The Effects Of Pre-entry Experiences And Socialization Tactics On Newcomer Attitudes And...

Over two decades of research has indicated that initial experiences with an organization influence newcomers' work attitudes and behavior (Feldman, 1976; Saks and Ashforth, 1997). For example, pre-entry experiences during the recruitment and selection process are considered to be part of the

anticipatory socialization phase. During this phase, initial views of the organization are formed by newcomers that can have functional or dysfunctional consequences for their later attitudes and behaviors (Feldman, 1976; Fisher, 1986). Similarly, organizational socialization tactics applied in the weeks following entry represent another set of meaningful experiences that can affect newcomers' work-related attitudes and behavior (Jones, 1986).

To date, the majority of empirical studies have examined pre-entry experiences or socialization tactics separately. Thus, the joint effects of both on newcomer attitudes and behavior are unclear. One reason for the separation was the suggestion that the effects of pre-entry experiences are unimportant because they are displaced by the actual post-entry socialization experiences with the job and organization (McEvoy and Gascio, 1985; Miceli, 1986; Reilly et al. 1981). Others counter this suggestion and argue that pre-entry experiences remain a strong influence on work attitudes and behaviors months or years after entry (Breaugh, 1983; Feldman, 1976; Mabey et al., 1996). Given the high costs associated with recruiting and training new employees, managers and researchers alike have a pervasive interest in understanding all experiences associated with newcomers' work-related attitudes and behavior. As such, this study examines the effects of pre-entry experiences, as well as post-entry socialization tactics, on newcomers' subsequent work attitudes and turnover.

THEORETICAL MODEL AND HYPOTHESES

Our proposed theoretical model is depicted in Figure I. Step 1 in the model suggests that both pre-entry experiences and socialization tactics are positively associated with post-entry person-job fit and organization-based self-esteem (perceptions of worth). Job fit and worth are hypothesized to be positively associated with newcomer work attitudes (step 2), which in turn are negatively associated with newcomer turnover (step 3). Each step of the model is explained in the following sections.

Step 1: Pre-entry Experiences and Socialization Tactics[rightarrow]Fit and Worth

The two pre-entry experiences examined in this study include the job choice experience and pre-entry perceptions of person-job fit.

Job Choice Experience. The job choice experience is considered positive to the extent that the individual receives a number of job offers, believes that the job market is attractive, and has a relatively easy time making the job choice decision. As presented in Figure I, a positive job choice experience should be positively related to post-entry perceptions of person-job fit (P-J fit). P-J fit focuses on the fit between the individual's needs and the job rewards available to meet those needs. As noted by Saks and Ashforth,

"the number of jobs available and the number of offers received by applicants should be related to their perceptions of P-J fit. According to Breaugh (1983), the perception of choice is an important condition for self-selection. Job seekers with more job opportunities can choose organizations that are a better fit (Cable and Judge, 1996; Chatman, 1991). Thus, to the extent that one has more than one job offer and hence the perception of choice, they will be more likely to choose a job that they perceive to be a good fit" (1997:400).

On the other hand, if an applicant has a negative job choice experience, it may result in uncertainty about the job and thus the individual might perceive less post-entry job fit.

Positive job choice experiences should also be positively related to feelings of worth. Worth was operationalized as organization-based self-esteem (OBSE), or the individual's belief that s/he has worth specifically as an organizational member. In the pre-entry phase, organizations may send messages to job candidates through the recruitment and selection process implying that the selected candidates are an elite and valuable group of individuals (Rynes et al., 1991). These recruitment and selection activities may, thus, potentially elevate newcomer OBSE prior to entry. This may be particularly true for individuals who have many job opportunities. Additionally, research has shown that perceived job opportunities and success in the job search are positively associated with general self-esteem (Ellis and Taylor, 1983; Saks and Ashforth, 1997), which is positively associated with OBSE (Pierce et al., 1989).

