^Academy of Managemeni Review. 1983. Vol. 8. No. 3, 464-474.

Psychological Orientation and

the Process of Organizational Socialization;
An Interactionist Perspective^
GARETH R. JONES
Texas A&M University

Research on organizational socialization typically assumes that the

newcomer's subsequent adjustment to the organization is directly affected
by early learning experiences and the organization's methods of socializa-
tion. This paper argues, however, that when the newcomer's orientation
towards the organization is taken into account, individual differences and
attributionalprocesses moderate the newcomer's subsequent adjustment to
the organization and personal and role outcomes.

Beneath the diversity of approaches to organiza-
tional socialization lies the central theme of how the
socialization process conditions the newcomer's
subsequent orientation to his or her organizational
role. Usually, two factors are seen as infiuential in
mediating successful adjustment to the organization.
The first is the way the newcomer experiences and
responds to the reality of organizational life and to
the role and the cultural learning that takes place over
time (Graen & Ginsburgh, 1977; Katz, 1978; Louis,
1980; Schein, 1968). The second is the effect of the
socialization tactics that firms use to define the
organizational context on newcomer behavior (Cap-
low, 1964; Feldman, 1976; Van Maanen, 1976; Van
Maanen & Schein, 1979).
This paper argues that the nature of the new-
comer's subsequent orientation towards the organiza-
tion cannot be adequately explained until the social-
ization process is analyzed from an interactionist
perspective in which newcomers are accorded an ac-
tive role in mediating personal and role outcomes.
Specifically, two additional factors need to be incor-
porated into a model of the socialization process:
(1) the effects of individual differences and (2) the
effects of the attributional processes involved in
organizational learning. Individual differences in-
'Appreciation is expressed to David Bowen, Cynthia D. Fisher,
Arnon Reichers, and Benjamin Schneider for their comments on
an earlier draft of this paper.
464
fiuence the newcomer's initial psychological orien-
tation towards the organization, and attributional
processes affect the individual's ability to make sense
of the organizational context. This paper argues that
the way in which newcomers experience organization-
al reality and the effect of organizational socializa-
tional practices on personal and role outcomes are
moderated by these two factors. Thus it is impossi-
ble to predict the nature of the newcomer's response
to the organization (e.g., commitment, satisfaction,
intention to quit, role orientation) until both orga-
nizational and individual factors are analyzed
conjointly.
Using concepts drawn from symbolic interaction-
ism (Mead, 1934; Rose, 1962; Silverman, 1970),
social learning theory (Bandura, 1977, 1978), and at-
tribution theory (Bem, 1967, 1972), a model of the
socialization process is presented that analyzes the
effect of individual differences and attributional pro-
cesses on newcomer adjustment. This model also pro-
vides a new perspective for a process or stage analysis
of the socialization experience.
Newcomer Orientation
The effect of early learning experiences on the new-
comer's subsequent adjustment to the organization
occupies a central position in research on organiza-
tional socialization. This is because it is normally
 hyF^^^^B^HHHMHMBHBHaiBHast susceptible
to the power of the organizational socialization pro-
cess during the entry or encounter phase. Here, the
, newcomer, faced with an ambiguous, uncertain situa-
tion and lacking the reference points for appropriate
behavior, is assumed to experience a "breakpoint,"
or "reality shock," on entering the new situation
(Hughes, 1958; Van Maanen, 1977). As a result of
the anxiety or stress generated by this encouner with
the unknown or unusual (Louis, 1980), newcomers'
prime concern is to clarify their situational identity
through their work roles (Berlew & Hall, 1966; Feld-
man, 1976) or by securing the approval of others
(Graen & Ginsburg, 1979; Katz, 1978; Wanous,
1980). In essence, in order to reduce uncertainty or
role ambiguity, newcomers search for the interpretive
schemes that allow them to define the expectations
of others and thus to orient their behavior to others
(Brim, 1966; Louis, 1980; Mead, 1934; Van Maanen,
' 1976, 1977).
Given this perspective, the way in which the social-
ization practices employed by the organization may
influence or control the degree of reality shock ex-
perienced by newcomers is an important theme in the
literature. The organization, by defining the organi-
zational context, is able to shape or mold newcomer
response through its task assignments, supervisory
practices, or cultural premises (Katz, 1978; Van
Maanen & Schein, 1979). Specifically, there is
evidence to suggest that formal and informal
socialization practices may affect the level of
organizational commitment (Berlew & Hall, 1966;
Buchanan, 1974), longevity in the organization (Katz,
1978, 1980; Wanous, 1973, 1980), satisfaction and
feelings of personal worth (Feldman, 1976), and role
* orientation (Graen & Ginsburg, 1977; Graen, Orris,
& Johnson, 1973).
Although such research is suggestive of the orga-
nizational factors that affect individual and role out-
comes, it has certain theoretical limitations. First, the
role of individual differences in the socialization pro-
cess is rarely considered. Second,the manner in which
attributional and learning processes affect the way
in which newcomers and the organization negotiate
' a definition of the situation is not normally a focus
of analysis.
