing values. Turnover behavior as an objective outcome was treated with a reliability of 1.00. I examined two separate models for coworker s and supervisors, respectively, in terms of motives, helping behavior, and adjustment outcomes. In each model, insiders rated their own motives and newcomers rated perceived helping behavior from the particular insider source (Time 1 ). For outcomes, insid ers provided ratings of performance and role clarity, while newcomers reported all other outcomes (e.g. job satisfaction, stress, and withdrawal at Time 2 ; turnover behavior at Time 3 ). I allowed the latent factors among motives to covary, as research (and results of the validation study, shown in Table 4 2 ) suggests that helping motives are not mutually exclusive (Clary et al., 1998). Specifically, previous studies have found that self concern and other orientation are meaningfully correlated (De Dreu & Na uta, 2009), and further, an salient contextual helping norms existing in the workplace. Also, as previously noted, I controlled osition (NA) in tests of all hypotheses ,
87 by specifying paths from these variables to all endogenous model variables (i.e. helping behavior and adjustment outcomes). However, this variable was unrelated to all variables in the structural model, and paramete r estimates remained the same with NA included. As such, to conserve degrees of freedom, I removed it from the final model and analyses. In running models with dichotomous (e.g. turnover) as well as categorical outcomes, a weighted least squares estimator is used to compute probit regression effect sizes. Rather than reporting SRMR, in such analyses, researchers recommend the weighted root mean square residual (WRMR) be reported. Yu (2002) suggests WRMR values of < .90 as having good model fit. Fit statis tics for the tested models were as follows: for the supervisor model, ( 2 = 65.59 [ df = 60] , p >.05, CFI = .96, TLI = .90, RMSEA = .03), Weighted Root Mean Square Residual (WRMR) = .58; for the coworker model, ( 2 = 85.15 [ df = 60] , p <.05, CFI = .76, TLI = .46, RMSEA = .07, WRMR = .70). As the coworker model fit was quite poor, I considered model modification indices provided in the Mplus output. In considering justifiable alternative her orientation and descriptive norm perceptions directly to task performance, as well as from descriptive norms to role clarity. In essence, these paths suggest that coworkers high in other orientation may be simply more inclined to rate others more posit ively in their work behaviors, and that where helping is more common in the work environment (from all people), newcomers will experience greater role clarity. The addition of these paths to the coworker model significantly improved model fit ( 2 = 63.69 [ df = 57] , p >.05, CFI = .94, TLI = .85, RMSEA = .04, WRMR = .54). A chi square difference test
88 between this model and the model without the direct effects was significant ( 2 diff = 21.46 [ df = 3] , p <.01). As such, I retained this alternative model with th e selected direct effects included. to somewhat arbitrary rules of thumb for interpreting valid models , the aforementioned values are considered acceptable among many statisticians (Mar sh, Hau, & Wen, 2004; Marsh, Hau, & Grayson, 2005). To examine the significance of the mediation effects in the path analytic model, I use d the bias corrected (BC) bootstrap resampling method to estimate indirect effect confidence intervals. MacKinnon and colleagues have outlined this method (MacKinnon, Lockwood, & WIlliams, 2004; Williams & MacKinnon, 2008) , and recommend it as a more powerful approach to detect mediated effects, while also addressing inherent biases of a non normal product term distributi ons in testing mediation (e.g. Sobel, z tests) . I resampled 1,000 times to estimate lower and upper bounds for confidence intervals of the BC indirect effects. Hypothesis 10, which concerned the moderating role of newcomer perceived motives on relationshi ps between helping and outcomes, were tested using a partially latent structural equation model. Following the recommendations outlined by Cortina, Chen, and Dunlap (2001) and Cohen, Cohen, West, and Aiken (2003), I first mean centered all independent vari ables to reduce nonessential multicollinearity. Next, a behavior and the particular newcomer rated motive in question. I then created a latent factor out of the single product term indicator, alongside the independent variable and moderator factors. The partially latent structural equation model approach requires the
89 product term error variance to also be set , as with each factor . I followed equation 14 from Cortina et al. (2001), which is (alpha IV * a lpha M oderator + r 2 IV Moderator ) / (1 + r 2 IV Moderator ) , where alpha is the reliability of the independent variable (IV) and moderator, respectively, and r 2 IV Moderator is the squared correlation between the IV and moderator. Direct effects were then simultaneously modeled among the latent IV (i.e. helping), moderator (i.e. the particular motive), and interaction term (i.e. IV*moderator). Relationships of Motives to Helping Behavior Hypotheses 1 through 3 suggested that self or iented motives would positively equation model analyses are shown in Table 5 2 , and are depicted visually in Figure 5 2 and Figure 5 3 . Hypothesis 1 predicted a positiv gain motive and newcomer was not significantly related to newcomer rated helping behavior ( = .50, ns ), nor was motive ( = 2.08, ns ). As such, Hypothesis 1 motive was unrelated related to helping behavior ( = .07, ns = .72, ns ). Hypothesis 3 predicted a positive relationship between self enhancement motives and helping behavior. For supervisors, this relationship was significant, albeit in the opposite direction, while the effect was non significant for coworkers (Supervisors: = .63, p<. 05; Coworkers : = .21, ns ). Thus, Hypothesis 3 was not supported. Regarding other oriented motives, Hypothesis 4 predicted a positive relationship to newcomer rated helping. For supervisors or coworkers, results were not consistent with the hypothesis (Supervisors: = .16, ns ; Coworkers: = 1.64, ns ), thus rejecting Hypothesis 4.
90 Regarding normative motives and helping behavior, Hypothesis 5 predicted a positive relationship between descriptive helping norms and reported helping behavior. For supervisors reporting descriptive helping norms in the workplace, this hypothesis was supported ( = .57, p <.05). For coworkers rating the descriptive norms in the work environment, however, this hypothesis was not supported ( = 1.06, ns ). Interestingly, as descriptive norms r epresent a contextual variable of describing the workplace (rather than the perceptions of an individual), it was interesting to see that coworker and supervisors showed quite weak agreement in their ratings (r = .16, ns ). For Hypothesis 6 concerning inju nctive norms and helping behavior, this result was not supported for supervisors ( = .18, ns ), or for coworkers ( = .66, ns ). Thus, Hypothesis 6 was not supported. Mediation of Helping Behavior to Adjustment Outcomes Hypotheses 7 though 9 concerned the relationship between helping behavior and adjustment outcomes, specifically sugges ting that helping behavior would mediate the relationship between helping motives and newcomer adjustment. First, the direct effects from helping to adjustment outcomes for separate coworker and supervisor models are shown in Table 5 3 . As noted earlier, t hough not explicitly hypothesized, I predicted that helping behavior would favorably relate to all adjustment outcomes (i.e. higher satisfaction and performance, lower stress and withdrawal behaviors). As can be seen from Table 5 3 1 ratin gs of insider helping behavior generally were significantly related to Time 2 (one month later) adjustment outcomes, with the exception of instrumental adjustment outcomes. Specifically, newcomer ratings of satisfaction ( = .41, p < .01), organizational commitment ( = .36, p < .01), relationship
91 quality with their supervisor ( = .73, p < .01), returned OCBs ( = .75, p < .01), and negatively predicted withdrawal behaviors ( = .50, p < .01), and turnover intentions ( = .28, p < .01). For coworkers, newcomer ratings of helping behavior were positively = .35, p < .01), organizational commitment ( = .56, p < .01), relationship quality with their coworker ( = .55, p < .01), return ed OCBs ( = .57, p < .01), and negatively predicted withdrawal behaviors ( = .60, p < .10), but not stress or turnover intentions. The weighted least squares estimator runs a probit regression for the turnover behavior analyses. However, for neither the sup ervisor nor coworker models was the effect of helping on voluntary turnover significant. The structural model effects testing the indirect effects from motives to outcomes through helping are shown in Table 5 4 . Hypothesis 7 predicted that helping behavio r would mediate the relationships among the three self oriented motives and the four adjustment outcome categories. As shown in Table 5 4 , for supervisors, the results show that no indirect effect was significant in relating helping motives to adjustment o utcomes through helping behavior. For coworkers, however, a different picture performance ( = 1.82, p <.01). For attitudinal adjustment, coworker helping negatively media ted the relationship between tangible gain motives and job satisfaction ( = 73, p < .01) and organizational commitment ( = 1.14, p < .01). Yet, this pattern was not significant for affective gain or self enhancement motives. For stress, no significant indi rect effects were found for self oriented motives. For social outcomes, a negative indirect was also found from tangible gain motives and relationship quality through
92 helping behavior ( = 1.14, p < .05), as well as for returned OCBs ( = 1.18, p < .01). For withdrawal outcomes, there was a significant and positive indirect effect for tangible gain motives to withdrawal ( = 1.23, p < .01) and turnover intentions ( = .41, p < .05). However, no other relationships were significant. Thus, Hypothesis 7 was generall y not supported, and many of the tangible gain motive effects to adjustment outcomes were opposite than expected. Possible interpretations for these unexpected results are considered in the Discussion section. Hypothesis 8 linked other oriented motives wit h adjustment outcomes via helping behavior. Noting again that no significant relationships were found for supervisor indirect effects, I move to the results for coworkers. For coworkers, Hypothesis 8 was supported for helping mediating relationships of oth er orientation and task performance ( = 1.43, p < .05), however other orientation negatively mediated many other relationships. Thus, in general, coworkers rating themselves as having higher levels of other orientation led to less favorable newcomer adjustm ent outcomes, mediated through helping. Together, Hypothesis 8 was therefore not supported. Hypothesis 9 positioned helping behavior as a mediator of normative motives to adjustment outcomes. As shown in Table 5 4 , for coworkers, indirect effects of descri ptive norms to adjustment outcomes were significant in predicting relationship quality ( = .59, p <.01), returned OCBs ( = .61, p <.05), and withdrawal behaviors ( = .63, p < .01), while opposite effects were found for injunctive norms and these outcomes. Thus, some support was found for Hypothesis 9, specifically with regard to coworker descri ptive norm perceptions (but not injunctive norms).
93 Moderating Role of Newcomer Perceived Insider Motives Finally, Hypothesis 10 was concerned with whether newcomers would be more or less apt to utilize help received from insiders depending on the motives t hey perceived of these insiders, and how those perceptions affect adjustment. In other or other oriented) would moderate the relationship between helping behavior and adjustmen t outcomes. Hypothesis 10a suggested that the more newcomers perceived insiders as having self oriented motives, the weaker the favorable relationship between helping behavior and adjustment outcomes would become. Results for moderation analyses are shown in Table 5 5 (supervisor model alone) and Table 5 6 (coworker model alone), where main effects were input into the model along with the product term. Again, it should be noted that the low sample size renders many of these results unstable and the conclus ions tentative until they are replicated. First, as seen in Table 5 5 However, significant interactions were found between newcomer rated supervisor tangible gain*helping in predicting both supervisor self rated withdrawal behaviors. Unexpectedly, newcomers who rated supervisors as having greater tangible gain motives had lower role clarity, and increased helping also seemed to decrease rol e clarity. Also surprising was that higher tangible gain motives and high levels of newcomer help from supervisors was related to the lowest levels of newcomer withdrawal self quality with their supervisor had a (marginally) significant self enhancement*helping
94 interaction. In sum, for supervisors, Hypothesis 10a was generally not supported, and those interacti ons that were significant were in unpredicted directions. For the coworker model, a distinct picture emerged (Table 5 6 tangible gain motive*helping, significant interactions were found for coworker rated task performance and role clarity , as well as newcomer withdrawal. Quite interestingly, newcomers who rated coworkers as providing higher levels of help with tangible gain motives had much higher coworker rated task performance than those who had lower motives of this nature. This finding is opposite as what was expected. For affective gain, similar to the supervisor model, no significant interactions were found. For self enhancement, marginally significant interactions were found for task performance and for newcomer organizational commit ment. In general, Hypothesis 10a was unsupported in the coworker model, with the exception of withdrawal behaviors, and many interactions were significant in the opposite direction than was hypothesized. Hypothesis 10b suggested that the more newcomers per ceived insiders as having other oriented motives, the stronger the favorable relationship between helping behavior and adjustment outcomes would become. Results for these moderation analyses are shown in Table 5 5 (supervisor model) and Table 5 6 (coworker model), where mean centered main effects were input into the model along with the product term. Shown in Table 5 5 , for supervisors, significant interactions between other orientation and helping were found in predicting newcomer job satisfaction and orga nizational commitment, as well as relationship quality and withdrawal behaviors, though many were in unexpected directions. Together, these results render Hypothesis 10b generally unsupported for supervisors.