Pre-entry P-J fit. Judge and colleagues suggest that job seekers develop perceptions concerning their degree of job fit prior to joining the organization, and that these pre-entry perceptions of fit influence later perceptions of fit (Cable and Judge, 1996; Bretz and Judge, 1994). For example, newcomers expecting the job to fit well with what they need in a job (pre-entry perceptions of fit) will selectively search for evidence to confirm this expectation. Additionally, they may also seek evidence that the organization values them and is pleased with what they bring to the relationship. Therefore, pre-entry P-J fit may also be associated with greater OBSE.

Socialization Tactics. Besides the pre-entry experiences, the model in Figure I suggests that post-entry socialization experiences can also influence newcomers' feelings of fit and worth. Van Maanen (1978) classified socialization experiences into six dimensions referred to as institutionalized tactics: (a) collective (i.e., socializing a group of newcomers together), (b) formal (i.e., segregating newcomers from the work group for an initial period of socialization), (c) sequential (i.e., providing a clear picture of the sequence of boundary passages), (d) fixed (i.e., providing a clear picture of the timing of boundary passages), (e) serial (i.e., having accessible and supportive role models available to the newcomer), and (f) investiture (i.e., supporting the newcomer's initial attitudes and values) (Van Maanen and Schein, 1979).

Overall, the group of tactics is expected to increase newcomers' post-entry P-J fit. The more newcomers are exposed to institutionalized socialization practices, the more they will believe that the job fulfills their wants, values, needs, and desires. This hypothesis is based first on the fact that institutionalized tactics provide a socially supportive environment (Mignerey et al., 1995). For example, sequential and fixed tactics provide newcomers explicit information about how and when the organization can meet current and future career- and job-related needs. Hence, ambiguity and uncertainty about the present job's role in fulfilling those needs are reduced and the connection between one's present job and some desired future job is clarified. Second, five of the six tactics (not investiture) change the newcomer in ways that are likely to bring the newcomer's values and desires in line with those characteristics of their present position. Finally, investiture acts to shape newcomers' beliefs that their need s and values are a fit with what the organization needs and values in a job incumbent. This may lead the newcomers to believe that their jobs should also be able to meet their needs.

Institutional socialization tactics should also increase newcomers OBSE. The more newcomers are exposed to institutionalized tactics, the more they will believe that they play an "... important, meaningful, effectual and worthwhile ..." role in the organization (Pierce et al., 1989: 625). Overall, institutionalized socialization tactics act as a signal to newcomers, letting them know that they are valued and important within the organizational context. For example, collective and formal tactics consist of a visible orientation and training programs which signal that the organization is investing in the newcomers and thus demonstrate how valuable the newcomers are to the organization. In addition, the investiture tactic seeks to "... ratify and document for recruits the viability and usefulness of those characteristics they bring with them to the organization" (Van Maanen and Schein, 1979: 124). Thus, investiture sends the message to newcomers that they already possess the characteristics of valuable organizat ional members.

In sum, the above reasoning suggests the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 1: Positive job choice experiences, pre-entry perceptions of P.J fit, and institutionalized socialization tactics will be positively associated with greater post-entry P-J fit and OBSE.

Step 2: Pre-entry Experiences and Socialization Tactics[right arrow]Fit and Worth[right arrow]Work Attitudes

Both pre-entry experiences and socialization tactics should be associated with work attitudes, such as job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and turnover intentions. For example, O'Reilly and Caldwell (1981) found that individuals who were able to choose from a number of offers were more satisfied and committed to their jobs. This is due to post-choice justification, which suggests that when the job choice experience is positive, individuals will emphasize information that leads to positive work attitudes, while information that may foster negative work attitudes is discounted or ignored. This occurs because individuals actively seek to confirm positive decisions (Power and Aldag, 1985). High pre-entry P-J fit should also be associated with more positive work attitudes because pre-entry expectations will serve to bias and frame later organizational experiences, which are the basis for newcomers' post-entry work attitudes (Louis, 1980). Finally, institutionalized socialization tactics have been empirica lly linked to increased organizational commitment, job satisfaction, and lower intentions to turnover (e.g., Ashforth and Saks, 1996; Jones, 1985; King and Sethi, 1992; Zahrly and Tosi, 1989).