Individual Differences
In most socialization research, the forces of orga-
nizational reality are seen as controlling the socializa-
465
tion process in a way that overwhelms individual dif-
ferences in psychological orientation. Even at the
processual, cognitive level, accounts of newcomers'
"making sense" of their new situation frequently em-
phasize the primary effect of the organizational con-
text on newcomer perception, rather than what new-
comers, themselves, add to the process or situation
(Louis, 1980; Van Maanen, 1977). There are several
reasons for this. First, as noted above, newcomers
are assumed to experience a reality shock upon orga-
nizational entry. This implicitly directs attention
towards the situation rather than the person. Second,
it is much easier to observe how newcomers change
than it is to detect changes in the organization caused
by newcomers. As a result, ther^ has been little re-
search into the ways in which newcomers personalize
the organization (Mortimer & Simmons, 1978; Por-
ter, Lawler, & Hackman, 1975). For example, how
do the values, norms, and attitudes of newcomers
change those already existing in the organization?
Third, little attention has been paid to the events in
the newcomer's life that occur before entry. Several
authors have commented that past experience may
be an important infiuence on the psychological orien-
tation of the individual before entry (Katz, 1980; Van
Maanen, 1977), but its effect on subsequent adapta-
tion only rarely has been investigated (Carp &
Wheeler, 1972; Weidman, 1979).
This omission of individual differences in the so-
cialization process is important. Ultimately it is the
interaction of the methods of socialization employed
by the organization together with the generalized con-
structs used by the newcomer that causes a situation
to be defined as threatening, challenging, or shock-
ing, not the new situation per se. As a result, it is
impossible to predict the eventual response of new-
comers to the organization unless individual differ-
ence variables are considered.
Biography and Past Experience
The way in which newcomers define the expecta-
tions of established organizational members, and the
way they react to a new context, is hypothesized here
to be infiuenced strongly by the nature of their bio-
graphical experiences. The strategies that newcomers
adopt to deal with uncertainty or ambiguity and the
way they make sense of a situation depend on the
way they have learned, historically, to deal with new
situations. Specifically, individuals' present psycho-
logical orientations are constituted in part, out of
their past interactions with others where in Mead's
(1934) terms, they take the "role of the other" in
order to define the appropriate response to the other
and to the situation. Thus, present action is predi-
cated on past assumptions as well as on future con-
sequences (Schutz, 1967).
Furthermore, the way in which individuals have
learned to respond to a new situation plays a decisive
role in determining how they will attempt to master
the new situation (Schutz & Luckmann, 1947). In
other words, individuals will have built up a reper-
toire of responses to threat or ambiguity based on
their past experiences and learning. Thus, although
the "content" of socialization (context specific in-
formation about fole or culture) may differ from
context to context, the way individuals perceive and
respond to the context is determined by individual
rather than situational differences (Rousseau, 1978).
The effect of prior learning experiences on the in-
dividual's orientation towards the organization also
moderates the newcomer's ability to make sense of
the context and act appropriately in it. Thus, beyond
any learned response tendencies, the extent and vari-
ety of past experiences in, for example, other orga-
nizational contexts and in dealing with a wide vari-
ety of role holders will affect the way newcomers res-
pond to new situations. Past experience also is im-
portant in affecting other aspects of the individuals'
orientation towards the organization, that is, the way
they make sense of and subsequently act in the orga-
nization.
Self-Efficacy and Growth Need Strength
Several authors have suggested that self-esteem or
growth need strength may moderate the individual's
adjustment to the organization (Buchanan, 1974;
Katz, 1978). These variables are particularly impor-
tant in the socialization process because, just as in
models of task design (Hackman & Oldham, 1976),
they will moderate the newcomer's reaction to role
or task requirements. Although need theory offers
few answers to the question of the origin and strength
of needs (Salancik & Pfeffer, 1977), social learning
theory offers an approach to the question based on
the individual's past learning experiences (Bandura,
1977, 1978). It views the way in which individuals
have learned to interpret and define a situation as
leading to self-efficacy or "efficacy expectations
which, in turn, determine the conviction that one can
successfully execute the behavior required to produce
466
the outcome" (Bandura, 1977, p. 192). lnus the
strength of self-efficacy expectations may be hypoth-
esized to be directly related to peoples' perceptions
of their success in dealing with past situations, and
their expectations about their success in the future.
Self-efficacy therefore is related to feelings of per-
sonal mastery and growth need strength. Moreover,
in cases of outcomes that are uncertain or ambiguous,
as in the socialization process.
Expectations of personal mastery affect both initia-
tion and persistence in coping behavior. The strength
of people's convictions in their own effectiveness is
likely to affect whether they will even try to cope with
a given situation (Bandura, 1977, p. 193).