95 For the coworker model interactions, other ori entation*helping was significant only in predicting newcomer coworker relationship quality, but this relationship was again in the opposite direction. Thus, Hypothesis 10b was generally unsupported in the coworker model with regard to newcomer rated cowork er other orientation moderating helping adjustment outcome effects.
96 Table 5 1. Means, standard deviations, reliabilities, and intercorrelations among study variables in newcomer sample
97 Table 5 1. Continued
98 Table 5 1. Continued
99 Table 5 1. Continued
100 Table 5 1. Continued
101 Table 5 1. Continued
102 Table 5 1. Continued
103 Table 5 1. Continued
104 Table 5 2 . Structural equation modeling results for direct effects predicting helping behavior in separate supervisor and coworker models Table 5 3 . Structural equation modeling results for helping behavior dire ct effects predicting adjustment outcomes in separate supervisor and coworker models
105 Table 5 3 . Continued Table 5 4 . Bias corrected bootstrapped indirect effects predicting adjustment outcomes via helping behavior in separate supervisor and coworker models
106 Table 5 4 . Continued
107 Table 5 5 . Structural equation modeling results for moderation hypotheses in supervisor model Table 5 5 . Continued
1 08 Table 5 6 . Structural equation modeling results for moderation hypotheses in coworker model Table 5 6 . Continued
109 Figure 5 1 . Summary of supervisor model direct effects Note: N s = 71 newcomers, 47 coworker newcomer pairs. Standardized effects are shown. Mediation indirect effects, measurement model factor loadings, interaction terms and moderator di rect paths to outcomes not depicted . * p < .05 ** p < .01 .
110 Figure 5 2 . Summary of coworker model direct effects Note: N s = 71 newcomers, 43 coworker newcomer pairs. Standardized effects are shown. Mediation indirect effects, measurement model factor load ings, interaction terms and moderator direct paths to outcomes not depicted . * p < .05 ** p < .01 .
111 CHAPTER 6 DISCUSSION Organizational research over the past few decades has found a robust relationship linking helping behavior to a number of workpl ace criteria, including both employee attitudes and behaviors. At the same time, this impressive body research remains incomplete. Specifically, research has lagged in clarifying the reasons behind why employees offer help to others. Clearly, if helping is to be encouraged and its benefits realized, it is important that organizations and researchers understand these reasons. For the newcomer adjustment context in particular arguably where entering employees are in greatest need of help there is little under standing as to why insider employees offer their unsolicited assistance, and even less is known about whether distinct motivations are more or less predictive of specific adjustment outcomes. In this dissertation, my objectives were threefold: first, I sou ght to develop a taxonomy of insider helping motives, in order to better understand the reasons why insiders choose to help newcomers. Second, out of this taxonomy, I examined the distinct relationships between motives and subsequent adjustment outcomes, i n order (regardless of what insiders reported their own motives to be) affected t he degree to which helping behavior was utilized, and if the benefits of helping behavior was contingent on motives for that help. In this section, I summarize and interpret the results of the study relevant to these objectives, and conclude by discussing theoretical and practical implications, as well as study limitations.
112 Summary of Results Helping Motives Taxonomy My first research objective was to determine a holistic set of motives that could account for why an insider employee would offer help to a ne wcomer. The limited body of research that has examined motives for helping behavior is either data driven or presents a false dichotomy of strict egoism versus altruism. I undertook an extensive literature search spanning multiple disciplines to derive a s et of motives that could comprehensively explain why insiders help newcomers. The results of this search and a subsequent construct validation revealed a complex array of six distinct motives (though not mutually exclusive) that could explain the reasons f or insider helping: tangible gain, affective gain, self enhancement, other oriented, descriptive norms, and injunctive norms. Interestingly, rather than each the first three motives loading onto a motives loading onto a single factor, results suggested that each of these motives should be thought of as separate, albeit modestly correlated. Motive Relationships to Helping Behavior and Adjustment Outcomes My next objective was to link insider motive s to helping behavior and subsequent different ways. Comparatively different indirect motive effects would suggest that insiders reasons for helping a newcomer do matter in a ffecting the favorability of a I first expected that insider (i.e. coworkers and supervisors) reported motives would positively relate to newcomer rated helping behavior. Before delving into these results, however, it is wort h noting an interesting aspect of the data in terms of self other
113 motive agreement. As shown in the zero order correlation matrix ( Figure 5 1), the results first revealed that insiders and newcomers markedly differed in their ratings of insider motives and help provided/received. For instance, if supervisors reported themselves as being highly other oriented, on average, newcomers generally did not say the same of those supervisors. To date, no studies have examined self other consistency in motives, though a few studies have examined self other agreement in behaviors such as mentoring (Raabe & Beehr, 2003; Waters, 2004; Eby & Lockwood, 2005), and leader follower relations (Sosik & Megerian, 1999; Cogliser, Schreisheim, Scandura, & Gardner, 2009), with simil ar low agreement findings as with the present research. The results of hypothesis tests revealed that insider rated motives generally did not significantly predict newcomer rated helping behavior. However, again, it must be noted that the sample size to te st these relationships was relatively small. Those motives that were significant, self enhancement and descriptive norm perceptions, occurred only within the supervisor model, and only descriptive norms were in the hypothesized direction. That is, when sup ervisors believe that helping newcomers is a common and expected behavior of employees in the work environment, newcomers do report receiving more help from their supervisors. For self enhancement, supervisors who were more motivated to help newcomers in o rder to enhance or affirm their ego were actually rated as less helpful than those who were less motivated by this self oriented motive. This pattern of mixed significant and non significant results does reveal that helping behavior can be driven by multi ple motivations with distinct effects (Penner et
114 al., 2005; Weinstein & Ryan, 2010). Further, motives explained a considerable proportion of variance in both supervisors and coworkers helping behavior. These results suggest that helping is often consciousl y guided, rather than being based on spontaneity, whim, or caprice. Beyond ascertaining whether motives influence the amount of help newcomers adjustment. Newcomer rated helping at Time 1 generally had favorable relationships across the board with adjustment outcomes assessed at Time 2 . Thus, consistent with previous research (e.g. Chiaburu & Harrison, 2008), when newcomers feel their coworkers and supervisors have helped them, t hey report more positive attitudes about their work and interpersonal relationships. Mediation results reveal that coworker motives but no supervisor motives In particular, coworker tangible gain motives wer e positively associated with newcomer performance, however favorable relationship occurred at the expense of myriad newcomer job attitudes. This finding suggests that coworkers who help newcomers primarily in order to obtain benefits for themselves may act ually be impairing even if their performance is bolstered. Coworkers who report helping newcomers only to actually help get things for themselves led to lower newcomer job satisfaction, commitment, relationship qual ity, and returned OCBs to coworkers, while predicting greater newcomer withdrawal and turnover intentions at Time 2 . However, that newcomer performance increased under such motives suggests that coworkers may be putting extra effort into the instrumental q uality of their helping behavior in hopes of obtaining material benefits in return.
115 affected newcomer adjustment outcomes. While perhaps this effect may be attributable to the s ample size, more research is clearly needed to understand the distal relationship between motives and adjustment outcomes. O t her orientation did positively predict coworker rated performance via helping behavior, however, attitudinal results were less enco uraging. Perhaps given the low levels of agreement between coworker self rated rated motives, coworkers who think they are highly other oriented may not reliably be so at least in the eyes of the newcomer whom they are purporti altruism, while newcomers job attitudes and relationship quality are penalized. Lastly for these indirect effects results, coworker rated descriptive helping norms did seem to exhibit the degree that helping is a common behavior engaged in around the workplace, newcomers reported higher levels of organizational commitment, relationship quality with their coworkers, and returned citizenship, while also reporting lower withdrawal. Although not explicitly hypothesized, coworker ratings of descriptive helping norms in the workplace also directly predicted newcomer task performance and role clarity. These results suggest tha t even if the specific coworker in question did not provide instrumental help to the newcomer, when they believed that helping is common among the totality of other workplace insiders (i.e. there exists a strong workplace helping climate), this can still c onfer benefits to newcomers. In this sense, it is not necessarily imperative that a specific coworker must be available, but rather that at least someone is readily available when help is needed. Granted, it could be argued that it is
116 nevertheless optimal for newcomers to receive help from those insiders who are the most competent and knowledgeable sources of information (Aryee et al., 1996). Moderating Effects of Newcomer Perceived Insider Motives To address my third research objective, I examined interac tion effects between adjustment outcomes. These hypotheses suggested that newcomers would have less favorable work attitudes when they believed that insiders helped th em for more self oriented reasons (i.e. tangible gain, emotional gain, and self enhancement), and more favorable attitudes when they received help arising from other oriented motivations. To date, the helping literature typically assumes that all help is e qually beneficial, and that the more help is given, the better the outcomes. Studies have neglected to consider that might affect the degree to which help is valued and util ized, as well as affecting the future relationship dynamic between the helper and the helped. Though many significant interaction effects emerged, motives generally did not moderate the relationship between helping and adjustment outcomes in the direction s hypothesized again, partly because many of these hypothesis tests had considerably low statistical power . For instance, while I expected that newcomers who perceived insiders as having greater other oriented motives would improve adjustment outcomes when help was provided, these results generally showed that such motives were actually detrimental to newcomer attitudinal adjustment. I also offered the omnibus hypothesis that newcomers who perceived insiders as having more self oriented motives would weaken favorable relationships between helping and adjustment outcomes. Surprisingly, many of these effects in the opposite direction than was
117 hypothesized. One particularly interesting finding concerned coworker self oriented motives moderating the relationship between helping and outcomes task performance and role clarity. When newcomers believed coworkers were highly motivated by personal benefit, coworkers rated newcomers as having the highest levels of these outcomes. Further, helping was particularly benefi cial at low levels of these motives. These results suggest that a) self interested coworkers produce more effective newcomers, and that b) the effects of helping are more pronounced when coworkers are perceived as less self interested. On the one hand, thi s result may perhaps represent a measurement issue, and that different performance metrics should be considered. Alternatively, however, that stronger self interested motives (of coworkers in particular) combined with high levels of help produced the most favorable adjustment outcomes, this may lead one to question the historically stigmatized nature of self interest. Instead, more self focused coworkers may go to greater efforts to ensure newcomers are well adjusted, if it means that those ends produce the most positive returns for the insider (Grant & Mayer, 2009). For instance, Figure 5 10 shows that stronger self enhancement motives yield greater performance ratings. In this sense, coworkers who aim to reinforce their own skills through helping may be do ing newcomers a service by not subordinating their own needs, instead appropriately modeling to another the right way to do things (Bandura, 1997). Theoretical Implications The results of this dissertation offer several theoretical implications. Foremost, this dissertation contributes to theories seeking to better understand the distinct motives for prosocial behaviors like helping, and specifically demonstrates the reasons why insiders choose to offer help to newcomers. The results help to establish a
