Content uploaded by Helena Cooper-Thomas
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Helena Cooper-Thomas on May 22, 2017
Content may be subject to copyright.
CHAPTER
4Newcomer Proactive Behavior: Can
ere Be Too Much of a Good ing?
Helena D. Cooper-Thomas and Sarah E. Burke
Abstract
The aim of this chapter is to provide a comprehensive review of research on newcomer proactive
behavior. We start by outlining why proactive behavior is important for new employees today and
situating this within the broader proactive behavior literature. Following this, the chapter has six
main sections. First, we outline the range of proactive behaviors that newcomers use, under the
three categories of changing the role or environment (e.g., changing work procedures), self-change
(e.g., feedback seeking), and mutual development (e.g., networking). Second, we discuss the
consequences of each proactive behavior by newcomers that has been studied in detail and third, we
examine the antecedents of newcomer proactive behaviors. Fourth, we outline longitudinal patterns
of change in newcomer proactive behavior. Fifth, we present ideas around the potential for proactive
behavior to be maladaptive for organizations and also for newcomers themselves. This is followed
with a sixth section on practical implications, comprising a review of the sparse research to date on
interventions to increase newcomer proactive behavior. We fi nish with ideas for future research and
concluding thoughts.
Key Words: organizational socialization, newcomer, newcomer adjustment, proactive behavior,
proactivity
Research on newcomer proactive behavior has
developed rapidly in recent years (Ashford & Black,
1996; Kammeyer-Mueller & Wanberg, 2003) and
provides an important contribution to the litera-
ture on organizational socialization, also known as
newcomer adjustment or onboarding. e process of
organizational socialization is concerned with get-
ting new employees up to speed in an organization
as quickly as possible. is bene ts all parties: e
newcomer spends less time experiencing anxious
uncertainty, and can more quickly learn, adapt,
and achieve e ective performance and concomitant
improvements in well-being (Kammeyer-Mueller &
Wanberg, 2003); colleagues can more quickly shift
from providing task help to the newcomer toward
exchanging assistance and resources for mutual ben-
e t (Anderson & omas, 1996; Feldman, 1994);
and the organization gains a performing organiza-
tional member more quickly (Rollag, 2007).
e increased focus on newcomer proactive
behavior has occurred in tandem with broader
workplace changes occurring over the past few
decades (Howard, 1995; Finkelstein, Kulas, &
Dages, 2003). Previously, when jobs were for life
and employees rarely switched employers, there
was an understandable focus on how organiza-
tions shaped newcomers through providing spe-
ci c types of experience which molded them to t
speci c roles (Van Maanen & Schein, 1979; also
see Saks and Gruman, Chapter 3 of this volume).
Moreover, for organizations it was worth investing
in intensive, lengthy, o -site socialization programs
because employees would remain with and contrib-
ute to the organization for a long period of time,
OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – FIRST-PROOF, 03/17/12, NEWGEN
-,
possibly their whole working lives (Berlew & Hall,
1966; Van Maanen, 1973; Van Maanen & Schein,
1979). However all this has changed in recent years.
Globalization, increased competition, and techno-
logical developments are key factors that have led
to workplace exibility and, coupled with this,
instability (Arnold & Cohen, 2008). Employees
in organizations frequently experience restructur-
ing, delayering, downsizing, mergers and acquisi-
tions, as well as redundancies either for themselves
or colleagues (Datta, Guthrie, Basuil, & Pandey,
2010). All of these changes cause employees to
be in modi ed roles or to need socialization into
completely new roles. Data from the United States
illustrates that an increasing number of people are
experiencing socialization, with a predicted 51 mil-
lion job openings between 2008 and 2018 (Bureau
of Labor Statistics, 2009). Further, of a predicted
167 million people in the US civilian labor force
for the same time period, less than 20 million posi-
tions were expected to o er some short-term on-
the-job training. ese gures con rm the need
for newcomers to be self-starting if they wish to
be successful in their careers (Seibert, Crant, &
Kraimer, 1999) and for the hiring organization to
remain exible and actively compete in the global
economy (Sonnentag, 2003).
Newcomer Proactive Behavior
We follow the work of Parker and colleagues
to de ne proactive behavior as being anticipa-
tory or future oriented, self-initiated, and about
taking control to make things happen (Parker &
Collins, 2010). ese behaviors may aim to change
the situation, oneself, or both (Parker, Bindl, &
Strauss, 2010; Parker & Collins, 2010). Among
the categories of proactive behavior proposed in the
last several years (Grant & Ashford, 2008; Parker et
al., 2010), proactive person–environment (PE) t
behaviors are the most relevant to the context of new
employees (see also Kim, Cable, & Kim, 2005; and
van Vianen and De Pater, Chapter 8 in this volume).
Parker and Collins (2010) note that proactive PE
t behaviors are distinctive in that they focus more
on the self, compared to other types of proactive
behaviors that may aim to change the organization’s
internal environment or the organization’s t with
the external environment. As examples of proactive
PE t behaviors relevant to newcomers, job change
negotiation re ects new employees attempting to
change their immediate work environment to better
t their skills or abilities (Ashford & Black, 1996;
Nicholson, 1984), whereas feedback seeking reveals
the new employee’s intention of using feedback to
achieve positive self-change (Ashford & Black, 1996;
Wanberg & Kammeyer-Mueller, 2000).
Types of Newcomer Proactive Behavior
Recent empirical work by Cooper- omas,
Anderson, and Cash (2011) provides a useful way
of approaching proactive PE t behaviors. ey
proposed three categories for newcomer adjustment
strategies: change role or environment, change self,
and mutual development. Whereas Cooper- omas
and colleagues aimed to include the widest range of
strategies identi ed to date, we have taken a nar-
rower approach. Speci cally, we reviewed the strate-
gies that they identi ed and have kept only those
which t with the de nition above; that is, that
such behaviors are self-started, future focused, and
change oriented. e resultant behaviors are shown
in Table 4.1.
Table 4.1 A Categorization of Newcomer Proactive Behaviors
Change Role or Environment Change Self Mutual Development
Change work procedures/minimize Direct inquiry/information-seeking Boss relationship building
Rede ne the job Feedback seeking Exchanging resources
Experimenting/testing limits/action & feedback Indirect inquiry Job change negotiation
Delegate responsibilities Inquiry of third parties Networking
Persuasive attempts/presentation Monitoring General socializing
Gain credibility/give information & advice Positive framing
Listening
Role modeling
OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – FIRST-PROOF, 03/17/12, NEWGEN
e rst column contains proactive behaviors
which the new employee uses to change her role
or her work environment. ese include the new
employee changing work procedures and, in some
cases, minimizing new role requirements to achieve
a better t to his or her current skills and abilities
(Feldman & Brett, 1983, Cooper- omas et al.,
2011), or rede ning the job (Feldman & Brett,
1983). e new employee may experiment or test
limits by carrying out work in his/her preferred
way and seeing if it works (Kramer, 1993; Ostro
& Kozlowski, 1992). e new employee may also
try to change his/her role by delegating responsi-
bilities (Feldman & Brett, 1983) or attempting to
persuade others to change work factors (Kramer,
1993). Finally, the newcomer may try to gain cred-
ibility in order to have more in uence, which may
be achieved through giving information and advice
to insider colleagues and proving competence
(Cooper- omas et al., 2011; Kramer, 1993).
e second column comprises proactive behav-
iors by which the new employee tries to change
herself; for example role modeling, which involves
trying to emulate the ways others behave in order
to achieve better outcomes (Cooper- omas et al.,
2011). A number of information-seeking or sense-
making behaviors are also included within change
self, including direct inquiry, feedback seeking, indi-
rect inquiry, and inquiry of third parties (Ashford &
Cummings, 1983; Feldman & Brett, 1983; Miller
& Jablin, 1991; Ostro & Kozlowski, 1992). ese
comprise di erent behaviors that newcomers may
use to learn about their new roles and the broader
work environment. An interesting issue this raises
is that proactive behavior can be furtive, with indi-
rect inquiry and inquiry of third parties ful lling
the criteria of being self-started, future focused, and
change oriented. is contrasts with overt proactive
behaviors such as voice (LePine & Van Dyne, 1998)
and issue selling (Dutton & Ashford, 1993), which
might come to mind more easily when considering
proactive behaviors. An additional interesting issue
is raised by the nal behaviors within change self,
in that monitoring, positive framing, and listening
(Ashford & Black, 1996; Burke, 2009; Ostro &
Kozlowski, 1992) may be seen as passive and cog-
nitive. However, they require the new employee to
initiate such behaviors (self-started); they are aimed
at enabling the new employee to acquire a better
understanding of the role and situation (change
oriented) and to achieve more rapid and positive
socialization so as to become an insider (future
focused). Hence, they t the criteria for proactive
behaviors (Ashford & Black, 1996; Burke, 2009;
Kim et al., 2005).
e nal column of Table 4.1 consists of behav-
iors that involve mutual development of the new
employee and his or her work environment. e
rst three behaviors—relationship building with
boss, exchanging resources, and role negotiation
(Ashford & Black, 1996; Cooper- omas et al.,
2011; Kramer, 1993)—are about a mutual give
and take to nd a good t between what the indi-
vidual o ers and what the environment a ords
(Gibson, 1977). Networking is akin to these
previous behaviors, although the future focus is
arguably longer term and uncertain in nature yet
likely to be work-related (Ashford & Black, 1996;
Cooper- omas et al., 2011). Similarly, general
socializing depends on the new employee (self-
starting) as well as the organization in order to
occur, is change oriented in that it aims to build
work relationships, and is future focused because
these relationships are anticipated as having forth-
coming bene ts (Ashford & Black, 1996; Cooper-
omas et al., 2011). While networking has
task-related aims, general socializing may bring
task or social future rewards.
Looking at research on newcomer proactive
behaviors at a broad level, most research has inves-
tigated multiple proactive behaviors in the same
study. Interestingly, there is a consistent nding that
newcomers who use one kind of proactive behavior
tend also to use other proactive behaviors. While
this ts with a view of proactive behavior stemming
from personality factors (Crant, 2000; Wanberg &
Kammeyer-Mueller, 2000), it may also be that envi-
ronmental factors in those settings allow for proac-
tive behaviors in general. Ashford and Black (1996),
in their seminal research with practicing managers
graduating from a US business school, identi ed
seven proactive behaviors. ese seven behaviors
show mostly moderate to strong correlations with
each other—particularly building relationship with
boss and job change negotiation, which have the
most positive associations ( ve of a possible six)
with the other behaviors. Similarly, Gruman, Saks,
and Zweig (2006) found mostly moderate to strong
positive correlations between six common proac-
tive behaviors in a sample of Canadian cooperative
placement students, as did Kim et al. (2005) with
newcomers at seven large organizations in South
Korea and Wanberg and Kammeyer-Mueller (2000)
in research with job seekers across one US state’s
employment service centers. Indeed, in some research
these behaviors have been aggregated, with Ashforth,
OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – FIRST-PROOF, 03/17/12, NEWGEN
-,
Sluss, and Saks (2007) showing that an aggregated
proactive behavior scale was positively associated
with learning, role innovation, performance, job
satisfaction, and organizational identity, and nega-
tively associated with intentions to quit. Also using
an aggregated measure, Burke (2009) showed that
proactive behavior was trainable in newcomers with
the resultant shift in behavior observable to manag-
ers. Furthermore, research by Brown, Ganesan, and
Challagalla (2001) has shown that employees may
use proactive behaviors synergistically, with employ-
ees who have high self-e cacy being able to use a
combination of inquiry and monitoring to achieve
greater role clarity, whereas employees with low
self-e cacy showed no such interactive e ect. e
potential complementary and interactive relation-
ships of newcomer proactive behaviors provide an
interesting avenue for further research.
e Consequences of Newcomer
Proactive Behaviors
e increased focus on employee proactive
behavior in general, and newcomer proactive
behavior in particular, is due both to the necessity
of being adaptable in a shifting and unpredictable
work environment and also the perceived bene ts
that proactivity brings. At a more general level,
proactive behavior has been associated with higher
levels of innovation (Scott & Bruce, 1994; Seibert,
Kraimer, & Crant, 2001), leadership e ective-
ness (Bateman & Crant, 1993), task performance
(Fuller & Marler, 2009; ompson, 2005), and
greater career success (Seibert et al., 2001). For
newcomers, proactive personality—which leads to
more proactive behaviors (Crant, 2000)—is posi-
tively associated with motivation to learn (Major,
Turner, & Fletcher, 2006) and creativity (Kim,
Hon & Crant, 2009), as well as task mastery, group
integration, political knowledge, organizational
commitment, and intent to remain (Kammeyer-
Mueller & Wanberg, 2003). For newcomer pro-
active behavior, the picture is more mixed (Saks,
Gruman, & Cooper- omas, 2011) and therefore
we explore it in greater detail, looking at each cat-
egory of proactive behavior in turn along with each
of the behaviors within those categories. We present
the proactive behaviors in the same order as above;
that is, those which concern trying to change the
role or environment, changing the self, and mutual
development. Note that there is insu cient evi-
dence for some of the behaviors we reviewed above
and summarized in Table 4.1, and hence these are
excluded from further analysis.
e Consequences of Newcomer
Proactive Behaviors Aimed at
Changing the Role or Environment
While there has been a body of research that
con rms experimenting as a strategy (Cooper-
omas et al., 2011; Feldman & Brett, 1983;
Ostro & Kozlowski, 1992), there is only one
study that looks at experimenting in relation to
newcomer adjustment indicators. Ostro and
Kozlowski (1992) found that experimenting was
positively associated with task, role, group, and
organizational learning, yet also with psychological
and physical stress and intent to turnover. us,
experimenting seems to work well in facilitating
newcomer learning but has a signi cant down-
side in that newcomers who experiment report
higher stress. It remains an empirical question as
to whether the stress leads to more experimenting
behavior by newcomers or whether the experi-
menting itself results in stress.