Thus newcomers' self-efficacy expectations will
moderate the reality shock of entry and infiuence the
way in which they will respond to the context in
which they find themselves. Specifically, those
newcomers who perceive themselves as personally
competent, or those with high growth need strength,
will define the new situation differently from those
with low levels of self-efficacy, or low growth need
strength. For example, "competent" newcomers may
more readily asssimilate role and cultural knowledge
and see the learning experience as a chance to
demonstrate personal skills. Those with low percep-
tions of personal competence will be more concerned
to identify with the task (Katz, 1978) or to define a
situational identity in narrow rather than boundary
spanning terms. Similarly, differences in growth need
strength will moderate the individuals' reactions to
their new roles and to the feedback from the task con-
text. Because of these factors, newcomers will res-
pond differently to the same "objective" situation.
However, with few exceptions (Weiss, 1978), the
moderating effects of self-efficacy or growth need
strength have been ignored in the literature. The
assumption of a naive newcomer coupled with the
powerful stimuli provided by the organization con-
text probably accounts for this. Again, newcomers
are seen as responding to events, not initiating them.
Yet, even from the perspective of the college grad-
uate, it is not clear that they are naive newcomers
to organizational reality. Their interaction at school
and work provides them with the schemes of orga-
nizational life that moderate the reality shock of
organizational entry; they already possess knowledge
about the means and ends of organizational action.
Also, at the level of resocialization (Katz, 1978) it
might be expected that experienced newcomers from
inside or outside the organization would possess high
levels Ol selt-etlicacy when one criterion for promo-
tion or transfer is their past demonstrated success in
dealing with ambiguous, uncertain situations.
In summary, the inclusion of individual difference
factors in a socialization model affects the concep-
tualization of the linkages between organizational
factors and individual and role outcomes. Even
though newcomers may be processed in the same
manner, they may experience that process in very dif-
ferent ways because of past experience, and their
levels of self-efficacy or growth need strength. As a
result, their subsequent orientation, attitudes, and
behavior may diverge widely.
Attributional and Learning Processes
A second limitation of socialization research con-
cerns assumptions made about newcomers' exper-
ience of the reality of organizational life—the way
in which they internalize the role and cultural knowl-
edge necessary for successful adaptation to the orga-
nization. Most cognitive accounts of the sense mak-
ing process involved in organizational socialization
(Louis, 1980; Van Maanen, 1977) emphasize the re-
ciprocal nature of the learning taking place between
newcomers and established members. However, they
do not explicitly address the attributional processes
that may impede, as well as enhance, such learning.
Also, they do not link attributional processes with
individual differences.
It is argued here that the organization's ability to
influence newcomer behavior during the socialization
process is affected by a variety of interpersonal pro-
cesses that may prevent the newcomer and established
organizational members from negotiating a joint def-
inition of the situation. Specifically, attributional
processes will moderate the way in which role related
and cultural knowledge is transmitted to the new-
comer and also contaminate the feedback given to
newcomers by established organizational members.
The result is a distance or gap between the percep-
tions of newcomers and the perception of significant
others, which makes the learning process ambiguous.
Self-Other Perception
Bem (1972), for example, describes several factors
that may cause self-attributions and interpersonal at-
tributions to differ. In the intimate versus stranger
distinction, differences in the perception of behavior
arise because the parties have differential access to
467
the knowledge and experience through which the in-
timate (or newcomer) makes his or her attributions.
As a result, organizational members may misattribute
the reasons behind the newcomer's actions and there-
fore respond to that behavior inappropriately. This
process also works in reverse. In the self versus other
difference, the person's attributions of the situation
are affected by the operation of defense mechanisms
called in to counter anxiety or threat (Freud, 1966).
Examples would be displacement or projection, in
which the individual attributes to others qualities
disliked in the self. This leads to "distorted" self-
perception, which makes a definition of reality even
more difficult to negotiate. A third difference Bem
calls the actor versus observer difference. Now an ac-
tual difference of perspective arises because the per-
son and significant others give differential attention
to particular aspects of the situation. In Gestalt
terms, the saliency of the figure and ground differs
for newcomers and established personnel. In terms
of the present discussion, these factors suggest that
the way in which newcomers attempt to make sense
of the socialization process may differ from the way
in which established members define the organiza-
tional context. Newcomers may apply inappropriate
interpretive schemes to define the situation, and they
may wrongly attribute the meaning behind the over-
tures of established organizational members. Thus
there always is the potential for a conflict of mean-
ing during the socialization process, which, further-
more, is not necessarily resolved through the feed-
back process.
Although the newcomer's more obvious miscon-
ceptions may be quickly resolved, feedback itself is
moderated by attributional processes and also by
level of self-efficacy. Also, there are likely to be many
areas in which a conflict over perceptions or expec-
tations never arises because newcomers and estab-
lished members are not aware of disparities between
their world views. Newcomers make sense of the pres-
ent context through the interpretive screens they have
learned to use historically (Manning, 1970; Van
Maanen, 1977). Established members may take for
granted the premises behind the organization's rules
and procedures, so that they are unable to take the
role of the newcomer in order to understand the pro-
blems that newcomers experience. In this case, there
will be nothing to counteract the individual's defini-
tion of the situation, and past experience will supply
the newcomer with the keys to action. Any vagaries
in performance now are likely to be attributed to per-
sonality factors rather than to cognitive orientation
(Jones & Nisbett, 1971). Finally, within cultural con-
straints a role may be played in a wide variety of ways
without incurring censure (Goffman, 1959; Merton,
1957). In this case, it is only probable at most that
the newcomer's interpretation of the situation will
be affected by the overt responses of other organiza-
tional members and by the methods of socialization
used by the organization.