118 com prehensive and conceptually supported set of helping motives for the newcomer adjustment context, effectively challenging other frameworks that simply match egoism against altruism (Schwartz, 1992; Batson, Sager, Garst, Kang, Rubchinsky & Dawson, 1997), or those suggesting that the motives for helping other insiders applies equally to helping newcomers (e.g. Rioux & Penner, 2001). I have suggested that the nature and degree to which insiders help newcomers (versus other insiders) is likely to be different, especially with regard to self benefitting motives as well as normative influences. This dissertation, which incorporates a broader picture of motives, enriches our conceptual understanding as to why insiders would go out of their way to perform such discr etionary behaviors for a new employee. Second, examining interrelationships among motives answers calls for further examination as to the unipolar or bipolar nature of self concern and other orientation (Meglino & Korsgaard, 2004; De Dreu, 2006; De Dreu & Nauta, 2009). The unipolar view assumes that self and other orientation are opposites, due to arguments suggesting other oriented individuals act less consistently with rational choice models of behavior, which is a hallmark of explaining self interested behavior (e.g. Meglino & Korsgaard, 2004, 2007). Alternatively, skeptics of the unipolar viewpoint emphasize that although self orientation is more closely intertwined with rational choice theories, other orientation need not be automatically considered i rrational behavior. The self concern and other orientation as moderators hypothesis (SCOOM) suggests that employees can differ in the strength of both of these motives, and being orthogonal (i.e. bipolar), individuals can have high or low levels of one or both (De Dreu & Nauta, 2009). In support of the latter, SCOOM hypothesis, the present results show a more modest
119 pattern of intercorrelations between self oriented motives and other orientation, suggesting that these two constructs should indeed be conside red distinct. Third, going beyond previous research, I was able to obtain multiple perspectives of helping motivations and behavior and compare agreement between newcomers and other agreement as a core component of interpersonal perception. Generally speaking, the literature finds weak support for the notion that self (see also Shrauger & Schoeneman, 1979). Typically, this body of research has been focused on ratings of extraversion or physical attractiveness. In this dissertation, I empirically tested the social relations model of self other agreement with regard to a bevy of constructs, including motives, helping behavior, and work attitudes/b ehaviors. Interestingly, a pattern of low agreement emerged from the data. Newcomers and supervisors generally did not match in ratings of motive levels or help provided or received . One explanation for this result is that self ratings are often quite posi tively Huffcutt, 1997; Korsgaard, Meglino, & Lester, 2004). If this were the case, other ratings, or multiple raters would be recommended as the more construct valid meas urement approach (Allen, Barnard, Rush, & Russell, 2000). However, one should not necessarily be quick to discount the value of such self ratings, particularly when sufficient and meaningful variance was found in arguably socially desirable motives such as other orientation. And, having measured social desirability and finding it to weakly correlate with such motives suggests that self ratings are not necessarily invalid. A second explanation would hold that self and other ratings of motives are entirely s eparate
120 constructs, rather than the same phenomenon merely measured from distinct sources. For instance, while insiders may be able to introspect as to their motives, the cues newcomers use in order to perceive and subsequently judge motives may perhaps be gleaned from manif est behaviors (Brunswik, 1951) but what those behav iors are is presently unclear. A lternatively, theories of mind (e.g. Baron Cohen, 1991; Gordon, 1996) simulate psychological states and intent ions , in order to effectively compete and cooperate (Call & Tomasello, 2008). In order to better understand the underlying nature of these self perceptions and other ratings, m ore research is clearly needed to determine the cues use d motiv ations, and whether certain motives are revealed more or less conspicuously For helping behavior, however, I did expect somewhat greater agreement between newcomer and insider ratings, because behaviors are more ov ertly exhibited and observed than are more private self intuitions, like motives (Hogan, 1991; Allen et al., 2000). However, the results suggested otherwise, as I found similarly low agreement in these helping ratings as with motive ratings. Ultimately, th is issue shifts to the is complicated by the fact that helping behavior, as a generally discretionary behavior along the lines of OCB, is not formally recorded with cl ear evaluative standards, and may therefore be viewed differently by respective parties (Becker & Vance, 1993). For example, if a newcomer makes a mistake on the job, their coworker may berate them in front of other employees by telling them that such beha
121 interpretations. Whereas the coworker may report that they very much helped the newcomer by telling them the correct way to perform, the n ewcomer may reflect on the experience as being humiliating. Rather than feeling helped, he or she might feel that the coworker had deliberately revealed their incompetence, which could bear poorly in the future on their work attitudes, fit perceptions and future relationship quality with that coworker. This study offers a first glimpse into the distinct perspectives on newcomer helping behavior, revealing that two individuals can quite differently perceive even a concrete and visible behavior like helping ( compared to more hidden character traits). The results also have theoretical implications regarding the comparative effects of helping behavior on newcomer adjustment outcomes. A primary impetus for this study was to ascertain whether it matters why inside rs give help to newcomers, beyond simply whether or not help is given. The results describe a different pattern of motive undertaken may influence both the quality of b ehavior and the subjective experience and well important domain in which prosocial actions exert their benefits is in newcomer adjustment. Weinstein and Ryan focused on autonom ous versus controlled motivated helping in predicting individual well being, while I examined a more complex set of motives along with a broader set of outcomes relevant to adjustment. This dissertation therefore adds specificity to understanding which mot ives are most relevant in facilitating or obstructing particular adjustment outcomes. Lastly, this dissertation also contributes to theory regarding the nature of helping behavior. Extant research generally suggests that the more help an employee gets fro m
122 their coworkers/supervisor, the better his or her performance and job attitudes become (Van Dyne & LePine, 1998; Chiaburu & Harrison, 2008; Kammeyer Mueller et al., 2013). Arguably one of the most important findings to come out of this dissertation, sign ificant moderation results revealed help may be beneficial to newcomers only to the extent that it is motivated by the right reasons. The SCOOM hypothesis was initially constructed with prosocial behaviors in mind as an outcome, where self or other orient ed motivational orientations led individuals into biased information processing and search, respectively (De Dreu & Nauta, 2009). Rather, I positioned prosocial behaviors (i.e. insiders helping newcomers) as the independent variable, finding that newcomer perceptions of insiders motives affects how they will utilize help, as well as their relationship quality with the helper and future attitudes. Though on the surface, an amiable social environment may be portrayed (in the form of readily available assistan ce on work tasks), it may also be necessary to more closely examine the motives underlying such helping behavior. Understanding of whether and how assistance ultimately benefits newcomers may therefore be a function of both helping levels as well as more i mplicit helping motives (Deckop, Cirka, & Andersson, 2003). Practical Implications The results of this dissertation have noteworthy practical implications. Primarily, as different helping motives predicted unique adjustment outcomes, organizations concerne d with more favorably expediting newcomer transitions can benefit by attending to insider motives, and encouraging/discouraging a select few (Grant & Mayer, 2009). For instance, I found that more favorable adjustment outcomes occurred in work climates wher e helping newcomers was viewed as a common behavior. Thus,
123 immediate coworkers, reiterating that helping newcomers is a typical and standard practice. However, as injunctive nor m effects were insignificant, forcibly pressing that one must help newcomers may not yield similar positive results. Alternatively, the transformational leadership literature (e.g. Avolio & Bass, 1997) emphasizes individual consideration as a means of empl oyee development. To that end, results suggest that interventions in which leaders who emphasize to other oriented employees newcomer helping as a viable means of expressing their values may be particularly efficacious. Importantly, the results of this stu dy show that while insider helping is indeed beneficial for newcomers, it also matters how newcomers perceive the motives underlying such behavior. Managers who recognize (and perhaps even reward) other insiders that engage in high levels of helping behavi or, assuming that such help would helping will not be valuable, but instead may actually p roduce opposite effects than were intended. Therefore, the results of this study suggest that managers who promote helping behavior might also conditionally emphasize to the helpers that their motives should be in the proper place. At the same time, inside rs providing help may need to consider the less apparent subtleties in tone or context by which help is offered, lest newcomers them having the wrong motive. Clearly the low agreement in ratings reveals that a) insiders may need to better communicate that what they express as help is actually received by newcomers as help that were perhaps unintended. To the extent that help is often provided , adjustment remains problematic, managers may need to step back and consider their
124 helping motives, and perhaps even consider offering training opportunities that emphasize how to convey the most effective and genuine help. Limitations As with all research, this dissertation contains limitation s that must be addressed. Most notably, the sample size for the study was considerably small, especially given that structural equation modeling was used to test hypotheses. As such, certain results may be unstable, while others may have had limited power to detect significant results. Naturally, however, studying newcomer adjustment is a difficult context in which the temporal window for assessing key variables is short. Further, the sample size was also limited in that the primary way to obtain insiders d recruiting. Some newcomers noted over email that they were uncomfortable asking their supervisors to participate in a study since they did not know these people very well. At least for coworkers, in order to obtain sufficient variance in motive responses, I tried to mitigate concerns that newcomers would only solicit participation from those coworkers with whom they got along with best by asking for up to three coworkers and randomly selecting from those. However, future resea rch studying insider motives in the newcomer adjustment context may do better by working with a larger organization that continually has newcomers entering its workforce, and would be fully cooperative in collecting both insider and newcomer responses. Sec ond, the majority of respondents consisted of newcomers who were recent university graduates often entering their first full time work. As such, the restricted nature of this sample (i.e. in age, total experience, and education) potentially questions the g eneralizability of the results to other individuals and situations. Still, this study does examine a unique learning curve and uncertainty reduction process where newcomers
125 are not only transitioning into new jobs but also into a new life stage. However, f uture research should nevertheless seek to examine these relationships using a different sample of individuals undergoing altogether distinct adjustment experiences. Third, I was unable to test whether the specific individuals providing help to newcomers w ere assigned by their supervisor or by the organization to provide help, or if they offered it purely on their own accord. Though the motives I have discussed may still likely drive the amount of effort given and the quality of help provided, future resear ch would be well served in considering whether motives for helping or its effects differ among those who are assigned to help newcomers versus those who volunteer. Further, this research should consider how coworkers feel after helping, such as the degree to which helping satisfies self oriented needs, or attitudinal outcomes in terms of how coworkers feel if they did not want to help newcomers, but were assigned to help. Fourth, future research would benefit in applying the present taxonomy of motives to i nsiders providing help to other insiders, in order to empirically test whether motive ratings and the nature of helping does indeed differ when insiders help each other, relative to helping newcomers. Significant mean differences in motive ratings for help , as well as the specific type of help provided to these two sources would lend support to the notion that the newcomer helping context is indeed distinct from helping under normal organizational functioning. Fifth, though I did measure specific forms of h elp provided from newcomers to insiders (e.g. history, language, people, politics), the tested model treated helping as an omnibus behavior . As such, even though CFA results did show each helping dim ension loading strongly onto an overall helping factor, f uture research should explore whether
126 certain motives are more or less predictive of specific helping behaviors, and, whether specific helping behaviors are more or less strongly predictive of different adjustment outcomes. Practically, organizations with problems in only certain areas of the adjustment process (e.g. newcomer insider relationships) may need only focus on specific dimensions of helping behavior to achieve these ultimate benefits. Lastly, it was noted at the beginning of this dissertation tha t alongside interpersonal relationships between newcomers and insiders, newcomer proactivity and organizational tactics are also central agents facilitating the adjustment process. As such, future research should consider in tandem the comparative effects of these social sources of adjustment alongside other more commonly studied socialization agents.