It is notable that a range of more self-reliant
newcomer proactive behaviors have been identi ed
(see Table 4.1), yet their consequences have been
neglected by researchers. is may re ect the dif-
culty attached to enacting behaviors that are self-
initiated (Cooper- omas & Wilson, 2011). A more
pragmatic explanation is that most researchers have
used Ashford and Black’s (1996) measures of new-
comer proactive behaviors, and none of these are
within the change role or environment category.
e Consequences of Newcomer Proactive
Behaviors Aimed at Self-Change
Newcomer information seeking has been one of
the most explored research areas, with studies inves-
tigating the types of information that new employ-
ees seek (Morrison, 1993a, b; Ostro & Kozlowski,
1992), learn (Chao, O’Leary-Kelly, Wolf, Klein, &
Gardner, 1994; Haueter, Macan, & Winter, 2003;
Cooper- omas & Anderson 2002, 2005) and nd
most useful (Morrison, 1995). Here we look more
broadly at information seeking as a proactive behav-
ior, and focus on active seeking in the form of direct
inquiry.
Direct inquiry of supervisors is associated with
political and language learning, whereas direct
inquiry of experienced coworkers is associated with
broader learning across performance, history, goals
and values, and organizational politics (van der
Velde, Ardts, & Jansen, 2005). Following on from
learning, there is some evidence that information
OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – FIRST-PROOF, 03/17/12, NEWGEN
seeking through direct inquiry is associated with
role clarity (Bauer, Bodner, Erdogan, Truxillo, &
Tucker, 2007; Gruman et al., 2006; Holder, 1996;
Saks et al., 2011) although null results have been
found (Wanberg & Kammeyer-Mueller, 2000).
Moreover, as for learning, research has shown di er-
ent results for coworkers versus supervisors. us,
Callister, Kramer, and Turban (1999) found that
transferees over their rst year showed no associa-
tion between coworker inquiry and role clarity, and
only weak relations at 3 and 12 months post-tran-
sition between supervisor inquiry and role clarity. A
similarly mixed pattern exists for the role of direct
inquiry with task mastery and job performance,
with some evidence con rming a relationship
(Ashford & Black, 1996; Bauer et al., 2007; Saks
et al., 2011), some ndings of no relationship
(Fedor, Rensvold, & Adams, 1992; Gruman et al.,
2006), and other research showing a negative rela-
tionship (Settoon & Adkins, 1997).
A weak positive relationship has been found
between direct inquiry and person–organization t
in one study (Kim et al., 2005) yet not in another
(Gruman et al., 2006), and there is initial evidence
for a relationship of direct inquiry with person–job
t (Gruman et al., 2006). More consistent results
have been found for the relationship of direct
inquiry with social integration, con rming that this
is positive (Bauer et al., 2007; Gruman et al., 2006;
Morrison, 1993a; Saks et al., 2011).
Positive relationships have been found between
direct inquiry and job satisfaction (Bauer et al.,
2007; Gruman et al., 2006; Morrison, 1993b;
Saks et al., 2011; Wanberg & Kammeyer-Mueller,
2000). e relationships of direct inquiry with
organizational commitment have sometimes been
positive (Bauer et al., 2007; Saks et al., 2011; van
der Velde et al., 2005), yet in other studies non-
signi cant (Gruman et al., 2006). Direct inquiry
has been positively associated in some studies with
intention to remain (Bauer et al., 2007; Morrison,
1993b), yet no signi cant associations have been
found in other research for either intent to remain
or actual retention (Saks et al., 2011; Wanberg &
Kammeyer-Mueller, 2000).
Feedback seeking has received a lot of atten-
tion in research in general (Ashford & Cummings,
1983; Ashford, Blatt, & VandeWalle, 2003), as well
as for newcomers speci cally (Gruman et al., 2006;
Kammeyer-Mueller, Livingston, & Liao, 2011).
ere is mixed but largely supportive evidence that
feedback seeking is associated with superior job per-
formance for newcomers. Saks and Ashforth (1997)
found that feedback-seeking behaviors toward
other newcomers, senior coworkers, and supervi-
sors were positively associated with criteria of task
mastery, role orientation, and job performance.
Similarly, there is evidence that feedback seeking
is positively correlated with role clarity (Saks et al.,
2011; Wanberg & Kammeyer-Mueller, 2000), job
performance (Ashford & Black, 1996), and person–
job t (Gruman et al., 2006). Kammeyer-Mueller
et al. (2011) found a positive relationship of feed-
back seeking with creative performance but not with
role clarity. In line with the latter nding, Morrison
(1993a) found that performance feedback inquiry
was largely unrelated to task mastery or role clarity,
yet Saks et al. (2011) found a positive relationship
of feedback seeking with task mastery.
In terms of social outcomes, feedback seeking
has been positively associated with social integration
(Gruman et al., 2006; Saks et al., 2011; Wanberg &
Kammeyer-Mueller, 2000), person–organization t
(Gruman et al., 2006), and organizational citizen-
ship behavior (Kammeyer-Mueller et al., 2011).
Mostly positive associations have been found
between feedback seeking from various sources and
distal adjustment attitudinal outcomes, including
job satisfaction, commitment, and intent to remain
or, in the case of cooperative placement students,
intent to return (Gruman et al., 2006; Saks &
Ashforth, 1997; Wanberg & Kammeyer-Mueller,
2000). However, Wanberg and Kammeyer-Mueller
(2000) found that feedback seeking was not associ-
ated with actual retention.
Overall, while the evidence mostly shows a posi-
tive relationship between newcomers seeking feed-
back and their understanding and performance
of their jobs, there are occasions when this is not
the case. It is possible that di erences in the con-
sequences of feedback seeking are due to the qual-
ity of feedback received (Adams, 2005; Ashford
et al., 2003), and it is the responsibility of new-
comers and insiders to drive this. More straight-
forwardly, greater feedback seeking is consistently
associated with better integration into the social
fabric of the organization and, for the most part, is
related to more positive attitudes of the newcomer
toward the new job and organization.
Monitoring behavior is well established in the
general literature on employee information seek-
ing (Anseel, Lievens, & Levy, 2007; Ashford &
OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – FIRST-PROOF, 03/17/12, NEWGEN
-,
Cummings, 1983), as well as the newcomer litera-
ture (Filstad, 2004; Miller & Jablin, 1991; Morrison,
1993a, b; Saks & Ashforth, 1997). Monitoring refers
to observing the work environment to see what oth-
ers are doing and learn from this. is is distinct from
role modeling, in which a speci c high-performing
colleague is identi ed and emulated. Research has
shown newcomer monitoring behavior to be associ-
ated with higher levels of learning in task, role, group,
and organizational domains (Ostro & Kozlowski,
1992), as well history, goals and values, language,
performance, and political areas (van der Velde et al.,
2005). In research with transferees, Callister et al.
(1999) found that greater levels of peer and supervi-
sor monitoring were associated with greater role clar-
ity, and this pattern was consistent at 1, 3, and 12
months post-transition. Other research has shown
positive correlations between monitoring and task
mastery (Saks & Ashforth, 1997) and performance
(Morrison, 1993b), although one study found no
relationship of monitoring with performance (Fedor
et al., 1992). Barring this one study, then, monitor-
ing is positively associated with understanding, role
clarity, task mastery, and performance.
Turning to measures of social integration and
attitudes toward work that are distal indicators of
socialization, monitoring behaviors by newcom-
ers are positively associated with social integration
and acculturation (Morrison, 1993a), adjustment
(Ostro & Kozlowski, 1992), job satisfaction
(Morrison, 1993b; Saks & Ashforth, 1997), orga-
nizational commitment (Saks & Ashforth, 1997;
van der Velde et al., 2005), and intention to
remain (Morrison, 1993b; Saks & Ashforth, 1997).
Intriguingly, monitoring has been positively associ-
ated with psychological and physical stress (Ostro
& Kozlowski, 1992), yet negatively with anxiety
(Saks & Ashforth, 1997). While these results seem
paradoxical, it may be that anxiety reduces the likeli-
hood of newcomers engaging in monitoring behav-
ior, but that when newcomers do monitor others
this results in greater stress . Regardless of the direc-
tion of the relationships between monitoring, anxi-
ety, and stress, monitoring has consistent rewards.
Moderating this, though, we note that successful
monitoring may often depend on the selection of
multiple coworkers and adopting the best from each
(Filstad, 2004; Gibson, 2004).
Positive framing is a positive self-management
behavior whereby the newcomer tries to see chal-
lenges as opportunities and not obstacles (Ashford
& Black, 1996). For example, the newcomer is given
a tight deadline for delivering a project. Instead of
seeing this as an impossible task, the newcomer
using positive framing would purposely perceive the
situation in a positive manner, such as seeing the
tight deadline as re ecting the supervisor’s belief in
the newcomer’s abilities to deliver under pressure.
Positive framing has shown positive relationships with
role learning (Owens, 2010) and job performance
(Ashford & Black, 1996), a negative relationship
with PO t (Kim et al., 2005), and no relationship
with role clarity (Wanberg & Kammeyer-Mueller,
2000). In terms of attitudes, higher levels of positive
framing are associated with greater social integra-
tion and job satisfaction, and lower intention to quit
(Ashford & Black, 1996; Wanberg & Kammeyer-
Mueller, 2000), although no signi cant association
with actual turnover has been found (Wanberg &
Kammeyer-Mueller, 2000). Positive framing shows
promise as a useful newcomer proactive behavior,
but clearly more research is needed.
e Consequences of Newcomer Proactive
Behaviors Aimed at Mutual Development
e relationship between the new employee and
his or her supervisor is critical to the new employee,
given that an adequate performance appraisal from
the supervisor is necessary for continued employ-
ment (Cooper- omas & Anderson, 2006). In
line with this, there is consistent evidence of posi-
tive correlations between relationship building with
one’s boss and socialization adjustment outcomes.
Boss relationship building is positively associated
with performance indicators, including task mastery
and role clarity (Gruman et al., 2006; Kammeyer-
Mueller et al., 2011; Saks et al., 2011), job and
creative performance (Ashford & Black, 1996;
Kammeyer-Mueller et al., 2011), and organizational
citizenship behavior (Kammeyer-Mueller et al.,
2011). Boss relationship building is also positively
correlated with social integration, job satisfaction,
commitment, intent to return, person–job t, and
person–organization t (Gruman et al., 2006; Saks
et al., 2011). Intriguingly, one study found a nega-
tive relationship between the quality of one’s boss
relationship and the volume of corrective feedback
given (Adams, 2005). It is unclear whether having a
good relationship requires less feedback to be given,
since perhaps this is given in other, less direct ways,
or whether the supervisor would refrain from feed-
back for fear of damaging the relationship (Levy &
Williams, 2004).
OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – FIRST-PROOF, 03/17/12, NEWGEN
Job change negotiation is a potentially risky
behavior for newcomers given that it requires going
against the ways things are currently done, even
though the newcomer may be trying to achieve a
better t for her skills and potentially a better out-
come for the organization as well. Looking at the
evidence for newcomers using this behavior, Ashford
and Black (1996) found no signi cant associations
between newcomer job change negotiation and
either job satisfaction or performance. However,
Gruman et al. (2006) found that job change nego-
tiation was positively correlated with task mastery,
role clarity, social integration, and commitment,
but was not associated with job satisfaction, intent
to return, person–job t, or person–organization t,
with similar results found by Saks et al. (2011). e
initial evidence suggests that newcomers who use
this strategy do have a clear idea of their assigned job
and have established some level of competence in it,
although given that relationships are shown from
cross-sectional data, this may occur prior to e ective
negotiation to alter the job. Interestingly, job change
negotiation is not associated with particularly high
or low levels of job satisfaction or person–job or
person–organization t, so it appears that using this
strategy does not seem to bring about these kinds of
bene ts, or at least not in the short term.
Networking has been a growing area of interest
in organizational psychology and organizational
behavior literature in general (Chiaburu & Harrison,
2008; Ibarra, Kildu , & Tsai, 2005), with a smaller
amount of research investigating this for newcomers
(Miller & Jablin, 1991; Morrison, 2002b; Settoon
& Adkins, 1997). Research has shown that network-
ing is positively associated with learning across role,
social, and organizational domains (Owens, 2010),
and also that networking is positively correlated
with social integration, job satisfaction, commit-
ment, intent to return, person–job t, and person–
organization t (Ashford & Black, 1996; Gruman
et al., 2006). Whereas Gruman et al. (2006) report
no relationship between networking and task mas-
tery or role clarity, Saks et al. (2011) report positive
relationships. Morrison (2002b) provides insights as
to how the overall size and diversity of one’s rela-
tional networks matter. Whereas a strong, dense
network is linked to task mastery and role clarity,
a large network is linked to greater organizational
knowledge among newcomers. Overall, networking
seems to be e ective for learning and tting in to
the organization at a personal and social level, as
well as o ering direct task bene ts.
Alongside networking, establishing social rela-
tionships with colleagues can help in learning
norms that in uence levels of organizational citizen-
ship behaviors (Bommer, Miles, & Grover, 2003;
Chiaburu & Harrison, 2008), as well as in uencing
role perceptions, work attitudes, e ectiveness, and
withdrawal (Chiaburu & Harrison, 2008). Looking
speci cally at newcomers, there is evidence that
socializing with colleagues is positively associated
with task-speci c and general work performance
(Adkins, 1995), role clarity (Gruman et al., 2006;
Kammeyer-Mueller et al., 2011; Saks et al., 2011;
Wanberg & Kammeyer-Mueller, 2000), task mas-
tery (Saks et al., 2011), person–job t (Gruman
et al., 2006), and organizational citizenship behavior
(Kammeyer-Mueller et al., 2011). However, other
research has found no relationship of general social-
izing with task mastery (Gruman et al., 2006) or
performance (Ashford & Black, 1996; Kammeyer-
Mueller et al., 2011). ere is more consistent
evidence that general socializing is positively associ-
ated with social integration (Gruman et al., 2006;
Saks et al., 2011; Wanberg & Kammeyer-Mueller,
2000), job satisfaction (Ashford & Black, 1996;
Gruman et al., 2006; Saks et al., 2011; Wanberg &
Kammeyer-Mueller, 2000), organizational commit-
ment (Saks et al., 2011), and both person–organiza-
tion t and intent to remain (Gruman et al., 2006;
Saks et al., 2011; Wanberg & Kammeyer-Mueller,
2000), although not actual turnover (Wanberg &
Kammeyer-Mueller, 2000). Overall, from these
results it seems that general socializing is related
more to understanding and perceiving a t with
the role and with colleagues, and only in some cases
does this facilitate understanding and performance
of both task and role elements.
:
It is intriguing that mixed evidence is found
for the e ects of some proactive behaviors. For
example, direct inquiry has shown a positive rela-
tionship with performance (Ashford & Black,
1996), no relationship (Gruman et al., 2006), and
a negative relationship (Settoon & Adkins, 1997).
Similarly, for feedback seeking, Saks et al. (2011)
found a positive relationship with task mastery yet
OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – FIRST-PROOF, 03/17/12, NEWGEN
-,
Kammeyer-Mueller et al. (2011) found a negative
relationship with the similar construct of role clarity
and Morrison (1993a) found negative relationships
of performance feedback inquiry with task mastery
and role clarity. Discrepant ndings such as these
were noted by Saks et al. (2011). ey proposed
that the missing element was proactive outcomes;
that is, the extent to which proactive behaviors had
been successful in attaining their intended aims. For
example, the discrepant results for feedback seek-
ing could be because feedback seeking primarily has
a positive relationship with outcomes such as role
clarity, and task mastery through the attainment of
feedback. While proactive outcomes had not been
measured prior to Saks et al.’s (2011) research, it is
plausible that the positive relationships of proactive
behaviors with socialization outcomes occurred when
outcomes were achieved—even though the media-
tion of proactive outcomes was not measured—and
null relationships occurred when the outcomes were
not attained.
In addition to these mediating e ects of proac-
tive outcomes, Saks et al. (2011) also proposed that
proactive outcomes have moderating e ects. at
is, while a relationship between a proactive behav-
ior and socialization outcome might be positive (or
negative), the strength of this relationship is in u-
enced by the degree to which the proactive outcome
is attained. Taking networking as an example, this
is positively associated with social integration and
job satisfaction, among other outcomes (Ashford &
Black, 1996; Gruman et al., 2006). With modera-
tion occurring, these relationships will be stronger to
the extent that networks—the proactive outcome—
have been established. Saks and colleagues found
some support for their mediation and moderation
hypotheses. Investigating six socialization outcomes,
they found full or partial mediation for ve of these
and moderation for three. ese initial results con-
rm proactive outcomes as an important theoretical
development and support their inclusion in future
research to better qualify their contribution.
Moderating e ects are not new in newcomer
research. Earlier research showed that the acces-
sibility of supervisors and colleagues (Major &
Kozlowski, 1997; Major, Kozlowski, Chao, &
Gardner, 1995) in uenced information seeking,
job satisfaction, and intention to turnover. ere is
also interesting research showing that team expec-
tations of newcomers in uence social exchanges
(Chen, 2005; Chen & Klimoski, 2003). Both antic-
ipated and actual newcomer performance, as well as
other newcomer behaviors, may in uence insiders’
reactions and receptivity to newcomer proactivity.
us, in addition to proactive outcomes other new-
comer and environmental in uences, such as col-
league accessibility and perceptions of performance,
should be considered in future research. We return
to the discussion of future research at the end of the
chapter.
e Antecedents of Newcomer
Proactive Behaviors
Having looked at the consequences of proactive
behaviors, we turn now to consider antecedents. We
divide these into three sources: those that exist in
the environment to in uence the availability of and
necessity for proactive behavior; those that stem
from insider norms, availability, or proximity to
in uence what proactive behaviors are feasible; and
newcomer individual factors that in uence whether
such employees have the personal resources and
desire to enact proactive behaviors.
Environment
e main environmental factor that organi-
zational socialization research has considered in
relation to newcomer proactive behaviors is orga-
nizational socialization tactics (Jones, 1986; Saks &
Ashforth, 1997; Van Maanen & Schein, 1979; see
also Saks and Gruman, Chapter 3 of this volume).
Organizations may either design carefully structured
“institutionalized” socialization activities, or use
unstructured “individualized” tactics (Jones, 1986;
Ashforth, Saks, & Lee, 1997). Institutionalized
tactics comprise socialization occurring for new-
comers as a group, mostly segregated from insiders
(collective and formal tactics), progressing through
a stepped program in accordance with a timetable
(sequential and xed tactics), relying on insiders as
role models and valuing the contribution of new-
comers (serial and investiture tactics; Jones, 1986).
Individualized tactics are the opposite of institu-
tionalized tactics (keeping the order as above, these
are: individual, informal, random, variable, disjunc-
tive, and divestiture).
In a theoretical model integrating organiza-
tional socialization tactics with newcomer proactive
behaviors, Gri n, Colella, and Goparaju (2000)
propose that organizational tactics in uence new-
comer behaviors in two ways. First, the tactics pro-
vide a context for proactive behaviors, inhibiting
some while enabling others, and can therefore be
considered antecedent. For example, a newcomer
cannot monitor coworkers if none are readily
observable. More speci cally, Gri n et al. (2000)
OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – FIRST-PROOF, 03/17/12, NEWGEN
propose that newcomer proactive behaviors will be
more important when the organization provides a
less structured individualized experience, because
the newcomer has to gure things out for himself
or herself. Second, Gri n et al. (2000) suggest
that organizational socialization tactics moderate
the relationships between proactive behaviors and
socialization outcomes, either increasing or limit-
ing the success of such behaviors. For example, they
suggest that when the organization uses random and
variable tactics, the relationship between socially
oriented proactive behaviors, such as relationship
building, networking, and general socializing, will
be more strongly associated with socialization out-
comes. is is because the lack of guidance from the
organization will make these informal social sources
more important. E ectively, Gri n et al. (2000)
argue that some proactive behaviors can replace the
lack of structure from individualized organizational
socialization tactics.
Several studies have used an aggregated measure
of organizational tactics, providing a broad view of
the relationship of tactics with proactive behaviors.
Institutionalized socialization tactics by the organi-
zation have been associated with higher levels of pro-
active behavior in aggregate (Ashforth et al., 2007).
Further, institutionalized tactics are positively asso-
ciated with feedback seeking and general socializing,
as well as job change negotiation, boss relationship
building, and information seeking, but not net-
working (Gruman et al., 2006; Kim et al., 2005).
Evidence has also been found for a mediating e ect,
with institutionalized tactics predicting proactive
behaviors and these in turn predicting outcomes.
us, Gruman and colleagues (2006) found that,
beyond the variance predicted by institutionalized
tactics, the proactive behaviors of feedback seek-
ing, general socializing, boss relationship building,
information seeking, and job change negotiation
(negative) predicted additional variance in a range
of socialization outcomes, such as social integration
and job satisfaction. Hence, proactive behaviors
remain important for newcomers to achieve posi-
tive adjustment even when organizations provide a
structured socialization program. In research inves-
tigating the independent e ects of newcomer infor-
mation seeking and institutionalized socialization on
proximal adjustment outcomes, both information
seeking and institutionalized tactics predicted role
clarity and social acceptance (Bauer et al., 2007).
In contrast to the antecedent approach, Kim
et al. (2005) investigated the potential moderat-
ing e ects of organizational socialization tactics on
newcomer proactive behaviors in the prediction of
PO t. Of six interactions they examined, three
were signi cant. Speci cally, when the organiza-
tion used institutionalized tactics, and newcomers
used higher levels of general socializing and positive
framing, these behaviors increased the positive rela-
tionship between institutionalized socialization tac-
tics and PO t. at is, the two behaviors of general
socializing and positive framing both served to rein-
force the positive associations of institutionalized
socialization tactics with PO t. However, there was
a negative interaction for a third behavior of boss
relationship building. For newcomers who worked
to build a good relationship with their bosses, the
organization’s socialization tactics had no impact,
whereas institutionalized socialization tactics were a
signi cant predictor of PO t for those newcomers
who did not try to build a good relationship with
their bosses.
Other researchers have investigated organiza-
tional tactics at a more detailed level, with mixed
results. Looking rst at the collective tactic, some
researchers have found that this tactic is associated
with greater use of monitoring (Miller, 1996; Saks
& Ashforth, 1997), as well as indirect questions and
questions to third parties (Miller, 1996). In one
study, collective socialization has been associated
with greater feedback seeking (Saks & Ashforth,
1997), although another study found no such rela-
tionship (Morrison, Chen, & Salgado, 2004). Serial
and investiture tactics were positively associated
with both feedback and monitoring across a range
of sources in one study (Saks & Ashforth, 1997),
although other research has found only minimal rela-
tionships of serial and investiture tactics with new-
comer proactive behaviors (Miller, 1996). Formal
tactics have also not shown signi cant relationships
with newcomer proactive behaviors (Morrison et
al., 2004). One possible reason for the more mixed
evidence when looking at individual tactics is that
some of these have examined more covert proac-
tive behaviors, such as indirect questions and asking
third parties. It is plausible that such behaviors stem
more from individual di erences than from envi-
ronmental factors.