As depicted in Figure I, the relationships between pre-entry experiences and work attitudes are mediated by newcomers' post-entry P-J fit and OBSE. Newcomers with high post-entry perceptions of P-J fit believe that the job is providing what they desire in a job, which leads to positive work attitudes. Research has indicated that individuals with better P-J fit have lower intentions to quit and higher job satisfaction and organizational commitment than those who have poorer P-J fit (Saks and Ashforth, 1997). Similarly, newcomers who feel valued should also have more positive work-related attitudes. Research has indicated that individuals with high OBSE possess more positive work attitudes than those with low OBSE (Pierce et al., 1989).

Based on the above arguments, we hypothesize:

Hypothesis 2: Positive job choice experiences, pre-en try P-J fit, and institutionalized socialization tactics will be positively associated with newcomer attitudes (job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and turnover intentions). However, these relationships will be mediated by post-entry P-J fit and OBSE.

Step 3: Pre-entry Experiences and Socialization Tactics[right arrow]Fit and Worth[right arrow]Work Attitudes[right arrow]Turnover

Research suggests that positive job choice experiences may be related to lower turnover (Saks, 1994; Wanous, 1992). However, the relationship is complicated by perceptions of market attractiveness and number of job offers. Newcomers who perceive an attractive market and who receive a number of equally attractive job offers during past job searches may be inclined to leave the organization because they have little perceived difficulty finding another job. On the other hand, if they chose this job easily from among a number of alternatives, newcomers may feel committed to their decision and positive about the job and organization. Thus, newcomers with positive job choice experiences may be less inclined to leave the organization. Pre-entry expectations of fit should also be associated with lower turnover because newcomers with high pre-entry P-J fit believe that the job does in fact supply what they want, need, or value in a job.

While the relationship between socialization tactics and turnover has not been directly tested, institutionalized socialization experiences are linked to lower turnover intentions (Ashforth and Saks, 1996; Jones, 1986) and, in turn, lower turnover intentions are related to lower turnover behavior (Hom and Griffeth, 1995). Therefore, it is not unrealistic to suggest that institutionalized socialization tactics should be related to lower turnover. Furthermore, institutionalized tactics do represent a greater investment in the newcomer, and newcomers may feel more obligated to remain with the organization as a result.

As presented in Figure I, pre-entry experiences and socialization tactics should ultimately affect newcomer turnover, at least in part, through post-entry P-J fit, OBSE, and newcomer work attitudes. Research has suggested that higher levels of post-entry P-J fit are related to lower turnover (Saks, 1994). Logically, if the job provides what one wants, a newcomer will be less motivated to leave. Similarly, newcomers who feel valued by the organization may have stronger expectations of building a career within the organization, and thus should be less likely to leave than someone who feels less valued. Finally, models of organizational withdrawal suggest that work attitudes and intentions are antecedents of turnover and often play a mediating role in explaining the effects of various predictors on turnover (Hom and Griffeth, 1995; Hulin, 1991). Thus, as proposed in our model, we hypothesize:

Hypothesis 3: Positive job choice experiences, pre-entry P-J fit, and institutionalized socialization tactics will be negatively associated with newcomer turnover. However, these relationships will be mediated by post-entry P-J fit, OBSE and newcomer attitudes.

METHOD

Participants

The original sample consisted of 317 newly hired employees of a large southeastern banking institution, or 100% of all new nonexempt employees entering the organization over a six-month period. One hundred and sixty-two (5 1%) participants provided complete and usable responses across the multiple measurement periods of this study. Overall, the usable respondents were, on average, 27.7 years old (s.d. = 9.4), 80% female, and 98% had, at a minimum, a high school education, with 37% possessing a bachelor's degree. To determine whether participant attrition resulted in a usable sample that differed from the population of newcomers in the sponsor organization, several analyses were conducted on demographic characteristics (age, education, and gender), and the variables (described below) measured at Time 1. The only statistically significant difference to emerge was age (F (314) = 4.14, p [less than] .05). On average, participants were two years older (27.7 years) than those respondents (25.7 years) who completed only the Time 1 survey.