127 APPENDIX A SUMMARY OF HYPOTHESES Hypothesis 1: A tangible gain motive is positively related to insider helping behavior. Hypothesi s 2: An affective gain motive is positively related to insider helping behavior. Hypothesis 3: A self enhancement motive is positively related to insider helping behavior. Hypothesis 4: An other oriented motive is positively related to insider helping be havior. Hypothesis 5: Descriptive newcomer helping norms are positively related to insider helping behavior. Hypothesis 6: Injunctive newcomer helping norms are positively related to insider helping behavior. Hypothesis 7: Insider helping behavior media tes the relationship between self oriented motives (tangible gain, affective gain, self enhancement) and (a) instrumental outcomes (+, H7a); (b) attitudinal outcomes (H7b); (c) social outcomes (+, H7c); and (d) withdrawal outcomes ( , H7d). Hypothesis 8: Insider helping behavior mediates the relationship between an other oriented motive and (a) instrumental outcomes (+, H8a); (b) attitudinal outcomes (+, H8b); (c) social outcomes (+, H8c); and (d) withdrawal outcomes ( , H8d). Hypothesis 9: Insider helpin g behavior mediates the relationship between normative/contextual motives (descriptive and injunctive norms) and (a) instrumental outcomes (+, H9a); (b) attitudinal outcomes (H9b); (c) social outcomes (+, H9c); and (d) withdrawal outcomes ( , H9d). Hypoth esis 10: The relationship between insider helping behavior and adjustment outcomes is moderated by newcomer perceptions of insider motives, such that the more newcomers believe insiders hold self oriented motives, the weaker (i.e. less positive) this relat ionship becomes (H10a); the more newcomers believe insiders hold other oriented motives, the stronger (i.e. more positive) this relationship becomes (H10b).
128 APPENDIX B MODERATION PLOTS DISCLAIMER: The sample size and subsequent statistical power for all analyses are small. As such, any interpretation s of these results must be taken with caution and viewed as tentative. T he results should be replicated in the future in order to obtain more confidence in conclusions .
134 APPENDIX C MEASURES AND ITEMS USED IN PILOT STUDY Note: I n the main employee study, retained item question stems varied on a 5 point Likert scale ranging from 1 ( Strongly Disagree ) to 5 ( Strongly Agree ) . This is applicable for all motives, as well as the helping behavior scale Message to Participants: In each of the following sections, we will provide you with the name of a concept and a definition of that concept. Your job is to determine how well each of the questions in the section match up with the definition of the concept we have provided. While many questions sound similar, we ask that you please take your time with each question and think about your answers. If the question is poorly worded, let that reflect in your answer. Concept: Tangible Gain N ewcomer Helping Motive Definition of Concept: The degree to which an individual is motivated to help newcomers based on the MATERIAL OUTCOMES they think they can receive for doing it. The following questions are related to hel ping out people who are newcomers (new are more established employees like supervisors/coworkers. Please Rate how well each of the following statements match the concept defin ition given above: This item is a VERY POOR match to the concept defined above This item is a POOR match to the concept defined above This item is an ADEQUATE match to the concept defined above This item is a GOOD match to the concept defi ned above This item is a VERY GOOD match to the concept defined above I help newcomers because I think it can get me a reward I help newcomers because I expect they will help me later
135 I help newcomers if I know I will get something i n return I help newcomers because I want to be recognized in return I help newcomers for my own personal gain I help newcomers because I want to get something for doing it I help newcomers because of the material rewards I can get for doing it I help newcomers in exchange for things I help newcomers so I can be visibly rewarded I help newcomers worth it for me to do so I help newcomers so I can get somethi ng for my trouble
136 I help newcomers something in it for me newcomers if help me back newcomers only if I think it is worth it to me I help newcomers when I know ther e are rewards to be had newcomers only if they help me newcomers if paid back I help newcomers when it will be reciprocated I help newcomers for my own personal gain I help newcomers so I can get real benefits for doing so
137 Concept: Affective Gain Newcomer Helping Motive Definition of Concept: The degree to which an individual is motivated to help newcomers based on the EMOTIONAL OUTCOMES they think they will experience or receive for doing it. The following questions are related to helping out people who are newcomers (new are more established employees like supervisors/co workers. Please Rate how well each of the following statements match the concept definition given above: This item is a VERY POOR match to the concept defined above This item is a POOR match to the concept defined above This item is an ADEQU ATE match to the concept defined above This item is a GOOD match to the concept defined above This item is a VERY GOOD match to the concept defined above I help newcomers so it will make me happy I help newcomers to get into a good mood I help newcomers because it makes me feel good I help newcomers to obtain nice feelings I help newcomers to acquire a positive mood I help newcomers to receive nice feelings inside
138 I help newcomers so I will feel better inside I help newcomers so I will feel happy I help newcomers in order to improve my mood I help newcomers so I can experience positive emotions I help newcomers so it will make me feel enthusiastic I help newcomers so it will make me feel excited I help newcomers so it will make me feel proud I help newcomers so I can experience happier feelings I help newcomers because it makes me feel inspired
139 I help newcomers when helping will make me feel better I help newcomers because it can bring me happy feelings I help newcomers when I want to get into a better mood I help newcomers so it will please me I help ne wcomers so it will give me satisfaction I help newcomers so it will make me content I help newcomers so it will give me emotional gratification I help newcomers so it will give me emotional fulfillment I help new comers so it will give me pleasure
140 I help newcomers so it will make me less sad I help newcomers so it will make me less upset I help newcomers so it will make me less distressed I help newcomers to get out of a bad mood I help newcomers so it will make me less grumpy I help newcomers so it will make me less hostile I help newcomers to turn my frowns upside down I help newcomers so it will get rid of bad feelings inside I help newcomers so I will feel less badly inside
141 This next section refers not to the concept of material or emotional gains, but about how helping a newcomer might enhance one's ego or self concept. There are no right or wrong answ ers, and your responses are CONFIDENTIAL, so we ask that you please answer as honestly as possible. Concept: Self Enhancement Newcomer Helping Motive Definition of concept: The degree to which an individual helps newcomers in order to enhance one's ego, and/or to psychologically grow and develop themselves. Please rate how well each of the following statements match the concept definition given above. Do NOT rate how much these statements apply to you personally. This item is a VERY POOR match to the concept defined above This item is a POOR match to the concept defined above This item is an ADEQUATE match to the concept defined above This item is a GOOD match to the concept defined above This item is a VERY GOOD match to the concept defined above .. .because it makes me feel important ...because it increases my self esteem ...because it makes me feel needed ...because it makes me feel better about myself ...because it is a way to make new friends ...because I was lonely
142 . ..because it is a way for me to show off ...because it demonstrates my value ...because I want others to depend on me ...because it shows that I count ...because it reinforces my worth Concept: Other Orientation Newcomer Helping Motive Definition of concept: The degree to which an individual is concerned with the interests, needs, and desires of others. Please rate how well each of the following statements match the concept definition given above. D o NOT rate how much these statements apply to you personally. This item is a VERY POOR match to the concept defined above This item is a POOR match to the concept defined above This item is an ADEQUATE match to the concept defined above This item is a GOOD match to the concept defined above This item is a VERY GOOD match to the concept defined above I am concerned about the needs and interests of others
143 The goals and aspirations of other employees are important to me I consider and desires to be relevant Other people are just as important as I am I believe that others are significant I am aware of I am respectful to the needs of others I take the concerns of others personally I value the interests and needs of others I value other welfare I am concerned about other being Other people count as much as I do
144 I am c oncerned about what other people require Other worries are relevant to me Other affairs are important to me When others are distressed, I take issue with it I am attentive when others need help I am alert to the needs of others I am clued in to the other people around me I am mindful wishes and interests
145 Concept: Descriptive Newcomer Helping Norms Definition of concept: The deg ree to which one perceives that helping newcomers is a TYPICAL, COMMON, and NORMAL behavior engaged in by a group of individuals at work. Please rate how well each of the following statements match the concept definition given above. Do NOT rate how much these statements apply to you personally. This item is a VERY POOR match to the concept defined above This item is a POOR match to the concept defined above This item is an ADEQUATE match to the concept defined above This item is a GOOD matc h to the concept defined above This item is a VERY GOOD match to the concept defined above Most people in this organization provide help to newcomers In this organization, providing help to newcomers is common The majority of people in this organization offer help to newcomers In this organization, it is typical for newcomers to receive help In this organization, I usually see people helping newcomers
146 Newcomers usually receive help from other employees here Helping newcomers is a customary practice in this organization In this organization, it is a popular custom to see newcomers be helped In this organization, helping newcomers is a regular occurrence It is o rdinary for newcomers to get help from other employees here It is an everyday thing for newcomers to get help from other employees In this organization, providing help to newcomers is normal
147 In this organization, providing help to newcomers is standard In this organization, providing help to newcomers is mainstream In this organization, providing help to newcomers is the routine In this organization, helping newcomers is habitual for most emp loyees. In this organization, most employees are accustomed to helping newcomers In this organization, people recognize that newcomers will receive help from others
148 In this organization, it is characteristic for newcomers t o receive help from others In this organization, newcomers frequently get help from other employees In this organization, providing help to newcomers is prevalent
149 Concept: Injunctive Newcomer Helping Norms Definition of concept: The degree to which one perceives that helping newcomers is an APPROVED, PRESCRIBED or EXPECTED behavior that a group of individuals should engage in at work. Please rate how well each of the following statements match the c oncept definition given above. Do NOT rate how much these statements apply to you personally. This item is a VERY POOR match to the concept defined above This item is a POOR match to the concept defined above This item is an ADEQUATE match t o the concept defined above This item is a GOOD match to the concept defined above This item is a VERY GOOD match to the concept defined above Most employees in this organization approve of helping newcomers. In this organization, providing hel p to newcomers is recommended. The majority of people in this organization think other employees should help newcomers. In this organization, it is expected that employees will help newcomers.
150 Most employees in this organiz ation value helping newcomers In this organization, it is assumed that employees will help newcomers The majority of people in this organization think other employees ought to help newcomers. In this organization, most peop le think other employees have a responsibility to help newcomers In this organization, most people think other employees are obligated to help newcomers
151 Most employees in this organization advocate helping newcomers Most em ployees in this organization encourage helping newcomers In this organization, providing help to newcomers is advised Most employees in this organization promote helping newcomers Most employees in this organization prescri be helping newcomers In this organization, it is suggested that employees help newcomers
152 In this organization, most employees feel compelled to help newcomers In this organization, it is specified that newcomers should rece ive help from other employees Most employees in this organization feel directed to help newcomers The majority of people in this organization think it is their duty to help newcomers Most employees in this organization thin k helping newcomers is required
153 Concept: History Focused Newcomer Helping Behavior Definition of concept: Behavior that aids newcomers in learning about the traditions, ure Please rate how well each of the following statements match the concept definition given above. Do NOT rate how much these statements apply to you personally. This item is a VERY POOR match to the concept defined above This item is a PO OR match to the concept defined above This item is an ADEQUATE match to the concept defined above This item is a GOOD match to the concept defined above This item is a VERY GOOD match to the concept defined above Helped you learn about the history behind your work group/department Helped you become familiar with the customs, rituals, ceremonies, and celebrations. Helped you to know the long held traditions
154 Is a good resource to describe the bac kground of your work group/department Made you familiar with the history of your organization Concept: Language Focused Newcomer Helping Behavior Definition of concept: Behavior that aids newcomers in gaining knowledge of the profes unique to the organization. Please rate how well each of the following statements match the concept definition given above. Do NOT rate how much these statements apply to you person ally. This item is a VERY POOR match to the concept defined above This item is a POOR match to the concept defined above This item is an ADEQUATE match to the concept defined above This item is a GOOD match to the concept defined above This item is a VERY GOOD match to the concept defined above Helped you understand the specialized terminology and vocabulary of your organization Helped you to learn this slang and special jargon
155 Helped you to understand wh at the abbreviations and acronyms mean C oncept: Politics Focused Newcomer Helping Behavior Definition of concept: Behavior that aids newcomers in gaining information regarding formal and informal work relationships and power str uctures within the organization. Please rate how well each of the following statements match the concept definition given above. Do NOT rate how much these statements apply to you personally. This item is a VERY POOR match to the concept de fined above This item is a POOR match to the concept defined above This item is an ADEQUATE match to the concept defined above This item is a GOOD match to the concept defined above This item is a VERY GOOD match to the concept defined above Helped you to learn how inside of the organization Helped you to know who the most influential people are in the organization
156 Gave you a good understanding of the politics in the organization Showed you what needs to be done in order to get the most desirable work assignments in your area Helped you to have a good understanding of the motives behind the actions of other people in the organization Helped you to identify the people in this organization who are most important in getting the work done Concept: People Focused Newcomer Helping Behavior Definition of concept: Behavior that aids newcomers in establishing successful and satisfying relationships with organizational memb ers. Please rate how well each of the following statements match the concept definition given above. Do NOT rate how much these statements apply to you personally.