Overall, the evidence for positive association of
organizational socialization tactics with newcomer
proactive behavior is stronger at the aggregate, insti-
tutionalized level. It may be that, in general, struc-
tured socialization programs are associated with
greater proactive behavior. It is logical that struc-
tured programs provide greater opportunities for
the proactive behaviors that we de ne in the mutual
OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – FIRST-PROOF, 03/17/12, NEWGEN
-,
development category (see Table 4.1), such as rela-
tionship building or seeking feedback, because there
are sources for these behaviors. Moreover, by pro-
viding clear performance standards and a timetable
for achieving these, institutionalized tactics may
motivate self-change proactive behaviors such as
information seeking and feedback seeking. In con-
trast, institutionalized tactics may inhibit proactive
behaviors aimed at changing the role or environ-
ment, since these could violate norms.
A small number of other environmental factors
have been considered in research on newcomer pro-
active behaviors. Kim et al. (2005) found that orga-
nizational size was positively associated with ve of
six proactive behaviors they measured: feedback
seeking, information seeking, general socializing,
boss relationship building, and networking. us,
newcomers entering large organizations were more
likely to behave proactively. Size was correlated
at .29 with institutionalized tactics, and became
nonsigni cant in predicting PO t when these tac-
tics were entered. Moreover, size and institutional-
ized tactics showed fairly similar relationships with
proactive behaviors with the exception of network-
ing, which was only signi cantly correlated with
size. It makes sense that larger organizations are
more likely to use institutionalized socialization
tactics, as they have the resources to make struc-
tured programs cost-e ective. However, given the
result for networking, it may be that organizational
size also o ers additional opportunities for proac-
tive behaviors.
One other environmental factor that has been
little considered is the riskiness of the environment
for the newcomer and his or her colleagues. Holder
(1996) cites an interviewee who noted that if she
was uncertain, then she needed to ask questions
directly and immediately because, “if I don’t have the
right information, someone might be electrocuted!”
(p. 20). It may be that newcomers use proactive
behaviors more when the newcomer’s performance
is vital to a safe working environment or another
critical outcome for the organization (Cooper-
omas & Wilson, 2011).
Insiders
e seminal work of Louis, Posner, and Powell
(1983) introduced the idea that organizational
insiders might be di erentially useful to newcom-
ers. ey found that newcomers rated peers, senior
coworkers, and supervisors as the most available and
helpful sources for adjustment. Subsequent research
has investigated the relative use and bene ts of
di erent information sources for newcomers
(Cooper- omas, 2009).
Comparing di erent sources, some research has
found that supervisors and coworkers are approxi-
mately equally used by newcomers when monitor-
ing or experimenting for task and role information,
although coworkers are preferred for information
about the work group (Ostro & Kozlowski, 1992)
and technical information with respect to newcom-
ers’ jobs (Chan & Schmitt, 2000). Other research
has shown that newcomers use direct inquiry of
supervisors more for task and performance infor-
mation, yet use direct inquiry of peers for social and
normative information (Morrison, 1993b). Looking
only at newcomer behaviors and not their goals,
Teboul (1994) found a slight preference among
newcomers to behave proactively toward cowork-
ers rather than supervisors for strategies including
direct inquiry, testing, and monitoring, although
both sources were preferred to subordinates. e
evidence is mixed, but suggests a slight preference
for newcomers to behave proactively toward super-
visors for role and performance information, and
toward coworkers for social, technical, and cultural
information. is suggests that newcomers are stra-
tegic in their patterns of information seeking: on
the one hand, they may seek to maximize the ben-
e ts of gaining information in terms of both their
own learning and other potential upsides, such as
positive impression management. Equally, they may
aim to minimize costs, such as the e ort and time
required, and potential personal embarrassment
(Morrison, 2002a; Morrison & Vancouver, 2000).
e costs of proactive behaviors provide a useful
lens for examining the role of insiders in newcomer
proactive behavior. e potential costs of proactive
behaviors have been investigated in two ways. First,
costs have been examined indirectly through vari-
ables such as task interdependence and availability.
Insider sources vary in their task interdependence
with, and availability to, newcomers, in turn mak-
ing the appropriate context for a proactive behavior
more or less accessible, which in turn incurs greater
costs for behaving proactively. Second, costs have
been explored directly through asking newcomers
about the social and personal—or ego—costs of
di erent behaviors. In such research, newcomers
are asked to rate whether a certain behavior might
be viewed negatively by colleagues or be personally
embarrassing.
Looking rst at what we suggest are variables
that indirectly re ect costs, few meaningful di er-
ences have been found for availability. Neither the
OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – FIRST-PROOF, 03/17/12, NEWGEN
availability of di erent insider sources (Louis et al.,
1983; Miller, 1996) nor accessibility have been asso-
ciated with information seeking behaviors (Major &
Kozlowski, 1997). However, task interdependence
and opportunity to interact have been consistently
associated with newcomer proactive behaviors. Task
interdependence has been positively associated with
information seeking (Major & Kozlowski, 1997),
feedback seeking, and boss relationship building,
but not general socializing (Kammeyer-Mueller et
al., 2011). Opportunity to interact has been posi-
tively associated with information seeking, feed-
back seeking, and relationship building behaviors
(Wanberg & Kammeyer-Mueller, 2000). We sug-
gest that the di erence is between passive availabil-
ity and active opportunities to interact, in that when
the work context a ords or supports interaction this
reduces the costs to the newcomer of behaving pro-
actively. ey do not have to engineer the context
or initiate an interaction because these are already
naturally occurring.
Turning to research that measures the costs of
proactive behaviors directly, in his experimental
study with newcomers Miller (1996) found little
evidence for di erent costs across insider sources.
Note that Miller’s (1996) measure of social costs also
includes ego costs such as personal embarrassment.
Newcomers who were more aware of social and ego
costs were less likely to use direct inquiry and more
likely to use covert behaviors such as monitoring,
asking indirect questions, and asking third parties.
Similar results were found by Holder (1996) in an
investigation of newcomer women in nontradi-
tional blue collar jobs. She found that newcomers
who reported higher levels of social costs at a gen-
eral level were more likely to ask indirect questions
or ask a third party, and were less likely to directly
inquire for information. A similar pattern was found
for uncertainty and, in addition, these female new-
comers showed greater use of monitoring, a covert
strategy. Finally, Fedor and colleagues (1992) found
that perceived costs of seeking feedback were nega-
tively associated with actively inquiring for feedback
and monitoring for feedback. Overall, the more
newcomers perceive that being proactive will incur
social and ego costs, the more they choose less obvi-
ous, lower-cost proactive behaviors.
Some research has also looked at attributes and
behaviors of insiders and the associations of these
with newcomer proactive behavior. Bauer and Green
(1998) investigated the behaviors of newcomers’
managers and found that neither manager clarifying
nor manager supportive behaviors interacted with
newcomer information seeking (task or social) to
predict socialization adjustment. Taking a broader
approach, Kammeyer-Mueller et al. (2011) investi-
gated the similarities between newcomers and their
workgroups. ey found that newcomers who were
similar to their workgroup in education showed
greater relationship building, while newcomers who
were similar in gender showed greater boss relation-
ship building. Intriguingly, newcomers more simi-
lar to the workgroup in age showed less feedback
seeking and boss relationship building. Kammeyer-
Mueller and colleagues (2011) explain this nega-
tive relationship by suggesting that age may act as
a proxy for experience or di erent skills, and there-
fore newcomers may consider they will gain more
from coworkers of dissimilar age. Overall, then,
demographic similarities and behavioral support
from insiders do not necessarily act to promote
newcomer proactive behavior.
A related experimental study is worth mention-
ing here because it o ers interesting possibilities
for reciprocal e ects. In a study investigating reac-
tions to various scenarios outlining protégé proac-
tive behavior, omas, Hu, Gewin, Bingham, and
Yanchus (2005) found that respondents were more
willing to peer mentor students who were portrayed
as proactive. A similar result could occur for new-
comers, with newcomers who demonstrate proac-
tive behavior receiving more support from insiders
in return. is is an interesting avenue for future
research. Furthermore, it may be that newcomer
proactive behavior is reciprocated in di erent
ways, according to insiders’ individual and collec-
tive attributes, and does not always garner support.
ree possibilities are rst, that newcomer proactive
behaviors might be reciprocated in kind by insid-
ers; for example, both parties work at facilitating
direct inquiry. Second, it is possible that newcomer
behaviors are viewed as su cient and hence lead to
less activity from insiders; so for instance, newcom-
ers’ direct inquiry is viewed as su cient to estab-
lish a good understanding of the role, and insiders
consider that no further action is needed. A third
scenario is that insiders take a negative view of new-
comer proactivity as either unnecessary or disrup-
tive, and work to negate its e ects. In this scenario,
we would anticipate that insiders show a low level
of proactive behavior regardless of newcomers’ pro-
activity. An example of this would be the newcomer
asking direct questions and insiders reciprocating
with incorrect information. While this third sce-
nario does not t with omas et al.’s (2005) nd-
ing that potential mentors prefer proactive protégés,
OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – FIRST-PROOF, 03/17/12, NEWGEN
-,
there is evidence that not all proactive behavior is
bene cial (Bateman & Crant, 1993). Drawing on
this, it seems plausible that not all newcomer proac-
tive behavior will be met with a positive response.
Indeed, Grant and Ashford (2008) o er the inter-
esting idea that insiders evaluate the perceived indi-
vidual or organizational bene t of a newcomer’s
proactive e orts, and o er reward or punishment
reinforcers accordingly.
Newcomers
A number of newcomer demographic variables
have been investigated in relation to proactive behav-
ior. In the main, no relationships have been found
for age (Ashforth et al., 2007; Kammeyer-Mueller
et al., 2011), gender (Ashforth et al., 2007; Bauer
& Green, 1998; Kammeyer-Mueller et al., 2011),
ethnicity (Ashforth et al., 2007), academic major
(Ashforth et al., 2007), type of job (Bauer & Green,
1998), salary (Bauer & Green, 1998), or work expe-
rience (Adkins, 1995; Ashforth et al., 2007; Bauer
& Green, 1998; Wanberg & Kammeyer-Mueller,
2000). e few results that contrast with these are for
work experience, tenure, and gender. In qualitative
research, Beyer and Hannah (2002) found that there
was a bene t of having work experience. Speci cally,
experienced new employees drew on a wider variety
of personal tactics, including information seeking,
goal setting, learning by doing or experimenting,
and avoiding con ict. Notably, some of the experi-
enced new employees in Beyer and Hannah’s (2002)
interviews talked of these behaviors as being ones
that they had used before to adjust to new settings,
suggesting that these are particularly successful strat-
egies. Similarly, Major and Kozlowski (1997) found
that for cooperative students, the number of previous
internships was positively related to a broad infor-
mation seeking measure. For tenure, Smith (1993,
as cited in Chan & Schmitt, 2000) found a negative
relationship between tenure and technical informa-
tion seeking, although other research has found no
e ect of tenure on task or social information seeking
(Bauer & Green, 1998). For gender and age, Kim et
al. (2005) found that these were positively associated
with some proactive behaviors. Newcomers who
were male or older were more likely to use general
socializing and networking, although Morrison et al.
(2004) found that women were more likely to seek
feedback, while Wanberg and Kammeyer-Mueller
(2000) found that newcomers’ age was related to
positive framing only.
A nal demographic variable worth mentioning
is job skill level, which may be a proxy for education.
Wanberg and Kammeyer-Mueller (2000) found that
the skill level of newcomers’ new jobs was positively
associated with all four proactive behaviors inves-
tigated (relationship building, information seeking,
feedback seeking, and positive framing). Assuming
that skill level is positively correlated with cognitive
ability, Wanberg and Kammeyer-Mueller’s (2000)
nding ts with Parker et al.’s (2010) suggestion
that those with greater cognitive ability will set
more proactive goals and nd various ways to work
toward them.
Various personality variables have also been con-
sidered. Ashford and Black (1996) proposed that
desire for control would be associated with new-
comers aiming to reduce their uncertainty through
greater use of proactive behaviors. In line with this,
they found that desire for control was positively
associated with job change negotiation, informa-
tion seeking, positive framing, general socializing,
and networking. Other researchers have directly
measured uncertainty, anxiety, or tolerance for
ambiguity as predictors of proactive behavior. ey
have found negative relationships between tolerance
for ambiguity with inquiring and monitoring for
feedback (Fedor et al., 1992); positive relationships
between uncertainty and more covert proactive
behaviors of monitoring, asking indirect and third
party questions (Holder, 1996); a negative relation-
ship of uncertainty with direct inquiry (Holder,
1996); and negative relationships of anxiety with
feedback seeking and monitoring (Saks & Ashforth,
1997). From these varying results, it seems that
newcomers who have a strong motivation to under-
stand the situation, because of their individual dif-
ferences, are more likely to behave proactively to get
their needs met. However, newcomers who are anx-
ious or uncertain will be more cautious in choosing
which proactive behaviors to engage in.