In summary, the causes and effects of the new-
comer's behavior may be interpreted differently by
both newcomer and observer, which will moderate
the organizational learning process.
An Interactionist Model
The import of the discussion above is that in order
to understand the way in which newcomers ex-
perience the organization and to explain the way in
which the nature of the socialization process leads
to predictable personal and role outcomes, a model
of the socialization process must account for:
1. The manner in which formal and informal socializa-
tion practices influence newcomer response during
early learning experiences.
2. The way in which individual differences affect the
newcomers' initial psychological orientation towards
the organization and condition newcomer response.
3. The manner in which attributional and learning pro-
cesses affect the way both the newcomer and the or-
ganization negotiate a joint definition of the situation.
This is attempted in Figure 1, which includes all three
factors (situation, person, situation x person interac-
tion), and represents an interactionist model of the
socialization process. Because of space limitations,
and because the manner in which formal and infor-
mal socialization practices infiuence newcomer re-
sponse has been the normal focus of analysis, discus-
sion will focus primarily on the moderating effect of
individual differences and attributional processes on
the socialization process.
The three circles. A, B, and C, of Figure 1 repre-
sent alternative conceptualizations of the relationship
between the newcomer and the organization. This
relationship is the result of:
1. The newcomers' psychological orientation based on
past experience, level of self-efficacy, and growth
need strength. This is represented by the arrows mov-
ing outwards, a longer arrow signifying a higher
strength of individual self-efficacy and so on.
2. The strength and power of the organization's methods
of socialization and the forms of knowledge transmit-
468
ted to the newcomer, i nis is represcnicu uy ii«. l^.•^gth
of the arrows moving inwards.
The product of this interaction determines the nature
of the newcomer's subsequent behavior in the orga-
nization.
The interlocking circles represent the perceptual or
sense making process occurring during the socializa-
tion process. This has three elements. First is the
newcomer's or person's perception of his/her behav-
ior, the I-me relationship (Brim, 1966). Second is the
way that this behavior is perceived by others or by
established organizational members who will jointly
come to some evaluation of the newcomer's behav-
ior, the they-they relationship. In Mead's (1934)
terms, at this level the newcomer is confronted by
the social givens of the situation or by the "general-
ized other." The generalized other provides the
cognitive cues that allow newcomers to test the ef-
fect of their action in the organization. It constitutes
an objective estimate of the degree to which new-
comers' definition of the situation corresponds to
that of other organizational incumbents. The third
component of the sense making process involves the
I-them and they-I linkages, represented by the arrows
connecting the self-other circles (Figure 1). These
linkages infiuence both self and other perceptions and
allow a definition of the situation and appropriate
behavior to be negotiated (Brim, 1966; Van Maanen,
1976). An increase in the distance " X " reflects a
divergence in perceptions between the newcomer and
significant others, and a narrowing of this distance
reflects a convergence.
However, in this formulation prominence is given
to the I-me and they-they linkages because of the ex-
istence of a gap or distance between self and other
perceptions noted above. In other words, the model
does not assume a fluid process of negotiation dur-
ing which misattributions or misconceptions can be
readily corrected through the agency of the I-them
and the they-I linkages, because of the attributional
processes described above. At the perceptual level
also, the consequences of the adoption of a certain
role orientation or, more generally, of newcomers'
constructions of the situation are tested against
reward-punishment contingencies. However, the re-
sults as perceived by the newcomer and as perceived
by the organization may differ. That is, the signifi-
cance of such signposts of acceptance, as promotion
or salary increase, or signposts of rejection, such as
transfer or poor performance review, depends on
both the newcomer and the organization using the nature of the feedback perception process.
same constructs to define these events. Research on The outcome level depicts the personal, role, and
equity theory and perceptions of pay satisfaction organizational outcomes contingent on the moder-
(Adams, 1963, 1965; Weick, 1966) and on the attribu- ating effects of individual differences and attribu-
.ional processes involved in performance feedback tional processes on the socialization experience. The
(Green & Mitchell, 1978; Ilgen, Fisher, & Taylor, final link in the model is a feedback loop to level 1,
1979; Jablin, 1979) has demonstrated the uncertain in which the newcomer's experience of a socializa-
Figure 1
Initial Orientation and the Socialization Process

NAIVE COMPETENT DOMINANT

Behavior

Others Perception
of Behavior
Self-Perception
of Behavior
Perception

Personal, Role, and

Organizational Outcomes
Outcome

N--Newcomer orientation.
O—Organizational socialization practices.
X-Distance X may increase or decrease.

469
tion cycle impacts back on the newcomer's initial
psychological orientation towards the organization
and thus influences future behavior.