157 This item is a VERY POOR match to the concept defined above This item is a P OOR match to the concept defined above This item is an ADEQUATE match to the concept defined above This item is a GOOD match to the concept defined above This item is a VERY GOOD match to the concept defined above Included you in social get togethers Helped you to Included you in informal networks or gatherings of people within the organization Helped you to become popular in the organization Helped you to become friends with others a t work Concept: Organizational Goals and Values Focused Newcomer Helping Behavior Definition of concept: Behavior that aids newcomers in learning the goals and values unique to the organization. Please rate how well each of the following sta tements match the concept definition given above. Do NOT rate how much these statements apply to you personally.
158 This item is a VERY POOR match to the concept defined above This item is a POOR match to the concept defined above This item is an ADEQUATE match to the concept defined above This item is a GOOD match to the concept defined above This item is a VERY GOOD match to the concept defined above Helped you to become a good representative of the organization Helped to make you fit in well with the organization Helped you to understand the goals of the organization C oncept: Performance Focused Newcomer Helping Behavior Definition of concept: Behavior that aids newcomers in lear ning job tasks, as well as knowledge and skills required for effective performance. Please rate how well each of the following statements match the concept definition given above. Do NOT rate how much these statements apply to you personally. This item is a VERY POOR match to the concept defined above This item is a POOR match to the concept defined above This item is an ADEQUATE match to the concept defined above This item is a GOOD match to the concept defined above This item is a VERY GOO D match to the concept defined above Helped you to job
159 Helped you to successfully perform your job Helped you in learning the required tasks of your job Helped you to develop the appropriate skill s necessary to perform your job Helped you to understand what all the duties of your job entail
160 APPENDIX D OTHER MEASURES USED IN NEWCOMER STUDY Control Variable and Adjustment Outcomes Measures and Items New comer Negative Affective Disposition (Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988) NEWCOMER: Please indicate your level of agreement with the following statements about how often you generally, or typically feel: Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither Agree Nor Disagree Agree Strongly Agree Afraid Scared Nervous Jittery Irritable Hostile Guilty Ashamed Upset Distressed T ask Performance (Williams & Anderson, 1991) NEWCOMER: Please rate how well each of the following statements applies to you. I /me COWORKER/ SUPERVISOR: Please rate how well each of the following statements applies to [EMPLOYEE]. This newcomer Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither Agree Nor Disagree Agree Strongly Agree Adequ ately completes assigned duties Fulfills responsibilities specified in job description
161 Performs tasks that are expected of him/her Meets formal performance requirements of the job Engages in activities that will directly affect his/her performa nce evaluation Neglect aspects of the job duties he/she is obligated to perform Fail s to perform essential duties Role Clarity (Rizzo, House, & Lirtzman, 1970) NEWCOMER: Please rate how well each of the following statemen ts applies to you. /my Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither Agree Nor Disagree Agree Strongly Agree I feel certain about how much authority I have
162 Clear, plan ned goals and objectives exist for my job I know that I have divided my time properly I know what my responsibilities are. I know exactly what is expected of me Explanation of what has to be done at my job is cle ar. Job Satisfaction (Brayfield & Rothe, 1951) Please rate how well each of the following statements applies to you. Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither Agree Nor Disagree Agree Strongly Agree I feel fairly well satisfied with my job I am satisfied with my job for the time being Most days I am enthusiastic about my work
163 I find real enjoyment in my work I like my job b etter than the average worker does Organizational Commitment (Mowday et al., 1982 ) NEWCOMER: Please rate how well each of the following statements applies to you. Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither Agree Nor Disagree Agree Strongly Agree I find that my values and the values are very similar I am proud to tell others that I am part of this organization This organization really inspires th e very best in me in the way of job performance General Stress (Stanton, Balzer, Smith, Parra, & Ironson, 2001) NEWCOMER: Please rate how your currently feel about YOUR job.
164 Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither Agree Nor Disagree Agree Strongly Agree Irritating Under control Nerve Wracking Hassled Comfortable More stressful Smooth running Overwhelming Relationship Quality with Supervisor/Cowor ker (Eisenberg et al. , 2002) NEWCOMER: Please rate how well each of the following statements applies to you. Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither Agree Nor Disa gree Agree Strongly Agree My supervisor /cowork er really cares about my well being My supervisor /cowork er cares about my general satisfaction at work When I do the best possible job, my supervisor /cowork er will notice
165 My supervisor /cowork er shows a great deal of concern for me My supervisor /cow ork er cares about my opinions Returned Citizenship Behavior s (Williams & Anderson, 1991) NEWCOMER: Please rate your agreement with the following statement about your direct supervisor/coworker, [INSERT NAME] . Strongly Disagree Dis agree Neither Agree Nor Disagree Agree Strongly Agree Helped my supervisor/coworker if he/she has been absent Helped my supervisor/coworker if they have a heavy workload Assist my supervisor/coworker with their work (when not asked) Take time to listen to my problems and worries Go out of my way to help my supervisor/coworkers
166 Take a personal interest in my supervisor/coworker Pass along information to my supervisor/c oworker Withdrawal Behaviors (Roznowski & Hansich, 1990) NEWCOMER: Please rate how well each of the following statements applies to you. Strongly Disagree Disag r ee Neither Agree Nor Disagree Agree Strongly Agree In general . . . . . . I am often late for work . . . I am often absent from work . . . I let others do my work for me . . . I take frequent or long coffee or lunch breaks . . . I make excuses to go somewhere to get out of work . . . I do poor quality work . . . I use equipment such as phone or internet for personal use and/or without permission . . . I constantly check to see the time at work . . . I neglect those tasks that will not affect my performance appraisal or pay raise
167 Turnover Intentions ( Seashore et al. , 1982) NEWCOMER: Please rate how well each of the following statements applies to you. COWORKE Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither Agree Nor Disagree Agree Strongly Agree I often think about quitting I expect to quit this job sometime soon Very Unlike ly Unlikely Neither Likely Nor Unlikely Likely Very Likely I probably will look for a new job in the next year How likely is it that you will actively look for a new job in the next year?
168 APPENDIX E CORRELATION MATRIX OF ALL VARIABLES COLLECTED IN NEWCOMER SAMPLE
176 L IST OF REFERENCES Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 267 299). New York: Acad emic Press. Allen, T. D. (2006). Rewarding good citizens: The relationship between citizenship behavior, gender, and organizational rewards. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 36, 120 143. Allen, T. D., Barnard, S., Rush, M. C., & Russell, J. E. (2000 ). Ratings of organizational citizenship behavior: Does the source make a difference?. Human Resource Management Review , 10 , 97 114. Allen, T. D. , & Rush, M. (1998). The effects of organizational citizenship behavior on performance judgments: a field stud y and a laboratory experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology , 83 , 24 260. Alloway, R., & Bebbington, P. (1987). The buffer theory of social support: A review of the literature. Psychological Medicine , 17 , 91 108. Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned b ehavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179 211. Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior . Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Amato, P. R. (1990). Personality and social network involvement as predictors of helping behavior in everyday life. Social Psychology Quarterly, 53, 31 43. Armitage, C. J., & Conner, M. (2001). Efficacy of the theory of planned behavior: A meta analytic review. British Journal of Social Psychology, 40, 47 1 499. Aryee, S., Chay, Y. W., & Chew, J. (1996). The motivation to mentor among managerial employees: An interactionist approach. Group & Organization Management, 21, 261 277. Asch, S. E. (1951). Effects of group pressure upon the modification and disto rtion of judgment. In H. Guetzkow (ed.) Groups, leadership and men . Pittsburgh, PA: Carnegie Press. Ashford, S. J., & Black, J. S. (1996). Proactivity during organizational entry: The role of desire for control. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 199 214. Ashforth, B. E., & Saks, A. M. (1996). Socialization tactics: Longitudinal effects on newcomer adjustment. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 149 178.
177 Avolio, B. J., & Bass, B. M. (1995). Individual consideration viewed at multiple levels of analysis: A multi level framework for examining the diffusion of transformational leadership. The Leadership Quarterly , 6 , 199 218. Bachrach, D. G., Powell, B. C., Bendoly, E., & Richey, R. G. (2006). Organizational citizenship behavior and performance evaluations: Exploring the impact of task interdependence. Journal of Applied Psychology , 91 , 193 201. Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory . New York, NY: General Learning Press. Bandura, A. ( 1997 ) . Self efficacy: The exercise of control . New York: Freeman. Baron Cohen, S. (1991). Precursors to a theory of mind: Understanding attention in others. In A. Whiten (Ed.), Natural theories of mind: Evolution, development and simulation of everyday mindreading (pp. 233 251). Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Baron Cohen, S ., & Wheelright, S. (2004). The empathy quotient: An investigation of adults with Asperger Syndrome or high functioning autism, and normal sex differences. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 34, 163 175. Barrick, M. R., Stewart, G. L., & Piotr owski, M. (2002). Personality and job performance: Test of the mediating effects of motivation among sales representatives. Journal of Applied Psychology , 87 , 43 51. Batson, C. D. (1991). The altruism question: Toward a social psychological answer . Hills dale, NY: Erlbaum. Batson, C. D., Ahmad, N., & Lishner, D. A. (2011). Empathy and altruism. In C. R. Snyder & S. L. Lopez (Eds.), Handbook of positive psychology (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press. Batson, C. D., Dyck, J. L., Brandt, J. R., Bat son, J. G., Powell, A. L., McMaster, M. R., & Griffitt, C. (1988). Five studies testing two new egoistic alternatives to the empathy altruism hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 52 77. Batson, C. D. , & Powell, A. A. (2003). Altru ism and pro social behavior. In T. Millon & M. J. Lerner (Eds.), Handbook of psychology: Personality and social psychology , ( Vol . 5, pp. 463 484). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons , Inc. Batson, C. D., Sager, K., Garst, E., Kang, M., Rubchinsky, K., & Dawson , K. (1997). Is empathy induced helping due to self other merging? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 495 509. Batson, C. D., & Shaw, L. L. (1991). Evidence for altruism: Toward a pluralism of prosocial motives. Psychological Inquiry , 2 , 107 122.