A number of studies have investigated the role
of self-e cacy in predicting newcomer proactive
behavior (Gruman et al., 2006; Major & Kozlowski,
1997), which mirrors research on this relation-
ship for employees in general (Brown, Ganesan,
& Challagalla, 2001; Morrison & Phelps, 1999;
Parker, Williams, & Turner, 2006). Parker (1998,
2000) developed the notion of role breadth self-e -
cacy as an indicator of proactive motivation, on the
basis that employees need to feel capable of enact-
ing behaviors that go beyond the narrow technical
requirements of their jobs. ese ideas t well for
new employees, where the initial period of adjust-
ment may require both quantitatively and qualita-
tively more proactive behavior than is necessary once
OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – FIRST-PROOF, 03/17/12, NEWGEN
employees have become insiders. Hence, we would
expect self-e cacy to predict proactive behavior for
newcomers. is has been con rmed, with Gruman
and colleagues (2006) nding a positive relation-
ship of self-e cacy with feedback seeking, general
socializing, networking, boss relationship build-
ing, and information seeking, but not job change
negotiation (see also Filstad, 2004). Ohly and Fritz
(2007) found that role-based self-e cacy was the
only motivational variable to contribute to team
ratings of proactive behavior, while Major and
Kozlowski (1997) found that self-e cacy was not
directly related with a broad measure of information
seeking, but anticipated moderating e ects were
found. Speci cally, they found a three-way interac-
tion of self-e cacy with accessibility and task inter-
dependence, such that low self-e cacy newcomers
reported greater information seeking when they
had high task interdependence and high accessibil-
ity, and to a lesser extent when they had high task
interdependence and low accessibility. Major and
Kozlowski (1997) propose that this is because high
task interdependence and accessibility reduced the
perceived costs of information seeking. Practically,
it means that newcomers with low self-e cacy
may bene t most from environmental factors that
reduce costs and support proactive behavior. It is
also worth noting that the limited research to date
suggests that the bene t to newcomers is speci cally
around self-e cacy rather than core self-evaluations
more broadly (Judge, Bono, Erez, & Locke, 2005).
Speci cally, Fedor et al. (1992) found that self-
esteem was not associated with either inquiring or
monitoring for feedback.
Several studies have con rmed the role of cer-
tain “Big Five” personality factors and the proac-
tive behaviors of newcomers, with extroversion
and openness to experience the more important
predictors of such behaviors (Kammeyer-Mueller
et al., 2011; Wanberg & Kammeyer-Mueller, 2000).
e results of these two studies are reasonably simi-
lar. Openness to experience and extroversion were
associated with greater feedback seeking, general
socializing, and positive framing, with extroversion
also associated with greater boss relationship build-
ing (Kammeyer-Mueller et al., 2011; Wanberg &
Kammeyer-Mueller, 2000). In addition, neuroti-
cism was associated with lower levels of—and con-
scientiousness with higher levels of—relationship
building and positive framing (Kammeyer-Mueller
et al., 2011; Wanberg & Kammeyer-Mueller,
2000). Together, these results con rm that Big Five
personality factors are important in in uencing
how newcomers will attempt to direct their own
adjustment.
e remaining studies investigating the role of
personality in predicting proactive behavior have
chosen a range of di erent predictors. While these
results initially seem quite piecemeal, there are
some underlying common threads that we come
to shortly. Considering both positive and negative
a ectivity, Ashforth et al. (2007) showed that posi-
tive a ectivity was associated with higher levels of
proactive behavior and negative a ectivity associ-
ated with lower levels of proactive behavior. is ts
with Parker et al.’s (2010) research suggesting that
activated positive a ect is a necessary antecedent of
proactive behavior. Parker and colleagues (2010)
suggest that positive a ect drives intrinsic motiva-
tion and consequently causes people to feel more
driven to achieve their goals. For newcomers, many
of these goals relate to tting in and performing
in the new work context, hence intrinsic motiva-
tion will stimulate proactive behaviors toward these
goals. In research comparing US and Hong Kong
Chinese employees, Morrison et al. (2004) found
that women, US employees, and those higher
in self-assertiveness and lower in power-distance
were more likely to seek feedback. Morrison and
Vancouver (2000) found that newcomers with a
higher need for achievement adapted their proac-
tive behaviors according to expertise source. Finally,
drawing from her qualitative research with real
estate agents, Filstad (2004) deduced that new-
comer individual di erences of expectations, expe-
rience, self-con dence, and competitive instinct are
important in determining how well newcomers are
able to interact with and observe role models, and
use these to develop their own ways of behaving.
Reviewing newcomer individual factors as ante-
cedents of proactive behavior, there are surprisingly
few relationships supporting the role of sociodemo-
graphic variables in predicting proactive behaviors.
e most promising to follow up on are age, work
experience, and tenure. Age and work experience
often correlate; there is evidence that older work-
ers are happier at work (Clark, Oswald, & Warr,
1996), which ts with their greater positive framing
(Wanberg & Kammeyer-Mueller, 2000). is may
be due to the greater satisfaction they experience
from personal relationships, hence older workers’
higher use of networking and general socializing
(Kim et al., 2005). Given the aging of the work-
force in many developed countries (OECD, 2006;
Statistics New Zealand, 2010), it is good news that
older workers are more willing to use some proactive
OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – FIRST-PROOF, 03/17/12, NEWGEN
-,
behaviors that can help them adjust into new roles.
For work experience, Beyer and Hannah (2002)
found that experienced workers used a wider vari-
ety of strategies. It is also possible that new employ-
ees with more work experience will be able to use
proactive behaviors more e ectively. For example,
they may not network more than newcomers with
less work experience, but they may make more use-
ful network links (Morrison, 2002b). It is equally
plausible that the seasoned newcomer may actually
be less motivated to engage in proactive e ort. For
example, they may have used their prior experience
to move to an organization where they have a high
degree of natural t (Carr, Pearson, Vest, & Boyar,
2006). e relative merit of both arguments is fer-
tile ground for future research. We suggest, also,
that there may be an interesting di erence between
work experience in general and transition experi-
ence in particular, with the latter conferring greater
bene ts for the newcomer in providing knowledge
as to which proactive behaviors are most e ective.
In contrast to research on sociodemographic fac-
tors, there is more consistent evidence for the role
of personality variables as antecedents of newcomer
proactive behavior. Newcomers are more likely to
behave proactively if they have greater con dence
in their abilities (i.e., higher self-e cacy); lower tol-
erance for uncertainty or ambiguity; greater need
for achievement, need for control, competitiveness,
or goal-focus (e.g., conscientiousness); and if they
are open to experience and extroverted. Conversely,
newcomers are less likely to behave proactively when
they have higher anxiety or neuroticism, negative
a ect, or have a higher power-distance.
Longitudinal Patterns of Change in
Newcomer Proactive Behavior
Newcomers may vary their proactive behaviors
over time, using speci c behavior at appropri-
ate times toward achieving certain outcomes. For
example, a newcomer might use general socializing
early on to develop a broad set of social contacts and
later on might use networking to target speci c rela-
tionships. Early research by Ashford (1986) showed
intriguing results. She found that employees sought
less feedback information by inquiry and monitor-
ing as their tenure increased, yet continued to place
a similar value on feedback. us, even though feed-
back was seen as equally valuable by “less new” new-
comers, they sought it less. Ashford (1986) suggested
that with greater tenure the social costs of seeking
feedback are greater, and this deters employees from
seeking it. ere are various interesting avenues of
research that may follow from this—such as what
factors in uence newcomers to be more or less sen-
sitive to the costs of proactive behaviors, including
individual and environmental factors; and which
behaviors themselves are, in general, viewed as more
or less costly. Subsequent research has not investi-
gated these issues, but instead has allowed an accu-
mulation of evidence on how proactive behaviors
vary over the entry period.
In a detailed longitudinal study, Morrison (1993b)
investigated newcomer information seeking for ve
types of information. In general, she found that
newcomers’ levels of information seeking were rela-
tively stable, although over time, newcomers sought
technical (i.e., task) information less but referent
(i.e., role) information more. Morrison (1993b) sug-
gested that the 6-month time frame she used might
be too short. Callister, Kramer, and Turban (1999)
also found relative stability in information seeking
over a 1-year period post-entry, with supervisor
inquiry, supervisor monitoring, and peer monitor-
ing showing no change and peer inquiry reducing.
Building on Morrison’s (1993b) ndings, Chan and
Schmitt (2000) found that newcomers continued to
seek technical information from their supervisors at
a stable rate, yet sought referent information from
supervisors at an increasing rate. Newcomers sought
technical information from coworkers less over
time, yet reference information at a constant level.
Intriguingly, whereas Morrison (1993b) had pro-
posed that technical information seeking decreased
due to task mastery, Chan and Schmitt (2000) were
able to negate this suggestion. Speci cally, they
looked at rates of change for technical information
seeking and task mastery and found that only the
former showed individual change over time. us,
the reduction in technical information seeking from
coworkers must be due to reasons other than task
mastery. is ts with Ashford’s (1986) suggestion
regarding costs; in particular, social and performance
costs should be considered here as potential mecha-
nisms a ecting information seeking (Ashford, 1986;
Cooper- omas & Wilson, 2007, 2011; Miller &
Jablin, 1991).
Looking at tenure, Wanberg and Kammeyer-
Mueller (2000) found a positive association between
days employed and general socializing, showing
that as newcomers had longer tenure they engaged
in more general socializing. Interestingly, days
employed was not associated with three other pro-
active behaviors of information seeking, feedback
seeking, and positive framing, indicating relative
stability in these. Wanberg and Kammeyer-Mueller
OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – FIRST-PROOF, 03/17/12, NEWGEN
(2000) suggest that the result for general socializ-
ing may be because newcomers initially can rely on
others to perform introductions and help them in
building networks, but subsequently insiders feel
they have done their duty and leave newcomers to
take over responsibility for building relationships
themselves.
At a more immediate level, daily changes in the
amount of proactive e ort an employee engages in
may also be due to simply not having enough men-
tal resources available, particularly if the employee
is still recovering from the work stressors and work
demands of the previous day. To perceive opportu-
nities for, and to persist in, proactive e ort requires
the employee to be working at an optimal mental
state (Sonnentag, 2003).
In summary, it seems that newcomer behaviors
relating to role or performance information may
be more sensitive to cost concerns, as well as dis-
positional factors. Hence, newcomers may either
decrease these behaviors over time or switch to more
covert proactive behaviors, such as monitoring or
indirect questions, which have lower social costs
and require less emotional e ort.
Can Proactive Behaviors be Maladaptive
for Newcomers or eir Organizations?
In research that has investigated proactive
behaviors broadly (as opposed to focusing solely on
organizational socialization), such behaviors have
been depicted as useful, supporting important and
positive individual and organizational outcomes
(Grant & Ashford, 2008), including career suc-
cess (Erdogan & Bauer, 2005; Seibert et al., 1999),
creativity and innovation (Kim et al., 2009; Seibert
et al., 2001), and performance (Chan, 2006; Crant,
1995; omas, Whitman, & Viswesvaran, 2010).
To a large extent, similar positive associations of
proactive behaviors with important outcomes are
found in the organizational socialization literature
(Ashford & Black, 1996; Gruman et al., 2006; Saks
et al., 2011). Yet, not all proactive behavior to out-
come relationships have been positive; some ndings
have been mixed and, more occasionally, proactive
behaviors have been associated with negative out-
comes (see above section, “ e Consequences of
Newcomer Proactive Behaviors”). We delve into
possible explanations for the mixed ndings in the
section below (see “Future Research Directions”).
Here, we examine the potential downsides of this
enthusiasm for greater employee proactivity. In par-
ticular, the risks of proactive behavior have been
outlined by Campbell (2000), who suggests that
the evolution of the employee role toward a more
proactive stance blurs the boundary between man-
ager and employee. Campbell notes that employ-
ees are being encouraged to take risks and to even
defy superiors (Stewart, 1996, as cited in Campbell,
2000). While this sounds bold, irreverent, and pos-
sibly fun, it poses risks for organizations (Campbell,
2000) and newcomers, and we explore the perils for
each of these next.