Time 1 Measures

The first survey (Time 1) was administered during an orientation program, which took place on the newcomers' first day with the organization. Before administering the Time 1 measures, a researcher and organizational representative explained the purpose of the study, which was to better understand the socialization process. Subjects' consents to participate were also obtained. Job choice experiences and pre-entry P-J fit were measured at Time 1.

Job availability was measured with a single-item measure, which asked newcomers, "In your opinion, how many jobs are available in the job market for which you are qualified and that would fulfill the things you want, value, need or desire from a job?" (1 = none; 5 = a great many). Cable and Judge (1996) used a similar single-item measure (i.e., "Please give your best estimate of your employment opportunities in your relevant job market at the present time.") to capture the perception of job opportunities. Job offers was measured with a single-item measure, which asked newcomers, "Of the interviews completed, how many resulted in job offers extended to you?" A similar measure was used by O'Reilly and Chatman (1994) and Saks and Ashforth (1997) (i.e., "How many job offers did you receive?"). Choice difficulty was measured by asking newcomers, "How difficult was it for you to accept this job?" (1 = a very easy decision; 5 = a very difficult and complicated decision). Pre-entry P-J fit was measured by asking new comers to respond to the following question: "Thinking of all the things you want, value, need, or desire from a job, and based on what you know up to this point, how well do you believe your present job will fulfill those expectations?" (1 = greatly below my expectations; 7 = greatly exceeds my expectations). Similar single-item fit measures have been used previously in organizational entry research (e.g., Cable and Judge, 1996; Saks and Ashforth, 1997). For example, Saks and Ashforth (1997) demonstrated that their one-item general measure of perceived P-J fit (i.e., "To what extent does your new job measure up to the kind of job you were seeking?") was highly correlated (i.e., r = .78) with a four-item measure of perceived P-J fit.

Time 2 Measures

The second survey (Time 2) was administered on participants' third-month employment anniversaries. One week prior to receiving the second survey, participants received a letter from the researchers, and high-level organizational officials reminded them of the organization's support for the project. A package containing a cover letter, the survey, and a pre-addressed, prepaid postage envelope was sent the following week, and if necessary, follow-up packages were sent after 10 working days and again after 20 working days. Socialization tactics, post-entry P-J fit, OBSE, organizational commitment, job satisfaction, and turnover intentions were measured at Time 2.

Socialization tactics were measured using Jones' (1986) 30-item scale which has been used extensively in research (Ashforth et al., 1997). The measure includes 5-item subscales for each of Van Maanen and Schein's (1979) six tactics: collective, formal, sequential, fixed, serial, and investiture. High scores are indicative of institutionalized socialization tactics. The alpha for the formal scale was unacceptable [varies] = .39), and it was dropped from further analyses.

Post-entry P-J fit was measured by asking employees to respond to the following question: "Thinking of all the things you want, value, need or desire from a job, how well does your present job fulfill those expectations?" (1 = greatly below my expectations; 5 = greatly exceeds my expectations). OBSE was measured with a ten-item scale from Pierce et al. (1989). A sample item from the scale is, "I am important around here" (1 = strongly disagree; 5 = strongly agree). Organizational commitment was measured with the nine-item version of the Organizational Commitment Questionnaire (OCQ: Mowday et al., 1979). Based on a measure by Schriesheim and Tsui (1980),job satisfaction was measured with five items concerning satisfaction with the job, pay, career progress opportunities, co-workers, and benefits (1 = very unsatisfied; 5 = very satisfied). Turnover intentions were measured with two items. The first item asked, "What is the probability that you will be involved in a search for a job outside the company during t he next 12 months?" (1 = 0 to 20%; 5 = 81 to 100%). The second item asked, "Are you actively seeking another position outside of this organization?" (1 = no; 2 yes). The items were standardized and averaged to represent turnover intentions. High scores indicate high turnover intentions.