178 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., & Green, S. G. (1998). Testing the combined effects of newcomer information seeking and manager behavior on socialization. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 72 83. Baumeister, R. F. (1982). A self presentational view of social phenomena. Psycholog ical Bulletin, 91, 3 26. Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin , 117 , 497 529. Becker, T. E., & Vance, R. J. (1993). Construct validity of three types of organizational citizenship behavior: An illustration of the direct product model with refinements. Journal of Management, 19, 663 682. Beehr, T. A., & Drexler, J. A., Jr. (1986). Social support, autonomy, and hierarchical level as modera tors of the role characteristics outcomes relationship. Journal of Occupational Behavior, 7, 207 214. Bendor, J., & Swistak, P. (2001). The evolution of n orms. American Journal of Sociology , 106 , 1493 1545. Berkowitz, A. D. (2004). The social norms appr oach: Theory research, and annotated bibliography, posted on the website of the Higher Education Center, Newton, MA. www.edc.org/hec. Bernhard, H., Fischbacher, U., & Fehr, E. (2006). Parochial altruism in humans. Nature, 4 42 , 912 915. Berscheid, E. (199 9). The greening of relationship science. American Psychologist, 54, 260 266. Blair, R. J., Jones, L., Clark, F., & Smith, M. (1997). The psychopathic individual: A lack of responsiveness to distress cues? Psychophysiology, 34, 192 198. Blau, P. (1964 ). Exchange and power in social life. New York: John Wiley. Blumer, H. (1969) Symbolic interactionism: Perspectives and method. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
179 Bolino, M. C., & Turnley, W. H. (1999). Measuring impression management in organizations: A scale development based on the Jones and Pittman taxonomy. Organizational Research Methods, 2, 187 206. Bolino, M. C., Varela, J. A., Bande, B., & Turnley, W. H. (2006). The impact of impression management tactics on supervisor ratings of organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27, 281 297. Bommer, W. H., Miles, E. W., & Grover, S. L. (2003). Does one good turn deserve another? Coworker influences on employee citizenship. Journal of Organizational Behavior , 24 , 181 196. Borsari, B., & Carey, K. B. (2003). Descriptive and injunctive norms in college drinking: A meta analytic integration. Journal of Studies on A lcohol , 64 , 331 341. Bourdage, J. S., Lee, K., Lee, J H., & Shin, K H. (2012). Motives for organizational citizen ship behavior. Personality correlates and coworker ratings of OCB. Human Performance, 25, 179 200. Brayfield, A. H., & Rothe, H. F. (1951). An index of job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology , 35 , 307 311. Brunswik, E. (1952). The conceptual fram ework of psychology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Cable, D. M., & Parsons, C. K. (2001). Socialization tactics and person organization fit. Personnel Psychology , 54 , 1 23. Call, J., & Tomasello, M. (2008). Does the chimpanzee have a theory of mi nd? 30 years later. Trends in Cognitive Sciences , 12 , 187 192. Cappelli, P., & Sherer, P. D. (1991). The missing role of context in OB: The need for a meso level approach. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 1 3, pp. 55 110). Greenwich, CT: JAI. Kelly, A.M., Wolf, S., Klein, H.J., & Gardner, P.D. (1994). Organizational socialization: Its content and consequences. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 730 743. Chiaburu, D. S., Oh, I S., Berry, C. M., Li, N., & Gardner, R. G. (2011). The five factor model of personality traits and organizational citizenship behaviors: A meta analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96, 1140 1166. Chiaburu, D. S., & Harrison, D. A. (2008). Do peers make the plac e? Conceptual synthesis and meta analysis of coworker effects on perceptions, attitudes, OCBs, and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 1082 1103.
180 Cialdini, R. B., Kallgren, C. A., & Reno, R. R. (1991). A focus theory of normative conduct: A th eoretical refinement and reevaluation of the role of norms in human behavior. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.) Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 24, pp. 201 234). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Cialdini, R. B., & Kenrick, D. T. (1976). Altruism as hedo nism: A social development perspective on the relationship of negative mood state and helping. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 34 , 907 914. Cialdini, R. B., Reno, R. R., & Kallgren, C. A. (1990). A focus theory of normative conduct: Recyclin g the concept of norms to reduce littering in public places. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 1015 1026. Clary, E. G., & Snyder, M. (1991). A functional analysis of altruism and prosocial behavior: The case of volunteerism. Review of Pers onality and Social Psychology , 12 , 119 148. Clary, E. G., Snyder, M., Ridge, R. D., Copeland, J., Stukas, A. A., Haugen, J., & Miene, P. (1998). Understanding and assessing the motivations of volunteers: A functional approach. Journal of Personality and S ocial Psychology , 74 , 1516 1530. Cockburn, A. (1998). Evolution of helping behavior in cooperatively breeding birds. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics , 29 , 141 177. Cogliser, C. C., Schriesheim, C. A., Scandura, T. A., & Gardner, W. L. (2009). Ba lance in leader and follower perceptions of leader member exchange: Relationships with performance and work attitudes. The Leadership Quarterly , 20 , 452 465. Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences . Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Cohen, S., & Wills, T. A. (1985). Stress, social support, and the buffering hypothesis. Psychological Bulletin, 98, 310 357. Colquitt, J. A., LePine, J. A., & Wesson, M. J. (2013). Organizationa l behavior: Improving performance and commitment in the workplace. McGraw Hill Irwin: New York, NY. Comte, A. (1851 /2009 ). A General View of Positivism . Cambridge, MA: Ca mbridge University Press.
181 Conway, J. M., & Huffcutt, A. I. (1997). Psychometric pro perties of multisource performance ratings: A meta analysis of subordinate, supervisor, peer, and self ratings. Human Performance , 10 , 331 360. Cortina, J. M., Chen, G., & Dunlap, W. P. (2001). Testing interaction effects in LISREL: Examination and illust ration of available procedures. Organizational Research Methods , 4 , 324 360. Cottrell, L. S. (1942). The adjustment of the individual to his age and sex roles. American Sociological Review, 7, 617 620. Cropanzano, R., Goldman, B., & Folger, R. (2005). Se lf interest: defining and understanding a human motive. Journal of Organizational Behavior , 26 , 985 991. Darley, J. M. & Fazio, R. H. (1980). Expectancy confirmation processes arising in the social interaction sequence. American Psychologist, 35, 867 881. Darwin, C. (1872). The origin of species by m eans of natural selection: Or, the p reser vation of favoured races in the struggle for life and the descent of man and selection in relation to s ex . Modern Library. Dasborough, M. T., & Ashkanasy, N. M. (2002) . Emotion and attribution of intentionality in leader member relationships. Leadership Quarterly , 13 , 615 634. Davis, M. H. (1983). Measuring individual differences in empathy: Evidence for a multidimensional approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psy chology , 44 , 113 126. Davis, M. H. (1994). Empathy: A social psychological approach. CO: Westview Press. de Waal, F. B. (1991). The chimpanzee's sense of social regularity and its relation to the human sense of justice. American Behavioral Scientist , 34 , 335 349. Deci, E. L., Koestner, R., & Ryan, R. M. (1999). A meta analytic review of experiments examining the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation. Psychological bulletin , 125 , 627 668. Deckop, J. R., Cirka, C. C., & Andersson, L. M. (2 003). Doing unto others: The reciprocity of helping behavior in organizations. Journal of Business Ethics , 47 , 101 113. Deutsch, M,, & Gerard, H. B. (1955). A study of normative and infor mational social influence upon individual judgment. Journal of Abn ormal and Social Psychology, 51, 629 636.
182 De Dreu, C. K. (2006). Rational self interest and other orientation in organizational behavior: A critical appraisal and extension of Meglino and Korsgaard (2004). Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 1245 1252. De Dreu, C. K., & Nauta, A. (2009). Self interest and other orientation in organizational behavior: implications for job performance, prosocial behavior, and personal initiative. Journal of Applied Psychology , 94 , 913 926. Doty, D. H., & Glick, W. H. (1998) . Common methods bias: Does common methods variance really bias results? Organizational Research Methods , 1 , 374 406. Dovidio, J. F. (1984). Helping behavior and altruism: An empirical and conceptual overview. Advances in experimental social psychology , 1 7 , 361 427. Durant, W. (1967). The story of philosophy . Simon & Schuster. Durkheim, E. (1950). The rules of sociological method . Glencoe, IL: Free Press. Durkheim, E. (1951). Suicide : A study in sociology . The Free Press. Dwyer, F. R., Schurr, P. H., & Oh, S. (1987). Developing buyer seller relationships. Journal of Marketing , 51, 11 27. Eagly, A. H. (1987). Sex differences in social behavior: A social role interpretation . Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Eagly, A. H., & Crowley, M. (1986). Gender and helping behavior: A meta analytic review of the social psychological literature. Psychological Bulletin , 100 , 283 308. formal mentoring programs: A qualitative investigation. Journal of Vocational Behavior , 67 , 441 458. Edgeworth, F. Y. (1881). Mathematical psychics: An essay on the application of mathematics to the moral sciences (No. 10). C . K . Paul. Einolf, C. J. (2010). Does extensivity form part of the altruistic person ality? An empirical Social Science Research, 39, 142 151. Eisenberg, N., & Fabes, R. A. (1991). Prosocial behavior and empathy: A multimethod, developmental perspective. In P. Clark (Ed.) Review of personality and socia l psychology (Vol. 12, pp. 34 61). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Eisenberg, N., & Miller, P. A. (1987). The relation of empathy to prosocial and related behaviors. Psychological bulletin , 101 , 91 119.
183 Eisenberger, R., Cotterell, N., & Marvel, J. (1987). Recipr ocation ideology. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 743 750. Eisenberg, R., Stinglhamber, F., Vandenberghe, C., Sucharski, I. L., & Rhoades, L. (2002). Perceived supervisor support: Contributions to perceived organizational support and emp loyee retention. Journal of Applied Psychology , 87 , 565 573. Enzle, M. E., & Lowe, C. A. (1976). Helping behavior and social exchange. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal , 4 , 261 266. Feiler, D. C., Tost, L. P., & Grant, A. M. (2012 ). Mixed reasons, missed givings: The costs of blending egoistic and altruistic reasons in donation requests. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48 , 1322 1328. Feldman, D. C. (1981). The multiple socialization of organization members. Academy of M anagement Review, 6, 309 318. Ferris, G. R., Bhawuk, D. P. S., Fedor, D. F., & Judge, T. A. (1995). Organizational politics and citizenship: Attributions of intentionality and construct definition. In M. J. Martinko (Ed.), Advances in attribution theory : An organizational perspective (pp. 231 252). Delray Beach, FL: St. Lucie Press. Ferris, G. R., Liden, R. C., Munyon, T. P., Summers, J. K., Basik, K. J., & Buckley, M. R. (2009). Relationships at work: Toward a multidimensional conceptualization of dyadic work relationships. Journal of Management , 35 , 1379 1403. Fisher, C. D. (1985). Social support and adjustment to work: A longitudinal study. Journal of Management , 11 , 39 53. Fisher, C. D. (1986). Organizational socialization: An integrative review. In K. M. Rowland & G. R. Ferris (Eds.), Research in personnel and human resources management (Vol. 4, pp. 101 145). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. French, J. R. P., Rogers, W. L , & Cobb, S. (1974). Adjustment as person environment fit. In G. V . Coehlo, D. A. H amburg, & J. E. Adams (Eds.), Coping and adaptation (pp. 316 333) . New York: Basic Books. Frey, B. S. (1997). Not just for the money: An economic theory of personal motivation. Brookfield, VT: Elgar. George, J. M., & Brief, A. P. (1992). Feeling good doi ng good: a conceptual analysis of the mood at work organizational spontaneity relationship. Psychological Bulletin , 112 , 310 329. Glomb, T. M., Bhave, D. P., Miner, A. G., & Wall, M. (2011). Doing good, feeling good: Examining the role of organizational c itizenship behaviors in changing mood. Personnel Psychology , 64 , 191 223.
184 Goffman, E. (1959). The Presentation of self in everyday life. New York: Anchor Books. Gordon, R. A. (1996). Impact of ingratiation on judgments and evaluations: A meta analytic investigation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 71 , 54 70. Gordon, R. M. (1996). 'Radical' simulationism. In P. Carruthers & P.K. Smith, (Eds.), Theorie s of theories of mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Gouldner, A. W. (1960). The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. American Sociological Review , 161 178. Graen, G. (1976). Role making processes within complex organizations. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology (pp. 1201 1245). Chicago: Rand McNally. Grant, A. M. ( 2007 ) . Relational job design and the motivation to make a prosocial difference. Academy of Management Review, 32, 393 417. Grant, A. M. (2008). Does intrinsic motivation fuel the prosocial fire? Motivational synergy in predicting persistence, performance, and productivity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 48 58. Grant, A. M., & Ashford, S. J. (2008). The dynamics of proactivity at work. In A. P. Brief & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 28, pp. 3 34). Amsterdam: Elsevier. Grant, A. M., Dutton, J. E., & Rosso, B. (2008). Givi ng commitment: Employee support programs and the prosocial sensemaking process. Academy of Management Journal , 51 , 898 918. Grant, A. M., & Mayer, D. M. (2009). Good soldiers and good actors: Prosocial and impression management motives as interactive pr edictors of affiliative citizenship behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 900 912. Griffeth, R. W., & Hom, P. W. (2001). Retaining valued employees. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Grube, G. M. A., & Reeve, C. D. C. (1992). Plato: Republic . Gruman, J. A., Saks, A. M., & Zweig, D. I. (2006). Organizational socialization tactics and newcomer proactive behaviors: An integrative study. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 69, 90 104. Haidt , J. (2013). The righteous mind : Why good people are divided by politics and religion. New York, NY: Pantheon.