Risks of Newcomer Proactive
Behavior for Organizations
First, looking at the three categories of proactive
behaviors for newcomers outlined in Table 4.1 (see
above), behaviors in the rst column of change role
or environment pose the most risk for organiza-
tions. Speci cally, newcomers may try to in uence
the organization to provide a role that allows them a
better t or gives greater credence to their abilities,
enabling newcomers to take on an expert role or
delegate aspects of their role to others. Such behav-
ior may in some cases be highly adaptive, allowing
new employees to adjust their roles in ways that
enable them to better use their skills for the bene t
of the organization. Yet, we argue that there may
be situations where newcomers are focused on self-
interested ends, using strategies such as minimizing
new tasks to boost performance (Cooper- omas
et al., 2011) or proactive self-handicapping in order
to set low expectations (Grant & Ashford, 2008),
regardless of the organization’s needs. A more minor
risk is posed by the behaviors in the second column,
where new employees may try to change themselves
in ways they think are appropriate, but which actu-
ally reduce their contribution to the organization.
For example, newcomers who rely too much on
information and feedback from insiders may change
themselves from having complementary to supple-
mentary t with colleagues, reducing their value to
the organization (Jansen & Kristof-Brown, 2005).
Behaviors in the third column of mutual develop-
ment are the least risky, as organizational insiders
will provide norms to newcomers to help ensure
that newcomers stay on track; and since it is more
a two-way process, newcomers are less likely to
change themselves radically.
Second, research consistently shows that insti-
tutionalized socialization tactics reduce the need
for some types of proactive behavior (Gri n et al.,
2000) and yield positive outcomes such as learn-
ing, social integration, job satisfaction, organiza-
tional commitment, performance, and intention
to remain (Bauer et al., 2007; Saks & Ashforth,
OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – FIRST-PROOF, 03/17/12, NEWGEN
-,
1997). In contrast, individualized socialization tac-
tics are associated with greater role con ict and role
ambiguity, anxiety, and intent to quit (Jones, 1986;
Saks & Ashforth, 1997). is shows that neglect-
ing to provide a structured socialization experience,
and expecting newcomers to behave proactively
to ll the void, is a risky strategy. Indeed, Kim
et al.’s (2005) research intriguingly shows that
some proactive behaviors can complement institu-
tionalized organizational socialization practices in
achieving positive outcomes (i.e., positive framing
and general socializing), whereas others appeared
to substitute for institutionalized tactics (i.e., rela-
tionship building with boss). Early research by Van
Maanen (1973) with rookie police o cers hints at
similar substitution results, where new employees
were encouraged by their buddies to ignore their
extensive training and take a more individualized
approach to their work. However, Burke (2009)
found that an institutionalized environment might
actually propel newcomers into self-directed activ-
ity, and signal to newcomers that they are valued
organizational members who have an “important,
meaningful, e ectual and worthwhile” role to play
(Pierce, Gardner, Cummings, & Dunham, 1989,
p. 625). us, while the relationships between insti-
tutionalized socialization tactics and newcomer pro-
active behaviors need to be explored further, it is
risky to assume that either reducing structured orga-
nizational socialization tactics or leaving newcomers
to gure things out for themselves will encourage
greater proactive behavior and help achieve posi-
tive outcomes. Newcomer proactivity may come
at the expense of organizational tactics (Kim et al.,
2005). We suggest that, at a minimum, organiza-
tions should consider which structured elements are
most important for socializing new employees in
their speci c context, and continue to provide those
resources. Practically, it also suggests that employers
need to design the right mix of socializing elements
to retain high-performing employees at di erent
stages in their careers, but to guard against employ-
ees becoming so fully embedded into an organi-
zation that it sti es innovation (Ng & Feldman,
2007).
Related to this, Bolino, Valcea, and Harvey
(2010) raise the issue that organizations may come
to depend on new employee proactivity. As new
employees successfully manage their own socializa-
tion, the organization may happily reduce invest-
ment in organizational socialization, orientation, or
onboarding programs. Yet, given that greater pro-
activity is associated with career initiative (Seibert
et al., 2001), it may be that these new employees,
while productive for the time that they stay with
the organization, are more likely to leave. is could
become a vicious cycle for organizations, in that the
very behaviors that they nd useful in improving
individual performance and, in turn, organizational
performance, are also those attributes that make
their employees more marketable and could con-
tribute to increased turnover. As well as the ongoing
loss of organizational knowledge, it may be that the
organization is unable to replace these employees
with newcomers who are either inclined or can be
trained to be proactive. Hence, it may be risky to
rely on employee proactivity in general, and new
employee proactivity in particular.
Risks of Proactive Behavior for Newcomers
Turning to look at the risks of proactive behav-
ior for newcomers, the feedback seeking literature
notes a range of costs for behaving proactively,
including social, performance, and personal (ego)
costs (Ashford, 1986; Ashford & Cummings, 1983;
Ashford et al., 2003; Morrison & Bies, 1991). ese
costs have been picked up in the newcomer litera-
ture, also (Cooper- omas & Wilson, 2007, 2011;
Fedor et al., 1992; Miller & Jablin, 1991). Social
costs refer to the impression-management risks of
behaving proactively: new colleagues may view the
proactive newcomer in negative ways, such as being
pushy or else weak and uncertain. Performance
costs refer to the time and e ort required to behave
proactively and interpret any results or information
discovered. Personal costs comprise any embarrass-
ment or loss of face. us, newcomers who do decide
to behave proactively may incur a range of social,
performance, and personal costs that may o set or
even result in a negative return on their e orts. For
example, a newcomer who works hard to establish
a network may achieve his or her desired outcome
of making a range of useful contacts, but inevitably
this behavior will incur some costs. For example, if
the newcomer is seen by her new contacts as pushy,
those contacts may make no attempts to provide
useful information to the newcomer. Even worse,
these new contacts may badmouth the newcomer
to others as being pushy or overly ambitious. ese
examples show neutral or even negative returns on
the initial behavioral investments (costs) of the new-
comer. Bolino et al. (2010) also note that proactive
behavior may result in more work for colleagues. In
the case of newcomers, this may be viewed as rock-
ing the boat and disrupting accepted performance
standards such as average productivity (Bolino
OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – FIRST-PROOF, 03/17/12, NEWGEN
et al., 2010; Jansen & Kristof-Brown, 2005). Beyond
this, insiders may structure the environment to try
and restrict proactive behavior, which in turn may
be stressful for proactive newcomers (Bolino et al.,
2010).
A second issue is the uncertainty that newcom-
ers face, whereby being proactive in a relatively
unknown environment adds extra strain at a time
when new employees already have to overcome the
stress of the adjustment period (Bolino et al., 2010;
Fisher, 1985; Saks & Ashforth, 1996; Wanous,
1992). Bolino et al. (2010) suggest that this stress is
due to the depletion of resources incurred by behav-
ing proactively, which relates to the costs literature
referenced above. Such resources may include indi-
vidual skills, traits, or ability to judge situations
(Bolino et al., 2010; Chan, 2006), or job charac-
teristics such as autonomy and challenge (Grant
& Ashford, 2008; Parker et al., 2006). Bolino and
colleagues (2010) suggest that employees who lack
the resources to be proactive will nd the require-
ment to behave proactively more stressful. For new
employees in the already stressful situation of having
to learn their new roles and gure out how they t
in to their new organization, any additional require-
ments to behave proactively may cause unnecessary
strain.
Can the Risks of Proactive
Behaviors be Mitigated?
For organizations, Campbell (2000) suggests
four approaches that may help resolve what he calls
the initiative paradox, whereby organizations want
their employees to be proactive yet need to ensure
that this bene ts the organization. e rst solution
is goal alignment, which he suggests can be achieved
through communicating the organization’s core val-
ues consistently, and especially during selection and
socialization. is ts with socialization being inte-
grated with the selection process (Anderson, 2001),
such that employees coming into the organization
know up front what kinds of proactive behaviors are
valued. e second solution is clear communication
of boundaries, to ensure that employees are clear as
to the circumstances when initiative is welcomed.
A good example here would be the newcomer’s
supervisor discussing the newcomer’s role, and clari-
fying those elements of the role that are xed versus
elements where there is exibility to allow a proac-
tive approach. ird, good information sharing and
trust help to establish shared interpretations of situ-
ations, and hence similar judgments. Information
sharing and trust rely on the establishment of
positive relationships and this may be an outcome
of socially oriented proactive behaviors, such as
general socializing and boss relationship building.
Given the importance of developing shared inter-
pretations, in this solution the onus is equally on
the organization and the newcomer to develop con-
structive working relationships. e fourth solution,
of dynamic accountability, is e ectively leaving the
risk with employees and merely making it clear that
independent action is welcome but mistakes are
made at the employee’s own peril. is ts with pro-
active behaviors in the change role or environment
category (see Table 4.1), such as experimenting,
testing limits, and action and feedback. As we noted
above, there is research showing that newcomers use
such behaviors but there is minimal investigation
as to their e ects. It is plausible that newcomers
recognize the greater risks of these experimenting
behaviors and therefore use them more judiciously
(Cooper- omas & Wilson, 2011).
Overall, the solutions suggested by Campbell
(2000) have a negative tone that is discordant with
the predominantly positive ndings associated with
proactive behavior. us, while it is useful to iden-
tify and manage potential risks, this should not dis-
courage organizations or employees from aiming to
increase the use of appropriate proactive behaviors.
In line with this, there is evidence from a study by
Saks and Ashforth (1996) that new employees who
are proactive through a range of self-management
behaviors (e.g., self–goal setting, self-observation)
can bene t both the newcomers and the organi-
zation. Relationships with these self-management
behaviors include lower anxiety and greater ability
to cope, and greater internal motivation. Taking this
further, one solution that seems to hold considerable
promise is that of organizations providing support
to newcomers to help them become more proactive,
and we discuss this emerging research area next.
Practical Implications: Training
Newcomers to Be Proactive
Training is an important instrument in the
socialization of new employees (Feldman, 1989) and
“plays a major role in how individuals make sense
of, and adjust to, their new job settings” (Feldman,
1989, p. 399). In the last several years, there has
been an increasing move toward the integration of
both training and socialization research streams.
is research has emphasized both the availabil-
ity and helpfulness of various training approaches
(Nelson & Quick, 1991), the amount of train-
ing (Saks, 1996), the bene ts of individual versus
OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – FIRST-PROOF, 03/17/12, NEWGEN
-,
group training (Moreland & Myaskovsky, 2000),
and the e ectiveness of training (Axtell & Parker,
2003; Kirby, Kirby, & Lewis, 2002; Waung, 1995).
To date, there is only a very small, albeit important
body of research that links the training and proac-
tive socialization literature (Axtell & Parker, 2003;
Kirby et al., 2002). e scarcity of research explor-
ing the training–proaction link is understandable.
Not only is this an expensive organizational invest-
ment, but if there is limited opportunity to prac-
tice newly learned proactive behaviors then any
gains associated with training could be lost (Parker,
1998). Axtell and Parker (2003) suggest that it is
via enhancing employees’ level of self-e cacy that
organizational interventions—such as training—
can develop employees’ potential and ultimately
enhance proactivity.
In an innovative test of this theory, Burke (2009)
coached two groups of police newcomers in a rep-
ertoire of four proactive behaviors over 8 weeks
and found that among the group who participated
in training, proactive behavior was the most pro-
nounced for newcomers who had higher role-based
self-e cacy prior to training. Without training,
role breadth self-e cacy had a nonsigni cant rela-
tionship with future proaction. Providing proac-
tive behavior training to the group signaled that
they had the opportunity to take the initiative and
to exercise autonomy, and that this was not only
acceptable but expected.
Going forward, there is scope to tailor socializa-
tion training programs to better re ect the pre-train-
ing self-e cacy level of new employees. For example,
behavioral modeling (Gist, Schwoerer, & Rosen,
1989) and formal orientation programs (Saks, 1994)
have been found to be particularly e ective for train-
ees with low self-e cacy. us, an important direc-
tion for future research might be to investigate the
development of self-e cacy as a deliberate training
intervention to build newcomer proactivity.
Future Research Directions
e process of reviewing past research on new-
comer proactive behavior opened up many exciting
avenues for future research. We list a number of
questions below that we hope will stimulate readers
to take up the challenge of trying to nd answers.
We suggest that researchers include a range of pro-
active behaviors from across the three categories
presented here (see Table 4.1), as this provides a
theoretical framework to investigate di erences and
ensures that the e ects of speci c proactive behav-
iors are not overstated (Ashford & Black, 1996).
To what extent are newcomer proactive behav-
iors interactive? For example, one behavior may
increase the eff ectiveness of another, such as boss
relationship building behavior increasing the
benefi ts of feedback seeking behavior (from the
boss). Alternatively, one behavior may decrease the
e ectiveness of another by making it redundant. An
example of this would be direct inquiry reducing
the bene ts of monitoring.