Time 3 Measure

Turnover was recorded six months after an employee's start date. Overall, 14 of the 162 individuals in the sample left the organization. This represents an 8.6% turnover rate. Turnover was coded as 1 for "stayers" and 2 for "leavers."

RESULTS

Table 1 presents the internal consistency reliabilities, means, standard deviations, and intercorrelations among the variables. Multiple regression was used to test Hypotheses 1-3. Hypothesis 1 stated that positive job choice experiences, pre-entry perceptions of P-fit, and institutionalized socialization tactics would be positively associated with greater post-entry P-j fit and OBSE. As depicted in Table 2, this hypothesis was partially supported. None of the job choice experiences were significantly related to either post-entry P-J fit or OBSE. Preen try fit was positively related to post-entry fit ([beta] .26; p [less than] .001), but not to OBSE. Finally, several of the institutionalized socialization tactics were associated with greater post-entry P-J fit and OBSE. Specifically, the serial ([beta] = .24; p [less than] .01) and fixed ([beta] = .20; p [less than] .001) socialization tactics were positively related to post-entry perceptions of P-J fit, meaning that the provision of role models (serial) and clear information regarding the timing of important socialization passages (fixed) increases newcomers' perceptions of P-J fit. Furthermore, the investiture ([beta] = .17; p [less than] .05) and sequential ([beta] = .26; p [less than] .001) tactics were positively related to OBSE. Thus, reinforcing the values and attitudes newcomers bring to the organization (investiture) and providing newcomers with clear information regarding the steps leading to targeted roles (sequential) increases newcomers' feelings of worth to the organization.

Hypothesis 2 proposed that job choice experiences, pre-entry fit, and socialization tactics would be positively associated with work attitudes, and that the relationships would be mediated by post-entry P-J fit and OBSE. Following Baron and Kenny (1986), we estimated a series of regression equations. First, we regressed the mediators on the independent variables (Table 2). Second, we regressed the dependent variables (job satisfaction, organizational commitment, turnover intentions) on the independent variables (Model A, Table 3). Finally, we regressed the dependent variables on both the independent variables and the mediators (Model B, Table 3). A mediating effect was present if in Model B: (a) either post-entry P-J fit or OBSE was related to the dependent variable, and (b) there was a reduction in the partial regression coefficients for the independent variables from the test of Model A.

As shown in Table 3, pre-entry P-J fit and three socialization tactics--investiture, sequential, and serial--were related to job satisfaction (column 1) and organizational commitment (column 3). With respect to satisfaction, the relationships between pre-en try P-J fit and the serial tactic and job satisfaction were partially mediated by post-entry P-J fit, while the relationships between the investiture and fixed tactics and job satisfaction were completely mediated by post-entry P-J fit. OBSE did not act as a significant mediator between the pre-entry variables and job satisfaction. In terms of commitment, the relationships from the investiture and serial socialization tactics to organizational commitment were completely mediated by both post-entry P-J fit and OBSE. Additionally, the relationships between pre-entry P-J fit and the serial tactic and organizational commitment were partially mediated by OBSE and post-entry P-J fit.

Finally, pre-en try P-J fit and the collective and serial tactics were related to turnover intentions (column 5). OBSE could not be a mediator because it was not related to turnover intentions (Baron and Kenny, 1986). However, post-entry P-J fit completely mediated the relationship between pre-entry P-J fit and turnover intentions, as well as the relationship between the serial tactic and turnover intentions. Post-entry P-J fit did not mediate the relationship between the collective tactic and turnover intentions.