The implications of the model are viewed from two
perspectives. First, positions A, B, and C are taken
to represent three alternative orientations of the in-
dividual towards the organization during entry:
naive, competent, and dominant, respectively. Sec-
ond, the positions are viewed as three successive
stages in the socialization process: position A,
representing the entry phase; position B, the en-
counter; and position C, the appreciative.
Three Different Psychological Orientations
Position A represents the naive orientation at en-
try. Here, the newcomer is overwhelmed by the ex-
perience of entry because of "poor" past experiences
or low self-efficacy expectations. The entry process
is perceived as threatening and anxiety-producing,
but the newcomer is afraid to test the parameters of
the organizational context in order to locate his or
her position in the organzation. Instead, the new-
comer will adopt strategies to reduce anxiety. Such
strategies may involve immersion in the task and the
avoidance of interpersonal contact so that newcomers
isolate themselves from the uncertainty of the situa-
tion. Given this restrictive world view, the way in
which newcomers perceive their behavior is likely to
be at variance with the perceptions of others. In the
extreme case, this may lead to the perception of the
newcomer as a deviant or isolate. Consequently, the
I-them and they-I linkages are likely to diverge as the
individual responds negatively to overtures from
others, and the distance " X " between self-other per-
ception widens, not narrows, as socialization pro-
ceeds.
Newcomers' defensive strategies produce a situa-
tion in which they are unable to perceive the incor-
rectness of their world view so that the distance be-
tween the perceived and actual results of behavior
also will grow. For example, if the newcomer reacts
defensively to other organizational members, any
feedback by organizational members about such be-
havior will only increase the newcomer's perception
of the hostility of the organization. As a result, by
the feedback loop, this will drive the newcomer into
even more inappropriate behavior paths. In this situa-
tion, newcomers are caught in a "reward or punish-
ment trap," in which they consistently will overesti-
mate or underestimate the rewards and punishments
470
associated with their behavior. For example, one
response to anxiety may be an overconfidence in
which the newcomer selects only those aspects of the
situation that reinforce the definition of the self. The
individual's perception is distorted. But, because of
the divergence of self-other perceptions for reasons
noted earlier, the newcomer is likely persistently to
overestimate the rewards received from the organiza-
tion, even when these "rewards" are viewed by others
as signposts to exclusion.
At the outcome level then, position A is suggestive
of the process that may lead to intention to quit,
withdrawal, or turnover, whether initiated by the
newcomer or the organization (Mobley, 1977). How-
ever, this would depend on the degree to which the
disparity between the I-them and they-I relationships
is apparent to organizational members. In cases in
which perceptual differences go untested or feedback
is unstructured, turnover is less likely. The modera-
ting effects of individual differences and attributional
processes also reveal why socialization practices may
not have their intended effect on role orientation and
organizational commitment, because in a position A,
the newcomer has not learned to define the context
appropriately. In this position, then, socialization has
not occurred.
The interpretation of position B follows a more
active conceptualization of the role of the newcomer.
Here, past socialization experiences provide the
newcomer with the competency to decode the orga-
nizational context. It may be hypothesized that a
newcomer with a high level of self-efficacy will define
the context differently from one with low level of self-
efficacy. Specifically, the former will be more con-
cerned with the cultural premises of the organization
as well as the necessary task or role learning. Initial
assignments and interpersonal feedback now serve as
the means through which newcomers build up a wider
vision of their role. Newcomers actively test the con-
straints of the organizational context in order to
define their positions within it, and the generalized
other only prescribes the limits of appropriate behav-
ior. It also is likely that the competent newcomer will
cross those limits in order to expose the unwritten
rules governing appropriate behavior in the organi-
zation.
The orientation in position B, then, is opposite to
that of position A, in which the newcomer's world
view is founded on false premises and in which self-
perception of activity distorted the context. As the
 competent newcomer arrives at an understanding of
the ways in which established members define ap-
propriate behavior, the distance between self and
other perception decreases. However, that new-
comers have learned to act appropriately does not,
given an active orientation , mean they will behave
in that way. For example, it may be hypothesized that
newcomers possessing high levels of growth need
strength will be concerned about the degree to which
they can act autonomously in the organization
(Hackman & Oldham, 1976). In these terms, the gap
between self and other perception is indicative of the
degrees of freedom newcomers have to define their
roles in their own terms. To the extent that new-
comers perceive that there is sufficient room to
manipulate that gap (i.e., the organization allows
latitude and differentiation in member response),
then they may perceive it possible to forge a role in
the organization with which they would be satisfied
within organizational constraints. However, to the
degree that the organization is able to impose a
uniform definition of the situation on newcomers
through its socialization practices and achieve
parallelism between I-them and they-I expectations,
newcomers may perceive themselves as overly con-
strained. Thus at the outcome level, whereas confor-
mity and accommodation may be the role orienta-
tion of less assured entrants, competent newcomers
may adopt innovative and possibly deviant action
strategies in order to create a measure of role
distance. If they cannot, then intention to quit and/or
organizational sanctions may follow. Thus the mod-
erating effects of individual differences and attribu-
tional processes may produce similar outcomes in
positions A and B, but for very different reasons.