Why have studies been inconsistent in ndings
regarding proactive behavior to outcome relation-
ships? What moderators may be playing a role in these
relationships?
Are there distinct patterns of relationships between
institutionalized tactics and the di erent categories
of newcomer proactive behaviors? We propose that
institutionalized tactics would be positively
related to change-self and mutual development
behaviors, and negatively related to change role
or environment behaviors.
What other environmental factors, beyond orga-
nizational socialization tactics, are important predic-
tors of proactive behavior? To what extent do work
design features, such as job enjoyment, drive pro-
active behavior?
In what ways are newcomer proactive behaviors
reciprocated by insiders? We suggest three possibili-
ties for investigation: (i) insiders reciprocate in
kind, by being more proactive themselves; (ii)
insiders reciprocate in the negative, by behaving
successively less proactively as newcomers behave
more proactively; (iii) insiders show a steady level
of proactive behavior regardless of newcomer
proactivity.
Do interventions to increase proactive behavior have
most e ect for newcomers with low self-e cacy? Initial
research suggests this may be the case. An inter-
esting additional conundrum, if the answer to this is
a rmative, is what alternative interventions provide
bene ts to newcomers with high self-e cacy?
Do more experienced workers use a greater breadth
of proactive behaviors (i.e., range), or use proactive
behaviors more (i.e., frequency), or use similar pro-
active behaviors but more successfully (i.e., quality)?
Related to this, does transition experience o er
greater bene ts than work experience for e ective
proactive behavior use?
What individual and environmental factors in u-
ence newcomers to be more or less sensitive to the costs
of proactive behaviors? Related to this, what are the
relative costs of diff erent proactive behaviors? Do
newcomers switch to lower-cost proactive behav-
iors with increasing tenure?
OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – FIRST-PROOF, 03/17/12, NEWGEN
Is there evidence of newcomer proactive behav-
iors being maladaptive, and what other variables are
involved? Is there a cultural or ethnic diff erence
in terms of what behaviors are considered mal-
adaptive? For example, might some proactive
behaviors be considered too direct or even rude
in some countries or cultures?
What individual and environmental factors maxi-
mize the e ectiveness of proactive behavior training
interventions? What variables, in addition to role
breadth self-effi cacy, moderate the relationship
between training and proactive behavior?
Conclusion
As organizations shift from production econo-
mies to knowledge economies, proactive behavior
is becoming more important than ever before for
employees in general (Grant & Ashford, 2008), and
this holds true for new employees also (Ashford &
Black, 1996). Drawing on the work of Cooper-
omas et al. (2011), we have presented proactive
behaviors under three categories of change role
or environment, change self, and mutual devel-
opment, and we anticipate that these categories
will prove useful for future theorizing. We then
discussed the consequences and antecedents asso-
ciated with newcomer proactive behavior. e
consequences are mostly positive, such as greater
learning, social integration, job performance, and
job satisfaction (Kammeyer-Mueller & Wanberg,
2003; Saks et al., 2011), although our detailed
analysis shows considerable underlying complexity
and variation. A relatively small range of anteced-
ents have been studied, and we consider that insid-
ers’ behaviors may be a particularly rich vein for
future research. In line with the title of our chap-
ter, we then discussed the potential for newcomer
proactivity to be maladaptive both for organiza-
tions and for newcomers, as well as presenting sug-
gestions for keeping proactive behaviors on track.
Finally, we have discussed nascent work on pro-
active behavior interventions. Given the positive
potential of newcomer proactive behavior, this is
also a highly promising direction.
References
Adams, S. M. (2005). Positive a ect and feedback-giving behav-
ior. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 20(1), 24–42.
Adkins, C. L. (1995). Previous work experience and organiza-
tional socialization: A longitudinal examination. Academy of
Management Journal, 38(3), 839–862.
Anderson, N. (2001). Towards a theory of socialization impact:
Selection as pre-entry socialization. International Journal of
Selection and Assessment, 9(1/2), 84–91.
Anderson, N., & omas, H. D. C. (1996). Work group social-
ization. In M. A. West (Ed.), Handbook of work groups (pp.
423–450). Chichester: Wiley.
Anseel, F., Lievens, F., & Levy, P. E. (2007). A self-motives per-
spective on feedback-seeking behavior: Linking organiza-
tional behavior and social psychology research. International
Journal of Management Reviews, 9(3), 211–236.
Arnold, J., & Cohen, L. (2008). e psychology of careers in
industrial and organizational settings: A critical but appre-
ciative analysis. In G. P. Hodgkinson & J. K. Ford (Eds.),
International Review of Industrial and Organizational
Psychology (Vol. 23, pp. 1–44). Chichester: Wiley.
Ashford, S. J. (1986). Feedback-seeking in individual adaptation:
A resource perspective. Academy of Management Journal,
29(3), 465–487.
Ashford, S. J., & Black, J. S. (1996). Proactivity during organiza-
tional entry: e role of desire for control. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 81(2), 199–214.
Ashford, S. J., Blatt, R., & VandeWalle, D. (2003). Re ections
on the looking glass: A review of research on feedback-seek-
ing behavior in organizations. Journal of Management, 29(6),
773–799.
Ashford, S. J., & Cummings, L. L. (1983). Feedback as an indi-
vidual resource: Personal strategies of creating information.
Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 32, 370–398.
Ashforth, B. E., Saks, A. M., & Lee, R. T. (1997). On the
dimensionality of Jones’ (1986) measures of organizational
socialization tactics. International Journal of Selection and
Assessment, 5(4), 200–214.
Ashforth, B. E., Sluss, D. M., & Saks, A. M. (2007). Socialization
tactics, proactive behavior, and newcomer learning:
Integrating socialization models. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 70(3), 447–462.
Axtell, C. M., & Parker, S. K. (2003). Promoting role breadth
self-e cacy through involvement, work design, and training.
Human Relations, 56(1), 112–131.
Bateman, T. S., & Crant, J. M. (1993). e proactive compo-
nent of organizational behavior: A measure and correlates.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 14(2), 103–118.
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(3), 707–721.
Bauer, T. N., & Green, S. G. (1998). Testing the combined e ects
of newcomer information seeking and manager behavior on
socialization. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(1), 72–83.
Berlew, D. E., & Hall, D. T. (1966). e socialization of manag-
ers: E ects of expectations on performance. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 11, 207–223.
Beyer, J. M., & Hannah, D. R. (2002). Building on the past:
Enacting established personal identities in a new work set-
ting. Organization Science, 13(6), 636–652.
Bolino, M., Valcea, S., & Harvey, J. (2010). Employee, manage
thyself: e potentially negative implications of expecting
employees to behave proactively. Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology, 83, 325–345.
Bommer, W. H., Miles, E. W., & Grover, S. L. (2003). Does
one good turn deserve another? Coworker in uences on
employee citizenship. Journal of Organizational Behavior,
24(2), 181–196.
Brown, S. P., Ganesan, S., & Challagalla, G. (2001). Self-e cacy
as a moderator of information-seeking e ectiveness. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 86(5), 1043–1051.
OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – FIRST-PROOF, 03/17/12, NEWGEN
-,
Bureau of Labor Statistics (2009). Employment Projections: 2008–
2018 Summary. Retrieved from http://www.bls.gov/news.
release/ecopro.nr0.htm.
Burke, S. E. (2009). Proactive socialisation: A longitudinal inves-
tigation of newcomer adjustment inside both an institutiona-
lised and individualised workplace. Unpublished PhD thesis,
Victoria University of Wellington, Wellington, NZ.
Callister, R. R., Kramer, M. W., & Turban, D. B. (1999).
Feedback seeking following career transitions. Academy of
Management Journal, 42(4), 429–438.
Campbell, D. J. (2000). e proactive employee: managing
workplace initiative. e Academy of Management Executive
(1993–2005), 14(3), 52–66.
Carr, J. C., Pearson, A. W., Vest, M. J., & Boyar, S. L. (2006).
Prior occupational experience, anticipatory socialization, and
employee retention. Journal of Management, 32(3), 343–359.
Chan, D. (2006). Interactive e ects of situational judgment
e ectiveness and proactive personality on work perceptions
and work outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(2),
475–481.
Chan, D., & Schmitt, N. (2000). Interindividual di erences in
intraindividual changes in proactivity during organizational
entry: A latent growth modeling approach to understanding
newcomer adaptation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(2),
190–210.
Chao, G. T., O’Leary-Kelly, A. M., Wolf, S., Klein, H. J., &
Gardner, P. D. (1994). Organizational socialization: Its con-
tent and consequences. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79(5),
730–743.
Chen, G. (2005). Newcomer adaptation in teams: Multilevel
antecedents and outcomes. Academy of Management Journal,
48(1), 101–116.
Chen, G., & Klimoski, R. J. (2003). e impact of expecta-
tions on newcomer performance in teams as mediated by
work characteristics, social exchanges, and empowerment.
Academy of Management Journal, 46(5), 591–607.
Chiaburu, D. S., & Harrison, D. A. (2008). Do peers make the
place? Conceptual synthesis and meta-analysis of coworkers
e ects on perceptions, attitudes, OCBs, and Performance.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(5), 1082–1103.
Clark, A., Oswald, A., & Warr, P. (1996). Is job satisfaction
U-shaped in age? Journal of Occupational & Organizational
Psychology, 69, 57–81.
Cooper- omas, H. D. (2009). e role of newcomer–insider
relationships during organizational socialization. In R.
Morrison & S. Wright (Eds.), Friends and enemies in organiza-
tions: A work psychology perspective (pp. 32–56). Basingstoke,
UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
Cooper- omas, H. D., & Anderson, N. (2002). Newcomer
adjustment: e relationship between organizational
socialization tactics, information acquisition and attitudes.
Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology, 75(4),
423–437.
Cooper- omas, H. D., & Anderson, N. (2005). Organizational
socialization: A eld study into socialization success and
rate. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 13(2),
116–128.
Cooper- omas, H. D., & Anderson, N. (2006). Organizational
socialization: A new theoretical model and recommendations
for future research and HRM practices in organizations.
Journal of Managerial Psychology, 21(5), 492–516.
Cooper- omas, H. D., Anderson, N., & Cash, M. L. (2011).
Investigating organizational socialization: A fresh look at
newcomer adjustment strategies. Personnel Review, 41(1),
51–55.
Cooper- omas, H. D., & Wilson, M. G. (2007, August).
Newcomer adjustment strategies: A cost-bene t model. Paper
presented at the Academy of Management Conference,
Philadelphia, PA.
Cooper- omas, H. D., & Wilson, M. G. (2011). In uences
on newcomers’ adjustment tactic use. International Journal of
Selection and Assessment, 19(4), 388–404.
Crant, J. M. (1995). e proactive personality scale and objec-
tive job performance among real estate agents. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 80(4), 532–537.
Crant, J. M. (2000). Proactive behavior in organizations. Journal
of Management, 26(3), 435–462.
Datta, D. K., Guthrie, J. P., Basuil, D., & Pandey, A. (2010).
Causes and e ects of employee downsizing: A review and
synthesis. Journal of Management, 36(1), 281–348.
Dutton, J. E., & Ashford, S. J. (1993). Selling issues to top man-
agement. Academy of Management Review, 18, 397–428.
Erdogan, B., & Bauer, T. N. (2005). Enhancing career bene ts of
employee proactive personality: e role of t with jobs and
organizations. Personnel Psychology, 58(4), 859–891.
Fedor, D. B., Rensvold, R. R., & Adams, S. M. (1992). An inves-
tigation of factors expected to a ect feedback seeking: A lon-
gitudinal eld study. Personnel Psychology, 45, 779–805.
Feldman, D. C. (1989). Careers in organizations: Recent
trends and future directions. Journal of Management, 15(2),
135–156.
Feldman, D. C. (1994). Who’s socializing whom? e impact of
socializing newcomers on insiders, work groups, and organiza-
tions. Human Resource Management Review, 4(3), 213–233.
Feldman, D. C., & Brett, J. M. (1983). Coping with new jobs: A
comparative study of new hires and job changers. Academy of
Management Journal, 26, 258–272.
Filstad, C. (2004). How newcomers use role models in organi-
zational socialization. Journal of Workplace Learning, 16(7),
396–409.
Finkelstein, L. M., Kulas, J. T., & Dages, K. D. (2003). Age
di erences in proactive newcomer socialization strategies
in two populations. Journal of Business & Psychology, 17(4),
473–502.
Fisher, C. D. (1985). Social support and adjustment to work: A
longitudinal study. Journal of Management, 11(3), 39–53.