Hypothesis 3 proposed that job choice experiences, pre-entry P-J fit, and socialization tactics would be negatively associated with turnover, and that these relationships would be mediated by post-entry P-J fit, OBSE, and work attitudes. Logistic regression was used to test Hypothesis 3 because turnover is a dichotomous dependent variable (Tansey et al., 1996). Additionally, Baron and Kenny's procedures (1986) were used to test for the mediation effects. The results are shown in Table 4. Only pre-entry P-J fit and the collective socialization tactic were related to turnover (column 1). The relationship between pre-entry fit and turnover was completely mediated by post-entry fit and turnover intentions, as hypothesized. However, contrary to the hypothesis, the collective tactic was positively associated with turnover. The more newcomers were socialized as a group, the more likely they were to leave the organization over a six-month period. Finally, when all of the independent and mediating variables were incl uded in the regression equation, a direct relationship between the number of jobs available and turnover emerged. As indicated in Table 4, the higher the perceived number of available jobs prior to entry within the organization, the greater the turnover over a 6-month period.

DISCUSSION

Within this study, we empirically investigated both pre-entry experiences and socialization tactics to provide more information about their effects on newcomer attitudes and turnover. Each of these relationships is discussed in the following paragraphs.

The Effects of Pre-entry Experiences

Overall, the pre-entry job choice variables (availability of other jobs, job-choice decision difficulty, or the number of job offers) did not have any effect on later perceptions of fit, worth (OBSE), or attitudes (job satisfaction, organizational commitment, turnover intentions). While these pre-entry variables may be important in other contexts, it may be that other types of pre-entry experiences are stronger socializing agents and thus have more dramatic effects on newcomers' work-related attitudes. For example, pre-entry experiences, such as realistic job previews, that share information about the company or the job are known as anticipatory socialization mechanisms which influence post-entry attitudes and behavior (Wanous, 1992). Hence, while the current findings on the job choice experience were disappointing, we know now that the perceptions of factors surrounding job choice may need to be considered relative to other types of pre-entry experiences in accounting for their effects.

Perceived availability of jobs did, however, have a direct effect on turnover. That is, the more newcomers perceived alternative jobs as being available on the first day of work, the more likely they were to quit during a six-month period. A rationale for this is provided by O'Reilly and Caldwell who suggest that "job choices that are easily changed allow the decision maker to reduce his or her behavioral commitment to the choice" (1981: 600). In this study, the lack of behavioral commitment seems to have been manifested through turnover. Future research should test whether perceived job alternatives are, in fact, a dissonance-reducing mechanism that prevents strong commitment of newcomers.

Current findings strongly supported the expectation that those individuals who strive for P-J fit in the pre-entry phase are more likely to continue to experience P-J fit after they enter the organization. This post-entry P-J fit, in turn, affects their subsequent work attitudes and behaviors. In short, pre-entry expectations of P-J fit are an important indicator of later attitudes and turnover. Future research should concentrate on what factors contribute to applicants' pre-entry perceptions of P-J fit. For example, Saks and Ashforth (1997) found that when applicants visited with campus recruiters and had a high level of general self-esteem they were more likely to perceive P-J fit prior to entry to the organization. It may be worthwhile to identify other recruitment tools used by organizations that further facilitate applicants' perceptions of P-J fit.

The Effects of Socialization Tactics

In general, we found that the serial, investiture, and sequential tactics were positively related to newcomers perceptions of fit and worth, as well as their work-related attitudes. This means that the more an organization provides role models, accepts and respects newcomers' values, and provides information regarding career paths within the organization, the greater the newcomers' perceptions of fit, worth, and work attitudes. The fixed socialization tactic, which focuses on sharing information about the timing of socialization events, as well as progression within the company, was also related to post-entry perceptions of P-J fit, but not to any of the work attitudes. Because the fixed tactic communicates the timing of events, it may help the newcomer determine whether the job fits with his/her long-term career goals. We also found that both OBSE and post-entry P-J fit acted as partial and sometimes complete mediators between some of the socialization tactics and the work-related attitudes. These findings s upport the idea that both OBSE and P-J fit are important variables within the socialization process. Additionally, these results suggest that organizations can be proactive about influencing newcomers' perceptions of fit and worth.