The position B newcomers' actual response that
will occur when the perceptions of others have been
proved dominant depends on their evaluation of the
likely consequences of their actions. For example, in
prestigious organizations that offer the possiblity of
long term success, the individual may evaluate the
short term rewards of exit against the long term gains
of success in the same firm. If the latter predominates
and extrinsic rewards outweigh the loss of intrinsic
rewards, it may be hypothesized that the newcomers
will remain in the organization and accept the pre-
scribed limits of the culture. If, on the other hand,
the estimation of future rewards takes into account
'• those offered by other referent firms and the rewards
to be gained from apprenticeship do not match the
471
expected value of rewards elsewhere, organizational
exit is likely to occur. This orientation accounts for
the high turnover found among competent new-
comers during the two or three job moves after the
first organization.
From the organizational perspective, the manner
in which established members perceive and interpret
the newcomer's active orientation depends, first, on
the strategies adopted by the newcomer and, second,
on the strength or cohesiveness of the organization's
socialization practices (Van Maanen & Schein, 1979).
The newcomer's testing of the situation may be in-
terpreted as naivete, an indication of future poten-
tial for hierarchical and inclusionary entry, or as a
sign of misselection and deviancy. In each case the
organization will adopt strategies to determine which
interpretation is correct and at the perceptual level
test the newcomer's response by informal contact or
formal appraisal in order to redefine or encourage
the individual's construction of events.
Position C represents the orientation of an ex-
perienced newcomer entering the organization or of
an individual who, having passed hierarchical and in-
clusionary boundaries elsewhere in the same organi-
zation, is embarking on a new role in the same orga-
nization (Katz, 1978). In the latter case the resociali-
zation process is mediated by the individual's prior
knowledge of the organization's culture. As men-
tioned earlier, even new, dominant entrants are
assumed to be able to deal with the uncertainty of
a new situation. Thus, in either case, newcomers'
orientations to the organization and their subsequent
action in it may be described in terms of dominance
or control. The individual now uses the generalized
other only as a reference point for action and not as
a measure of the congruency of that action. The gap
between self and other perception now widens again
as the newcomer attempts to control the premises
behind the culture and redefine it by manipulating
and altering its values or rationality. Examples would
be that of a new chief executive officer who attempts
to control the organization's decision making systems
by the personification of a certain managerial style
or of a new department head who seeks to impose
a new structure of rules on a subsystem or reactivate
rules that have been allowed to lapse (Gouldner,
1954).
The position C newcomer is seeking to resocialize
established members by disrupting taken-for-granted
cultural assumptions. Although this may be done on
the interpersonal level, it also may be attempted by
altering the very rules for inclusion and promotion.
Organizational members may offer an active or a
passive resistance to the threat to the established
definition of the situation and may respond to the
resocialization process by attempting to isolate the
dominant newcomers (Pettigrew, 1973). In this situa-
tion the socialization process will become a political
process in which the power of the newcomer to in-
stitute change becomes a major factor.
In summary, organizational socialization viewed
from these three perspectives becomes far more than
just a description of the way in which newcomers
learn the nature of their roles and the cuhure of the
organization in order to act appropriately in it. As
the analysis suggests, in order to explain the role and
personal outcomes that occur as a result of the so-
cialization process, it is necessary to take account of
the intentions and orientations of newcomers towards
the organization. Similarly, the effect of formal and
informal organizational socialization practices on
newcomer adjustment cannot be explicitly linked to
role outcomes until the intervening effects of in-
dividual differences and attributional processes are
included in a socialization model.
Stages of the Socialization Process
It is possible, now, to examine the proposed con-
ceptual scheme as a stage model of the socialization
process. The interpretation of position A now follows
the treatment of socialization prevalent in the liter-
ature (Feldman, 1976; Katz, 1980; Schein, 1978). At
entry, newcomers confronted with an ambiguous or-
ganizational context attempt to make sense of that
context. The nature of their behavior is conditioned
by the knowledge provided by the organization dur-
ing the induction process. As a result, at the percep-
tual level newcomers attempt to reduce the gap be-
tween self and other perception by creating the
cognitive maps that allow an unequivocal interpreta-
tion of the rules and procedures of the organization
(Louis, 1980; Van Maanen, 1977). Similarly, the
organization will attempt to reduce the gap by its
socialization practices. Subsequently, newcomers'
evaluations of the results and rewards of their
behavior will infiuence their beliefs about the suc-
cess they have had in making sense of the situation.
The organization plays a crucial role here, for the
manner in which established members give feedback
and distribute rewards provides relatively unam-
472
biguous cues about the appropriateness of their
behavior (Katz, 1978; Louis, 1980). As a result of
this process, the difference between perceived results
and actual results will narrow, and this will feed back
and reinforce the style of response initially adopted
towards the organization.
From the above, the entry phase then leads natural-
ly into the encounter phase (position B) via the feed-
back loop. Newcomers are more aware of the con-
straints and opportunities in the organizational con-
text. They are more able to discern the possibilities
for exploring their organizational roles and for
developing competency in the organization (Feldman,
1976). The gap or distance between self and other
perception further narrows as the newcomers' orga-
nizational view is more consensually realistic. They
are able to typify the organization in the same man-
ner as the generalized other. Similarly, their evalua-
tion of the results of their behavior is more realistic.