Fuller, J. B., & Marler, L. E. (2009). Change driven by nature:
a meta-analytic review of the proactive personality literature.
Journal of Vocational Behavior, 75(3), 329–345. Gibson, D.
E. (2004). Role models in career development: New direc-
tions for theory and research. Journal of Vocational Behavior,
65(1), 134–156.
Gibson, J. J. (1977). e theory of a ordances. In R. Shaw &
J. Bransford (Eds.), Perceiving, acting, and knowing: Toward
an Ecological Psychology (pp. 67–82). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Gist, M. E., Schwoerer, C., & Rosen, B. (1989). E ects of alter-
native training methods on self-e cacy and performance in
computer software training. Journal of Applied Psychology,
74(6), 884–891.
Grant, A. M., & Ashford, S. J. (2008). e dynamics of proactiv-
ity at work. Research in Organizational Behavior, 28, 3–34.
Gri n, A. E., Colella, A., & Goparaju, S. (2000). Newcomer
and organizational socialization tactics: An interactionist
perspective. Human Resource Management Review, 10(4),
453–474.
OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – FIRST-PROOF, 03/17/12, NEWGEN
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(1),
90–104.
Haueter, J. A., Macan, T. H., & Winter, J. (2003). Measurement
of newcomer socialization: Construct validation of a mul-
tidimensional scale. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 63(1),
20–39.
Holder, T. (1996). Women in nontraditional occupations:
Information-seeking during organizational entry. e Journal
of Business Communication, 33(1), 9–26.
Howard, A. (1995). A framework for work change. In A. Howard
(Ed.), e changing nature of work (pp. 3–44). San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass.
Ibarra, H., Kildu , M., & Tsai, W. (2005). Zooming in and out:
Connecting individuals and collectivities at the frontiers of
organizational network research. Organization Science, 16(4),
359–371.
Jansen, K. J., & Kristof-Brown, A. L. (2005). Marching to the
beat of a di erent drummer: Examining the impact of pacing
congruence. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 97(2), 93–105.
Jones, G. R. (1986). Socialization tactics, self-e cacy, and
newcomers’ adjustments to organizations. Academy of
Management Journal, 29(2), 262–279.
Judge, T. A., Bono, J. E., Erez, A., & Locke, E. A. (2005).
Core self-evaluations and job and life satisfaction: e role
of self-concordance and goal attainment. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 90(2), 257–268.
Kammeyer-Mueller, J. D., Livingston, B. A., & Liao, H. (2011).
Perceived similarity, proactive adjustment, and organiza-
tional socialization. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 78(2),
225–236.
Kammeyer-Mueller, J. D., & Wanberg, C. R. (2003).
Unwrapping the organizational entry process: Disentangling
multiple antecedents and their pathways to adjustment.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 779–794.
Kim, T.-Y., Cable, D. M., & Kim, S.-P. (2005). Socialization
tactics, employee proactivity, and person-organization t.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(2), 232–241.
Kim, T.-Y., Hon, A. H. Y., & Crant, J. M. (2009). Proactive
personality, employee creativity, and newcomer outcomes:
A longitudinal study. Journal of Business and Psychology, 24,
93–103.
Kirby, E. G., Kirby, S. L., & Lewis, M. A. (2002). A study of
the e ectiveness of training proactive thinking. Journal of
Applied Social Psychology, 32(7), 1538–1549. Kramer, M. W.
(1993). Communication after job transfers—social-exchange
processes in learning new roles. Human Communication
Research, 20(2), 147–174.
LePine, J. A., & Van Dyne, L. (1998). Predicting voice behavior
in work groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 853–868.
Levy, P. E., & Williams, J. R. (2004). e social context of per-
formance appraisal: A review and framework for the future.
Journal of Management, 30(6), 881–905. Louis, M. R.,
Posner, B. Z., & Powell, G. N. (1983). e availability and
helpfulness of socialization practices. Personnel Psychology,
36(4), 857–866.
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 moder-
ating e ects of role development factors. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 80(3), 418–431.
Major, D. A., & Kozlowski, S. W. J. (1997). Newcomer infor-
mation seeking: Individual and contextual in uences.
International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 5(1),
16–28.
Major, D. A., Turner, J. E., & Fletcher, T. D. (2006). Linking
proactive personality and the big ve to motivation to learn
and development activity. Journal of Applied Psychology,
91(4), 927–935.
Miller, V. D. (1996). An experimental study of newcomers’
information seeking behaviors during organizational entry.
Communication Studies, 47, 1–24.
Miller, V. D., & Jablin, F. M. (1991). Information seeking dur-
ing organizational entry—in uences, tactics, and a model of
the process. Academy of Management Review, 16(1), 92–120.
Moreland, R. L., & Myaskovsky, L. (2000). Exploring the per-
formance bene ts of group training: Transactive memory
or improved communication? Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, 82(1), 117–133.
Morrison, E. W. (1993a). Longitudinal-study of the e ects of
information seeking on newcomer socialization. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 78(2), 173–183.
Morrison, E. W. (1993b). Newcomer information-seeking—
exploring types, modes, sources, and outcomes. Academy of
Management Journal, 36(3), 557–589.
Morrison, E. W. (1995). Information usefulness and acqui-
sition during organizational encounter. Management
Communication Quarterly, 9, 131–155.
Morrison, E. W. (2002a). Information seeking within organiza-
tions. Human Communication Research, 28(2), 229–242.
Morrison, E. W. (2002b). Newcomers’ relationships: e role
of social network ties during socialization. Academy of
Management Journal, 45(6), 1149–1160.
Morrison, E. W., & Bies, R. J. (1991). Impression manage-
ment in the feedback-seeking process: A literature review
and research agenda. Academy of Management Review, 16(3),
522–541.
Morrison, E. W., Chen, Y.-R., & Salgado, S. R. (2004). Cultural
di erences in newcomer feedback seeking: A comparison of
the United States and Hong Kong. Applied Psychology: An
International Review, 53(1), 1–22.
Morrison, E. W., & Phelps, C. C. (1999). Taking charge at work:
extra-role e orts to initiate workplace change. e Academy
of Management Journal, 42(4), 403–419.
Morrison, E. W., & Vancouver, J. B. (2000). Within-person
analysis of information seeking: e e ects of perceived costs
and bene ts. Journal of Management, 26(1), 119–137.
Nelson, D. L., & Quick, J. C. (1991). Social support and
newcomer adjustment in organizations: Attachment the-
ory at work? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 12(6),
543–554.
Ng, T. W. H., & Feldman, D. C. (2007). Organizational embed-
dedness and occupational embeddedness across career stages.
Journal of Vocational Behavior, 70(2), 336–351.
Nicholson, N. (1984). A theory of work role transitions.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 29, 172–191.
OECD (2006). Live longer, work longer: A synthesis report.
Retrieved from http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/docserver/
download/fulltext/8106021e.pdf?expires=1328661242&id=
id&accname=ocid177592&checksum=71D03719BAF9E7
F3D89117AE2E04ACF1
Ohly, S., & Fritz, D. (2007). Challenging the status quo: What
motivates proactive behaviour? Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology, 80(4), 623–629.
OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – FIRST-PROOF, 03/17/12, NEWGEN
-,
Ostro , C., & Kozlowski, S. W. (1992). Organizational social-
ization as a learning process: e role of information acquisi-
tion. Personnel Psychology, 45(4), 849–874.
Owens, F. K. (2010). Can we help newcomers adjust at work by see-
ing things di erently? Assessing a positive framing intervention.
Master of Science, e University of Auckland, Auckland.
Parker, S. K. (1998). Enhancing role breadth self-e cacy: e
roles of job enrichment and other organizational interven-
tions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 835–852.
Parker, S. (2000). From passive to proactive motivation: the
importance of exible role orientations and role breadth self-
e cacy. Applied Psychology, 49(3), 447–469. Parker, S. K.,
Bindl, U. K., & Strauss, K. (2010). Making things happen:
a model of proactive motivation. Journal of Management,
36(4), 827–856.
Parker, S. K., & Collins, C. G. (2010). Taking stock: integrat-
ing and di erentiating multiple proactive behaviors. Journal
of Management, 36(3), 633–662. Parker, S. K., Williams,
H. M., & Turner, N. (2006). Modeling the Antecedents of
Proactive Behavior at Work. Journal of Applied Psychology,
91(3), 636–652.
Pierce, J. L., Gardner, D. G., Cummings, L. L., & Dunham, R. B.
(1989). Organization-based self-esteem: Construct de ni-
tion, measurement, and validation. Academy of Management
Journal, 32(3), 622–648.
Rollag, K. (2007). De ning the term ‘new’ in new employee
research. Journal of Occupational and Organizational
Psychology, 80, 63–75.
Saks, A. M. (1994). Moderating e ects of self-e cacy for the
relationship between training method and anxiety and stress
reactions of newcomers. Journal of Organizational Behavior,
15(7), 639–654.
Saks, A. M. (1996). e relationship between the amount and
helpfulness of entry training and work outcomes. Human
Relations, 49(4), 429–451.
Saks, A. M., & Ashforth, B. E. (1996). Proactive socializa-
tion and behavioral self-management. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 48(3), 301–323.
Saks, A. M., & Ashforth, B. E. (1997). Socialization tactics and
newcomer information acquisition. International Journal of
Selection and Assessment, 5(1), 48–61.
Saks, A. M., Gruman, J. A., & Cooper- omas, H. D. (2011).
e neglected role of proactive behavior and outcomes in
newcomer socialization. Journal of Vocational Behavior,
79(1), 36–46.
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(3), 413–446.
Scott, S. G., & Bruce, R. A. (1994). Determinants of innova-
tive behavior: A path model of individual innovation in the
workplace. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 580–607.
Seibert, S. E., Crant, J. M., & Kraimer, M. L. (1999). Proactive
personality and career success. Journal of Applied Psychology,
84(3), 416–427.
Seibert, S. E., Kraimer, M. L., & Crant, J. M. (2001). What do
proactive people do? A longitudinal model linking proactive
personality and career success. Personnel Psychology, 54(4),
845–874.
Settoon, R. P., & Adkins, C. L. (1997). Newcomer socialization:
e role of supervisors, coworkers, friends and family mem-
bers. Journal of Business and Psychology, 11(4), 507–516.
Sonnentag, S. (2003). Recovery, work engagement, and proac-
tive behavior: a new look at the interface between nonwork
and work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(3), 518–528.
Statistics New Zealand (2010). National Labour Force
Projections 06–61 update HOTP. Retrieved from http://
www.stats.govt.nz/~/media/Statistics/Browse%20for%20
stats/NationalLabourForceProjections/HOTP06–61/
NationalLabourForceProjections06–61HOTP.pdf
Teboul, J. B. (1994). Facing and coping with uncertainty dur-
ing organizational encounter. Management Communication
Quarterly, 8(2), 190–224.
omas, J. P., Whitman, D. S., & Viswesvaran, C. (2010).
Employee proactivity in organizations: A comparative
meta-analysis of emergent proactive constructs. Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 83, 275–300.
omas, K. M., Hu, C., Gewin, A. G., Bingham, K., &
Yanchus, N. (2005). e roles of protégé race, gender, and
proactive socialization attempts on peer mentoring. Advances
in Developing Human Resources, 7(4), 540–555.
ompson, J. A. (2005). Proactive personality and job per-
formance: A social capital perspective. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 90(5), 1011–1017.
Van der Velde, M. E. G., Ardts, J. C. A., & Jansen, P. G. W.
(2005). e longitudinal e ect of information seeking on
socialisation and development in three organisations: Filling
the research gaps. Canadian Journal of Career Development,
4(2), 32–42.
Van Maanen, J. (1973). Observations on the making of police-
men. Human Organizations, 32, 407–418.
Van Maanen, J., & Schein, E. H. (1979). Toward a theory of
organizational socialization. In B. M. Staw (Ed.), Research in
Organizational Behavior (Vol. 1, pp. 209–264). Greenwich,
CT: JAI Press.
Wanberg, C. R., & Kammeyer-Mueller, J. D. (2000). Predictors
and outcomes of proactivity in the socialization process.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(3), 373–385.
Wanous, J. P. (1992). Organizational Entry. Recruitment,
Selection, Orientation, and Socialization (2nd ed.). Reading,
MA: Addison-Wesley.
Waung, M. (1995). e e ect of self-regulatory coping orien-
tation on newcomer adjustment and job survival. Personnel
Psychology, 48, 633–650.
OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – FIRST-PROOF, 03/17/12, NEWGEN