185 Harris, K. J., Wheeler, A. R., & Kacmar, K. M. (2011). The mediating role of organizational job embeddedness in the LMX outcomes relationships. The Leadership Quarterly, 22, 271 281. Harris, M. B. (1977). The effects of altruism on mood. Journal of Social Psychology, 102, 197 208. Harrison, S. H., Sluss, D. M., & Ashforth, B. E. (2011). Curiosity adapted the cat: the role of trait curiosity in newcomer adaptation. Journal of Applied Psychology , 96 , 211 220. Higgins, C. A., Judge, T. A., & Ferris, G. R. (2003). Influence tactics and work outcomes: a meta analysis. Journal of Organizational Behavior , 24 , 89 106. Higgins, E. T., & Bargh, J. E. (1987). Social cognition and social perception. Annual Review of Psychology, 38, 369 425. Hill, S. E. K., Bahniuk, M. H., & Dobos, J. (1989). The impact of mentori ng and collegial support on faculty success: An analysis of support behavior, information adequacy, and communication apprehension. Communication Education , 38 , 15 33. Hinkin, T. R. (1998). A brief tutorial on the development of measures for use in survey questionnaires. Organizational Research Methods , 1 , 104 121. Hinkin, T. R., & Tracey, J. B. (1999). An analysis of variance approach to content validation. Organizational Research Methods , 2 , 175 186. Hobbes, T. (1651/1969). Leviathan . Scolar Press. Hof fman, B. J., Blair, C. A., Meriac, J. P., & Woehr, D. J. (2007). Expanding the criterion domain? A quantitative review of the OCB literature. Journal of Applied Psychology , 92 , 555 566 . Hofmann, D. A., Morgeson, F. P., & Gerras, S. J. (2003). Climate as a moderator of the relationship between leader member exchange and content specific citizenship: Safety climate as an exemplar. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 170 178. Hofstadter, R. (1944). Social Darwinism in American thought, 1860 1915 . Philadelphia : University of Pennsylvania Press. Hogan, R. (1991). Personality and personality measurement. In M. D. Dunnette, & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of I ndustrial and O rganizational P sychology (pp. 873 919). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
186 Ho gg, M. A., & Terry, D. J. (2000). Social identity and self categorization processes in organizational contexts. Academy of Management Review, 25, 121 140. Hom, P. W., Tsui, A. S., Wu, J. B., Lee, T. W., Zhang, A. Y., Fu, P. P., & Li, L. (2009). Explaining employment relationships with social exchange and job embeddedness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 277 297. House, J. S. (1981). Work stress and social support . Reading, MA: Addison Wesley. Hui, C., Lam, S. S., & Law, K. K. (2000). Instrumental valu es of organizational citizenship behavior for promotion: A field quasi experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology , 85 , 822 828. Hume, D. (1739/2003). A treatise of human nature . Courier Dover Publications. Hume, D. (1751). An enquiry concerning the princi ples of morals . Huxley, T. H. (1860). Darwin on the origin of species. Westminster Review, 17, 541 570. Iacoboni, M., Woods, R. P., Brass, M., Bekkering, H., Mazziotta, J. C., & Rizzolatti, G. (1999). Cortical mechanisms of human imitation. Science, 286 , 2526 2528. Isen , A. M. (1970). Success, failure, attention, and reaction to others: The warm glow of success. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 15, 294 301. Isen, A. M., & Levin, P. F. (1972). Effect of feeling good on helping: cookies and kindness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 21 , 384 388. Jackson, S. E., & Schuler, R. S. (1985). A meta analysis and conceptual critique of research on role ambiguity and role conflict in work settings. Organizational Behavior and Human Decis ion Processes, 36, 16 78. James, W. (1890). The Principles of Psychology (Vol. 1). Dover Publications. Jamieson, I. G. (1991). The unselected hypothesis for the evolution of helping behavior: Too much or too little emphasis on natural selection? American Naturalist, 138, 271 282. Jencks , C. ( 1990 ). Varieties of altruism. In J. J. Mansbridge (Ed.), Beyond Self Interest (pp. 54 70) . Chicago: University of Chicago Press. socializa tion outcomes after organizational entry. Academy of Management Journal, 52, 527 544
187 Johns, G. (2006). The essential impact of context on organizational behavior. Academy of Management Review , 31 , 386 408. Jonas, E., Martens, A., Niesta Kayser, D., Frit sche, I., Sullivan, D., & Greenberg, J. (2008). Focus theory of normative conduct and terror management theory: the interactive impact of mortality salience and norm salience on social judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 95 (6), 1239 1251 . Jones, G. R. (1986). Socialization tactics, self organizations. Academy of Management Journal , 29 , 262 279. Judge, T. A., & Kammeyer Mueller, J. D. (2012). Job attitudes. Annual Review of Psychology, 63, 341 367 . Judge, T.A., LePine, J. A., & Rich, B. L. (2006). Loving yourself abundantly: relationship of the narcissistic personality to self and other perceptions of workplace deviance, leadership, and task and contextual performance. Journal of Applied Psycholo gy, 91, 762 776. Kallgren, C. A., Reno, R. R., & Cialdini, R. B. (2000). A focus theory of normative conduct: When norms do and do not affect behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin , 26 , 1002 1012. Kammeyer Mueller, J. D., Wanberg, C. R., Ru benstein, A. L., & Song, Z. (2013). Support, undermining, affect, and newcomer socialization: Fitting in during the first 90 days. Academy of Management Journal, 56, 1104 1124. Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1978). The social psychology of organizations . New Yo rk, NY: Wiley. Kelley, H. H. (1967). Attribution theory in social psychology. In D. Levine (Ed.). Nebraska Symposium on Motivation (Vol. 15, pp. 192 238). Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press. Kenny, D. A. (1994). Interpersonal perception: A social r elations analysis . Guilford Press. Kerr, S. (1975). On the folly of rewarding A, while hoping for B. A cademy of Management Journal , 18 , 769 783. Kiehl, K. A., Smith, A. M., Hare, R. D., Mendrek, A., Forster, B. B., Brink, J., & Liddle, P. F. (2001). Limb ic abnormalities in affective processing by criminal psychopaths as revealed by functional magnetic resonance imaging. Biological Psychiatry , 50 , 677 684. Kim, T., Cable, D. M., & Kim, S. (2005). Socialization tactics, employee proactivity, and person or ganization fit. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 232 241.
188 Kitts, J. A., & Chiang, Y S. (2008). Norms. In V. Parillo (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Social Problems. New York: Sage Publications. Klein, H. J., & Weaver, N. A. (2000). The effectiveness of an organ izational level orientation training program in the socialization of new hires. Personnel Psychology , 53 , 47 66. Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling . New York: Guilford Press. Kohn, A. (1990). The brighter side of human nature. New York: Basic Books. Kosson, D. S., Suchy, Y., Mayer, A. R., & Libby, J. (2002). Facial affect recognition in criminal psychopaths. Emotion , 2 , 398 411. Korsgaard, M. A., Meglino, B. M., & Lester, S. W. (1996). The effect of other orient ed values on decision making: A test of propositions of a theory of concern for others in organizations. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes , 68, 234 245. Korsgaard, M. A., Meglino, B. M., & Lester, S. W. (2004). The effect of other orien tation on self supervisor rating agreement. Journal of Organizational Behavior , 25 , 873 891. Kram, K. E. (1985). Mentoring at Work. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman, and Company. Krueger, R. F., Hicks, B. M., & McGue, M. (2001). Altruism and antisocial beha vior: Independent tendencies, unique p ersonality correlates, distinct etiologies. Psychological Science , 12 , 397 402. La Rocco, J. M., & Jones, A. P. (1978). Co worker and leader support as moderators of stress strain relationships in work situations. Jou rnal of Applied Psychology , 63 , 629 634. Lapinski, M. K., & Rimal, R. N. (2005). An explication of social norms. Communication Theory , 15 , 127 147. LatanÃ© , B., & Darley, J. M. (1970). The unresponsive bystander: Why doesn't he help? . New York: Appleton C entury Crofts. Lazarus, R. S. and Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and c oping. New York, NY: Springer . Levin, P. F., & Isen, A. M. (1975). Further studies on the effect of feeling good on helping. Sociometry , 38, 141 147.
189 Lewin, K. 1951. Field the ory in social science: Selected theoretical papers . New York: Harper & Row. Liden, R. C., & Mitchell, T. R. (1988). Ingratiatory behaviors in organizational settings. Academy of Management Review, 13, 572 587. Louis, M. R. (1980). Surprise and sense maki ng: What newcomers experience in entering unfamiliar organizational settings. Administrative Sci ence Quarterly, 25, 226 251. MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., & Williams, J. (2004). Confidence limits for the indirect effect: Distribution of the product a nd resampling methods. Multivariate behavioral research , 39 , 99 128. Major, D. A., Kozlowski, S. W. J., Chao, G. T., & Gardner, P. D. (1995). A longitudinal investigation of newcomer expectations, early socialization outcomes, and the moderating effects o f role development factors. Journal of Applied Psychology , 80 , 418 431. Mansbridge, J. J. (Ed.). (1990). Beyond self interest . Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Marsh, H. W ., Hau, K. T., & Grayson, D. (2005 ). Goodness of fit e valuation in structural equation modeling. In A. Maydeu Olivares & J. McArdle (Eds.), Psychometrics. A festschrift to Roderick P. McDonald . Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Marsh, H. W., Hau, K. T., & Wen, Z. (2004). In search of golden rules: Comment on hypothesis testing approaches to setting cutoff values for fit indexes and dangers in overgeneralizing Hu and Bentler's (1999) findings. Structural Equation M odeling , 11 , 320 341. McAllister, D. J. (1995). Affect and cognition based trust as foundations for interper sonal cooperation in organizations. Academy of Management Journal , 38 , 24 59. Mead, G. H. (1934) The social psychology of George Herbert Mead. (A. Strauss, Ed.) Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Meglino, B. M., & Korsgaard, M. A. (2004). Considering rational self interest as a disposition: Organizational implications of other orientation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 946 959. Meglino, B. M., & Korsgaard, M. A. (2007). The role of other orientation in reactions to job characteristics. Journal of Management , 33 , 57 83.
190 Miller, D. T. (1999). The norm of self interest. American Psychologist , 54 , 1053 1060. Miller, V. D., & Jablin, F. M. (1991). Information seeking during organizational entry: Influences, tactics, and a model of the process. Academ y of Management Review, 16, 92 120. Miller, D. T., & Prentice, D. A. (1996). The construction of social norms and standards. In E. T. Higgins and A. W. Kruglanski (Eds.), Social Psychology: Handbook of basic principles. (pp. 799 829). New York: Guilford. Mitchell, T. R., Holtom, B. C., Lee, T. W., Sablynski, C. J., & Erez, M. (2001). Why people stay: Using job embeddedness to predict voluntary turnover. Academy of Management Journal , 44 , 1102 1121. Moreland, R. L., & Levine, J. M. (1982). Socialization i n small groups: Temporal changes in individual agroup 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. (2001). Socialization in organizations an d work groups. In M. E. Turner (Ed.), Groups at work: Theory and research (pp. 69 112). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Morrison, E. W. (1993). Newcomer information seeking: Exploring types, modes, sources, and outcomes. Academy of Management Journal , 36 , 557 589. socialization. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 1149 1160. Mowday, R. T., Porter, L. W., & Steers, R. M. (1982). Employee organization linkages: The psychology of commitment, absenteeism, and turnover. New York: Academic Press. th Ed.). Los Angeles: MuthÃ©n & MuthÃ©n. Nelson, D. L., & Quick, J. C. (1991). Social support and newcomer adjustment in organizatio ns: attachment theory at work?. Journal of Organizational Behavior , 12 , 543 554. Newby, T. J., & Heide, A. (1992). The value of mentoring. Performance Improvement Quarterly , 5 , 2 15. Nisar, T. (2006). Subjectivity in incentive pay. Unpublished Manuscript , University of Southhampton.