They now have developed standards or criteria with
which to understand the organization's reward sys-
tems. Newcomers are able to choose rewards, set
wider limits on their behavior, and adopt a longer
time perspective in the light of feedback from ex-
perience (Katz, 1980).
Whether or not the newcomer's assimilation into
the organization results in conformist, role in-
novative, or content innovative behavior at the ap-
preciative stage, position C (and therefore the
strength of the arrows), remains largely an empirical
question (Van Maanen & Schein, 1979). It depends
on: (1) the way in which initial orientation infiuences
the newcomer's subsequent stance towards the orga-
nization; (2) the way in which organizational in-
cumbents use socialization tactics to impose a defini-
tion of the situation on newcomers; and (3) the or-
ganization's ability to control the relationship be-
tween self and other perceptions. The outcome of the
socialization process therefore is contingent on a
series of structural and process variables at the level
of the individual, the subsystem, and the organiza-
tion. In sum, the model allows each of the stages of
the socialization process to be analyzed within a single
conceptual framework.
Conclusions and Suggestions
When the individual's psychological orientation to
the socialization process and the attributional pro-
cesses involved in organizational learning become a
focus of analysis, the nature of the newcomer's ad-
justment to the organization becomes problematic.
Commitment, satisfaction, or role orientation, for
example, are not the direct results of socialization
practices. They arise from the complex interplay of
factors at many levels of analysis. The conceptual
model proposed here provides a basis for empirical
research into the moderating effects of interactionist
processes on personal, role, and organizational out-
comes. The sequential nature of the model indicates
the necessity for longitudinal analysis in socialization
research. To test the model, it would be necessary
to collect individual difference data before entry to
the organization, to measure the socializational tac-
tics employed by the organization, and subsequent-
ly to remeasure individual differences and personal
and role outcomes. Over a population of organiza-
tions, this strategy would reveal the effects of the in-
teraction of individual differences and socializational
practices on outcome variables. A research approach
based on triangulation also is warranted. Survey re-
search could be used to collect data on self-efficacy,
past experience, and perceptions of context and re-
ward and feedback processes. In-depth interviewing
could be used to interpret such data and to collect
information on the cognitive changes occuring in
References
Adams, J. S. Towards an understanding of inequity. Journal of
Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1963, 67, 422-436.
Adams, J. S. Inequity to social change. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.),
Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol 2). New York:
Academic Press, 1965, 276-299.
Bandura, A. Self-efficacy: Towards a unifying theory of behavioral
change. Psychological Review, 1977, 84, 191-215.
Bandura, A. The self system in reciprocjil determination. American
Psychologist, 1978, 33. 344-358.
Bem, D. J. Self-perception: An alternative interpretation of
cognitive dissonance phenomena. Psychological Review, 1967,
74, 183-200.
Bem, D. J. Self-perception theory. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Ad-
vances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 6). New York:
Academic Press, 1972, 1-62.
Berlew, D. E., & Hall, D. T. The socialization of managers: Ef-
fects of expectations on performance. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 1966, 11,207-223.
Brim, O. G. Socialization through the life cycle. In O. G. Brim
& S. Wheeler (Eds.), Socialization after childhood. New York:
Wiley, 1966, 3-49.
473
newcomers over time. The manner in which new-
comers' orientation changes over time as a result of
a differing construction of events during entry would
be a major focus of analysis here. From such research
it would be possible to increase understanding of the
processes shaping newcomer adjustment to the or-
ganization.
At a conceptual level, the model suggests a view
of the socialization process based on an interactionist
perspective, one that gives weight to the newcomer's
interpretation of the context as well as to the inten-
tions of socialization agents. As Wrong (1961) has
argued, research often has an "oversocialized con-
ception" of human action in which, through the pro-
cess of internalization, persons are viewed as com-
pletely molded by the norms and standards of the
culture. The model suggests, however, that the pro-
cess of internalization itself is contingent on the con-
structs newcomers historically have learned to use to
define their actions and the situation. In this case,
the organization needs to develop its socialization
program to suit the nature of the newcomers it re-
cruits and selects; it is not enough for the organiza-
tion to decide only on the socialization outcomes it
wishes to encourage.
Buchanan, B. Building organizational commitment: The socializa-
tion of managers in work organizations. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 1974, 19, 533-546.
Caplow, T. Principtes of organization. New York: Harcourt, Brace
and World, 1964.
Carp, R., & Wheeler, R. Sink or swim: The socialization of a
federal district judge. Journal of Public Law, 1972, 21, 359-393.
Feldman, D. C. A contingency theory of socialization. Ad-
ministrative Science Quarterly, 1976, 21, 433-452.
Freud, A. The ego and the mechanisms of defense. New York:
International Universities Press, 1966.
Goffman, E. The presentation of self in everyday life. New York:
Doubleday, 1959.
Gouldner, A. W. Wildcat strike. New York: Antioch Press, 1954.