Two socialization tactics had effects on turnover intentions and/or turnover. First, the serial tactic of providing role models was negatively related to turnover intentions. However, this relationship was completely mediated by post-entry P-J fit. The collective tactic was directly related to turnover, but it had opposite effects from those predicted. Specifically, we found that the more organizations train newcomers in a group setting, the more likely they are to leave. One possible explanation is that the organization, in response to high turnover in a particular type of position, turns to collective socialization practices in the interest of efficiently training new employees. Another possible explanation is that the group training is insufficient for providing the individual with the necessary skills and abilities to perform the job well, and out of frustration the individual leaves.

Limitations

This study has several limitations that should be noted. First, all of the data within this study were based on self-reports. While this could result in common method variance, the fact that the data were collected across multiple time periods somewhat reduces this issue (Podsakoff and Organ, 1986). Second, single-item measures of pre- and post-entry P-J fit and the other job choice variables were used. While their use was justified from prior research which provides some evidence of their criterion-related validity (e.g., Gable and Judge, 1996; Saks and Ashforth, 1997), single-item measures are never superior psychometrically to multiple-item measures.

Implications

Our results, overall, suggest that future research needs to examine the socialization process as a cumulative process in which both pre-entry experiences and socialization tactics are designed to influence outcomes. Additionally, our study suggests that both OBSE and post-entry P-J fit are important variables in the socialization process. P-J fit, in particular, seemed to play a strong role in newcomer attitudes. Additionally, in terms of OBSE, this study as well as others suggests that a sense of personal contribution or worth within the organization may be one signpost of successful socialization (Wanous, 1992). Future research should further examine the roles of these variables in the socialization process.

From a practical perspective, a well-designed, institutionalized socialization program can help an organization keep its employees happy, which is increasingly important in a tight labor market. Organizations should design socialization programs that provide ample information concerning the timing and sequence of events in the socialization and development process. For example, a manager may have discussions with newcomers regarding the career development and training opportunities that are available. Additionally, organizations should engage in activities that support newcomers and provide role models to guide the learning process. Buddy systems or mentoring programs that partner a newcomer with an existing organizational member are a way of providing often-needed support and sources of information for newcomers. To the extent that organizations engage in these types of institutionalized socialization tactics, newcomers will perceive greater job fit and worth to the organization, which will lead to more pos itive work-related attitudes and behaviors.

Organizations should also make an effort to influence pre-entry perceptions of P-J fit. Our results indicated that these pre-entry perceptions of job fit ultimately result in lower levels of turnover. Providing applicants with ample information about the job and the organization, using valid selection techniques, and maintaining frequent contact with applicants during the selection process are just a few examples of activities that can help both applicants and the organization determine if there is a fit prior to the applicant accepting the job.

References

Ashforth, B. E. and A.M. Saks. 1996. "Socialization Tactics: Longitudinal Effects on Newcomer Adjustment." Academy Management Journal 39: 149-178.

_____, _____ and R. T. Lee. 1997. "On the Dimensionality of Jones' (1986) Measures of Organizational Socialization Tactics." International Journal of Selection and Assessment 5: 200-214.

Baron, R. M. and D. A. Kenny. 1986. "The Moderator-mediator Variable Distinction in Social Psychological Research: Conceptual, Strategic, and Statistical Considerations." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 51: 1173-1182.

Breaugh, J. A. 1983. "Realistic Job Previews: A Critical Appraisal and Future Research Directions." Academy of Management Review 8: 612-619.

Bretz, R. D., Jr. and T. A. Judge. 1994. "Person-organization Fit and the Theory of Work Adjustment: Implications for Satisfaction, Tenure, and Career Success." Journal of Vocational Behavior 44: 32-54.

Cable, D. M. and T. A. Judge. 1996. "Person-organization Fit, Job Choice Decisions, and Organizational Entry." Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 67: 294-311.