191 Oliner, S.P., Oliner, P.M., (1988). The Altruistic Personality. Free Press, New York. Organ, D. W. (1997). Organizational citizenship behavior: It's construct clean up time. Human performance , 10 , 85 97. Organ, D. W., & Rya n, K. (1995). A meta analytic review of attitudinal and dispositional predictors of organizational citizenship behavior. Personnel Psychology, 48, 775 802. Ossorio, P. G., & Davis, K. E. (1968). The self, intentionality, and reactions to evaluations. In C . Gordon & K. Gergen (Eds.) Self in society. New York: Wiley. Ostroff, C., & Kozlowski, S. W. J. (1992). Organizational socialization as a learning process: The role of information acquisition. Personnel Psychology, 45, 849 874. Park, H. S., & Smith, S. W. (2007). Distinctiveness and influence of subjective norms, personal descriptive and injunctive norms, and societal descriptive and injunctive norms on behavioral intent: A case of two behaviors critical to organ donation. Human Communication Research , 3 3 , 194 218. Penner, L. A., Dovidio, J. F., Piliavin, J. A., & Schroeder, D. A. (2005). Prosocial behavior: Multilevel perspectives. Annual Review of Psychology , 56 , 365 392. Penner, L. A., Midili, A. R., & Kegelmeyer, J. (1997). Beyond job attitudes: A p ersonality and social psychology perspective on the causes of organizational citizenship behavior. Human Performance , 10 , 111 131. Perlow, L., & Weeks, J. (2002). Who's helping whom? Layers of culture and workplace behavior. Journal of Organizational Beha vior , 23 , 345 361. Perkins, H., & Wechsler, H. (1996). Variation in perceived college drinking norms and its impact on alcohol abuse: A nationwide study. Journal of Drug Issues , 26, 961 974. Piliavin, J. A., & Callero, P. L. (1991). Giving blood: The dev elopment of an altruistic identity . Johns Hopkins University Press. Piliavin, J. A., & Charng, H. (1990). Altruism: A review of recent theory and research. Annual Review of Sociology, 16, 27 65. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J., & Podsakoff, N . P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879 903.
192 Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Paine, J. B., & Bachrach, D. G. (2000). Organizational citizenship behaviors: A critical review of the theoretical and empirical literature and suggestions for future research. Journal of Management , 26 , 513 563. Portmore, D. W. (2011). Commonsense consequentialism: Wherein morality meets r ationality . New Yo rk: Oxford University Press. Premack, D., & Woodruff, G. (1978). Does the chimpanzee have a theory of mind?. Behavioral and Brain Sciences , 1 (4) , 515 526. QuiÃ±ones, M. A., Ford, J. K., & Teachout, M. S. (1995). The relationship between work experience a nd job performance: A conceptual and meta analytic review. Personnel Psychology, 48, 887 910. Raabe, B., & Beehr, T. A. (2003). Formal mentoring versus supervisor and coworker relationships: Differences in perceptions and impact. Journal of Organizational Behavior , 24 , 271 293. Rand, A. (2005). Atlas s hrugged: (Centennial Edition) . Plume. Rand, A. (1964). The virtue of selfishness: A new concept of egoism . Signet. Reichers, A. E. (1987). An interactionist perspective on newcomer socialization rates. Acad emy of Management Review , 12 , 278 287. Reiter, S. M., & Samuel, W (1980). Littering as a function of prior litter and the presence or absence of prohibitive signs. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 10, 45 5. Reno, R. R., Cialdini, R. B., & Kallgren, C. A. (1993). The trans situational influence of social norms. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 104 112. Riordan, C. M., Weatherly, E. W., Vandenberg, R. J., & Self, R. M. (2001). The effects of pre entry experiences and socialization tac tics on newcomer attitudes and turnover. Journal of Managerial Issues , 13 , 159 176. Rioux, S. M., & Penner, L. A. (2001). The causes of organizational citizenship behavior: A motivational analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology , 86 , 1306 1314 . Rizzo, J. R., House, R. J., & Lirtzman, S. I. (1970). Role conflict and ambiguity in complex organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 15, 150 163. Roznowski, M., & Hanisch, K. A. (1990). Building systematic heterogeneity into work attitudes and behavior mea sures. Journal of Vocational Behavior , 36 , 361 375. Rushton, J. P. (1980). Altruism, socialization, and society . Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
19 3 Rushton, J. P., Chrisjohn, R., & Fekken, G. (1981). The altruistic personality and the self report altru ism scale. Personality & Individual Differences, 2, 293 302. Saks, A. M., & Ashforth, B. E. ( 1997 ) . Organizational socialization: Making sense of the past and present as a prologue for the future. Journal of Vocational Behavior , 51 , 234 279. Saks, A. M., Uggerslev, K. L., & Fassina, N. E. (2007). Socialization tactics and newcomer adjustment: A meta analytic review and test of a model. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 70, 413 446. Salancik, G. R., & Pfeffer, J. (1978). A social information processing appr oach to job attitudes and task design. Administrative Science Quarterly, 23, 224 253. Schlenker, B. (1980). Impression management: The self concept, social identity, and interpersonal relations . Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole. Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. (20 04). General mental ability in the world of work: Occupational attainment and job performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 162 173. Schneider, B. (1990). The climate for service: An application of the climate construct. In B. Schneid er (Ed.), Organizational climate and culture (pp. 383 412). San Francisco: Jossey Bass. Schwartz, S. H. (1973). Normative explanations of helping behavior: A critique, proposal, and empirical test. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 9, 349 364. S chwartz, S. H. (1977). Normative influences on altruism. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 10, pp. 221 279). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Th eoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 25, pp. 1 65). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Schwarzer, R., & Leppin, A. (1989). Social support and health: A meta analysis. Psy chology and Health , 3 , 1 15. Seashore, S. E., Lawler, E. E., Mirvis, P., & Cammann, C. (1982). Observing and measuring organizational change: A guide to field practice. New York: Wiley.
194 Seers, A., McGee, G. W., Serey, T. T., & Graen, G. B. (1983). The in teraction of job stress and social support: A strong inference investigation. Academy of Management Journal , 26 , 273 284. Sharp, F. (1928). Ethics . New York: Appleton Century Crofts. Shaw, G. B. (n.d.). Retrieved April 4, 2013, from: www.quotationspage.c om/quote/692.html. Shrauger, J. S., & Schoeneman, T. J. (1979). Symbolic interactionist view of self concept: Through the looking glass darkly. Psychological Bulletin , 86 , 549 573. Simon, H. A. (1990). A mechanism for social selection and successful altr uism. Science, 250, 1665 1668. Sinclair, R. R., & Tetrick, L. E. (1995). Social exchange and union commitment: A comparison of union instrumentality and union support perceptions. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 16, 669 680. Skinner, B. F., & Ferst er , C. B. (1957). Schedules of reinforcement . Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Smith, A. (1759/1982). In D.D. Raphael and A.L. Macfie (Eds.), The Theory of Moral Sentiments. Liberty Fund. Smith, J. M. (1964). Group selection and kin selection. Nature , 201 , 1145 1147. S nyder, M. (1993). Basic research and practical problems: The promise of a "functional" personality and social psychology. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 19, 251 264. Sosik, J. J., & Megerian, L. E. (1999). Understanding lead er emotional intelligence and performance the role of self other agreement on transformational leadership perceptions. Group & Organization Management , 24 , 367 390. Stanton, J. M., Balzer, W. K., Smith, P. C., Parra, L. F., & Ironson, G. (2001). A general measure of work stress: The Stress in General Scale. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 61, 866 888. Steger, M. F., Kashdan, T. B., & Oishi, S. (2008). Being good by doing good: Daily eudaimonic activity and well being. Journal of Research in Per sonality , 42 , 22 42. Stryker, S., & Statham, A. (1985). Symbolic interaction and role theory. In G. Lindzey and E. Aronson (Eds.). The Handbook of Social Psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 311 378). New York, NY: Random House.
195 Swann, W. B., Jr. (1987). Identity neg otiation: Where two roads meet. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 1038 1051. Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In S. Worchel & W. G. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (p p. 7 24). Chicago: Nelson Hall. Thomas, K. W., & Pondy, L. R. (1977). Toward an" intent" model of conflict management among principal parties. Human Relations , 30 , 1089 1102. Thompson, W. C., Cowan, C. L., & Rosenhan, D. L. (1980). Focus of attention me diates the impact of negative affect on altruism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 38 , 291 300. Tomasello, M., & Carpenter, M. (2007). Shared intentionality. Developmental Science , 10 , 121 125. Trivers, R.L. (1971). The evolution of reciproc al altruism. Quarterly Review of Biology, 46 , 35 57. Van Dyne, L., & LePine, J. A. (1998). Helping and voice extra role behaviors: Evidence of construct and predictive validity. Academy of Management Journal , 41 , 108 119. Van Maanen, J., & Schein, E. H. (1979). Toward a theory of organizational socialization. In B. M., Staw (Ed.) Research in organizational behavior . Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Viswesvaran, C., Sanchez, J. I., & Fisher, J. (1999). The role of social support in the process of work stress: A meta analysis. Journal of Vocational Behavior , 54 , 314 334. Vroom, V. H. (1964). Work and motivation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass. Wanberg, C. R., & Kammeyer Mueller, J. D. (2000). Predictors and outcomes of proactivity in the socialization process. J ournal of Applied Psychology , 85 , 373 385. Wanous, J. P. (1977) Organizational entry: Newcomers moving from outside to inside. Psychological Bulletin, 84, 601 618. Wanous, J. (1980). Organizational entry: Recruitment, selection, and socialization of newc omers. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.
196 Warneken, F., & Tomasello, M. (2009). The roots of human altruism. British Journal of Psychology , 100 , 455 471. Waters, L. (2004). ProtÃ©gÃ© mentor agreement about the provision of psychosocial support: The mentoring rel ationship, personality, and workload. Journal of Vocational Behavior , 65 , 519 532. Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS Scales. Journal of Personality and S ocial Psychology , 54 , 1063 1070. Weiner, B. (2000). Intrapersonal and interpersonal theories of motivation from an attribution perspective. Educational Psychology Review, 12, 1 14. Wiener, N. (1948). Cybernetics; or control and communication in the anim al and the machine. New York: Wiley. Weinstein, N., & Ryan, R. M. (2010). When helping helps: autonomous motivation for prosocial behavior and its influence on well being for the helper and recipient. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 98 , 222 244. Williams, L. J., & Anderson, S. E. (1991). Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as predictors of organizational citizenship and in role behaviors. Journal of Management , 17 , 601 617. Williams, J., & MacKinnon, D. P. (2008). Resampling and distribution of the product methods for testing indirect effects in complex models. Structural Equation Modeling , 15 , 23 51. Wilson, J.Q., & Kelling, G. (1982). Broken windows: The police and neighborhood safety. Atlantic Monthly, 3, 29 38. Yu, C. Y. (20 02). Evaluating cutoff criteria of model fit indices for latent variable models with binary and continuous outcomes (Doctoral dissertation, University of California Los Angeles).
197 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Alex L. Rubenstein was a doctoral student in the Department of Management at Administration. He received a B . A . in business administration and a B . S . in psychology from the University of Washington in June 2009. After completing his undergrad uate degrees, he subsequently entered the doctoral program in August 2009 . After receiving his Ph.D. from the University of Florida in the summer of 2014 , Alex joined the faculty at the University of Memphis as an Assistant Professor in Management. His res earch interests include newcomer socialization and adjustment , employee turnover, interpersonal relationships at work, and individual differences in ability and personality.