Graen, G., & Ginsburgh, S. Job resignation as a function of role
orientation and leader acceptance: A longitudinal investigation
of organizational assimilation. Organizational Behavior and
Human Performance, 1977, 19, 1-17.
Graen, G., Orris, J. B., & Johnson, T. W. Role assimilation pro-
cesses in a complex organization. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 1973, 3, 394-420.
Green, S. G., & Mitchell, T. R. Attributional processes of leaders
in leader-member interactions. Organizational Behavior and
Human Performance, 1978, 2 1 , 27-39.
Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. Motivation through the design
of work: Test of a theory. Organizational Behavior and Human
Performance, 1976, 16, 250-279.
Hughes, E. C. Men and their work. Glencoe, 111.: Free Press, 1958.
Ilgen, D. R., Fisher, C. D., & Taylor, M. S. Consequences of in-
dividual feedback on behavior in organizations. Journal of Ap-
plied Psychology, 1979, 4, 349-371.
Jablin, F. M. Superior-subordinate communication: The state of
the art. Psychological Bulletin, \91<i. 86, 1201-1222.
Jones. E. E. & Nisbett, R. E. The actor and the observer: Divergent
perceptions of the courses of behavior. In E. E. Jones, D. E.
Kanouse, H. H. Kelley, R. E. Nisbett, S. Valins, ,& B. Weiner
(Eds.), Attribution. Morristown, N. J.: General Learning Press,
1971, 79-94.
Katz, R. Job longevity as a situational factor in job satisfaction.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 1978, 23, 204-223.
Katz, R. Time and work: Towards an integrative perspective. In
B. Staw &. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational
behavior {Vol. 2). Greenwich, Conn.: JAI Press, 1980, 81-127.
Louis, M. R. Surprise and sense-making: What newcomers ex-
perience in entering unfamiliar organizational settings. Ad-
ministrative Science Quarterly, 1980, 25, 226-251.
Manning, P. K. Talking and becoming: A view of organizational
socialization. In J. D. Douglas (Ed.), Understanding everyday
life. Chicago, 111.: Aldine, 1970, 239-256.
Mead, G. H. Mind, self and society. Chicago, 111.: University of
Chicago Press, 1934.
Merton, R. K. The role set: Problems in sociological theory. British
Journal of Sociology, 1957, 8, 106-120.
Mobley. W. H. Intermediate linkages in the relationship between
job satisfaction and employee turnover. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 1977, 62, 237-240.
Mortimer, J. T., & Simmons, R. G. Adult socialization. Annual
Review of Sociology, 1978, 4, 421-54.
Pettigrew, A. M. The politics of organizational decision making.
London: Tavistock Publications, 1973.
Porter, L. W., Lawler, E. E., & Hackman, J. R. Behavior in
organizations. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1975.
Rose, A. Human behavior and social processes. London:
Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1962.
Gareth R. Jones is Assisiani Professor of Managemeni in
the Department of Management, Texas A&M University.
474
Rousseau, D. M. Characteristics of departments, positions and
individuals: Contexts for attitudes and behavior. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 1978, 23, 521-540.
Salancik, G. R., & Pfeffer, J. An examination of need-satisfaction
models of job attitudes. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1977,
22, 427-456.
Schein, E. H. Organizational socialization and the profession of
management. Industrial Management Review, 1968, 9, 1-16.
Schein, E. H. Career dynamics. Matching individual and organiza-
tional needs. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1978.
Schutz, A. The phenomenology of the social world. Evanston,
111.: Northwestern University Press, 1967.
Schutz, A., & Luckmann, T. Structure of the life world. London:
Heinemann, 1947.
Silverman, D. The theory of organizations. London: Heinemann,
1970.
Van Maanen, J. Breaking in: Socialization to work. In R. Dubin
(Ed.), The handbook of work, organization, and society.
Chicago, III.: Rand McNally, 1976, 67-129.
Van Maanen, J. Experiencing organizations. In J. Van Maanen
(Ed.), Organizational careers: Some new perspectives. New
York: Wiley, 1977.
Van Maanen, J., & Schein, E. H. Towards a theory of organiza-
tional socialization. In B. Staw (Ed.), Research in organizational
behavior (Vol 1). Greenwich, Conn.: JAI Press, 1979, 209-264.
Wanous, J. P. Effects of a realistic job preview on job acceptance,
job attitudes, and job survival. Journal of Applied Psychology,
1973, 58, 327-332.
Wanous, J. P. Organizational entry: Recruitment, selection, and
socialization of newcomers. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley,
1980.
Weick, K. E. The concept of equity in the perception of pay. Ad-
ministrative Science Quarterly, 1966, 11,414-439.
Weidman, J. C. Nonintellective undergraduate socialization in
academic departments. Journal of Higher Education, 1979, 50,
48-52.
Weiss, H. M. Social learning of work values in organizations. Jour-
nal of Applied Psychology, 1978, 6 3 , 711-718.
Wrong, D. H. The oversocialized conception of man in modern
sociology. American Sociological Review, 1961, 26, 183-191.