Chatman, J. A. 1991. "Matching People and Organizations: Selection and Socialization in Public Accounting Firms." Administrative Science Quarterly 36: 459-484.

Ellis, R. A. and M.S. Taylor. 1983. "Role of Self-esteem Within the Job Search Process." Journal of Applied Psychology 68: 632-640.

Feldman, D. C. 1976. "A Contingency Theory of Socialization." Administrative Science Quarterly 21: 433-452.

Fisher, C. D. 1986. "Organizational Socialization: An Integrative Review." Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management 4: 101-145.

Hom, P. W. and R. W. Griffeth. 1995. Employee Turnover. Cincinnati, OH: Southwestern College Publishing.

Hulin, C. 1991. "Adaptation, Persistence, and Commitment in Organizations." In Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology Volume 2. Eds. M. D. Dunnette and L. M. Hough. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press, Inc. pp.445-505.

Jones, G. R. 1986. "Socialization Tactics, Self-efficacy, and Newcomers' Adjustments to Organizations." Academy of Management Journal 29: 262-279.

King, R. C. and V. Sethi. 1992. "Socialization of Professionals in High-technology Firms." Journal of High Technology Management Research 3:147-168.

Louis, M.R. 1980. "Surprise and Sensemaking: What Newcomers Experience in Entering Unfamiliar Organizational Settings." Administrative Science Quarterly 24: 226-251.

Mabey, C., T. Clark and K. Daniels. 1996. "A Six Year Longitudinal Study of Graduate Expectations: The Implications for Company Recruitment and Selection Strategies." International Journal of Selection and Assessment 4: 139-150.

McEvoy, G. M. and W.F. Cascio. 1985. "Strategies for Reducing Employee Turnover: A Meta-analysis." Journal of Applied Psychology 70: 342-353.

Miceli, M. P. 1986. "Effects of Realistic Job Previews on Newcomer Affect and Behavior: An Operant Perspective." Journal of Organizational Behavior Management 8: 73-88.

Mignerey, J. T., R.B. Rubin and W.I. Gorden. 1995. "Organizational Entry: An Investigation of Newcomer Communication Behavior and Uncertainty." Communication Research 22: 54-85.

Mowday, R. T., R.M. Steers and L.W. Porter. 1979. "The Measurement of Organizational Commitment." Journal of Vocational Behavior 14: 224-247.

O'Reilly, C. A. III and D.F. Caldwell. 1981. "The Commitment and Job Tenure of New Employees: Some Evidence of Postdecisional Justification." Administrative Science Quarterly 26: 597-616.

_____ and J.A. Chatman. 1994. "Working Smarter and Harder: A Longitudinal Study of Managerial Success." Administrative Science Quarterly 39: 603-627.

Pierce, J. L., D.G. Gardner, L.L. Cummings and R.B. Dunham. 1989. "Organization-based Self-esteem: Construct Definition, Measurement, and Validation." Academy of Management Journal 32: 622-648.

Podsakoff, P.M. and D.W. Organ. 1986. "Self-report in Organizational Research Problems and Prospects." Journal of Management 12: 531-544.

Power, D. J. and R.J. Aldag. 1985. "Soelberg's Job Search and Choice Model: Clarification, Review, and Critique." Academy of Management Review 10: 48-58.

Rynes, S. L., R.D. Bretz and B. Gerhart. 1991. "The Importance of Recruitment in Job Choice: A Different Way of Looking." Personnel Psychology 44: 487-520.

Reilly, R. R., B. Brown, M.R. Blood and C.Z. Malatesta. 1981. "The Effects of Realistic Previews: A Study and Discussion of the Literature." Personnel Psychology 34: 823-834.

Saks, A. M. 1994. "A Psychological Process Investigation for the Effects of Recruitment Source and Organization Information on Job Survival." Journal of Organizational Behavior 15: 225-244.

_____ and B.E. Ashforth. 1997. "A Longitudinal Investigation of the Relationship Between Job Information Sources, Applicant Perceptions of Fit, and Work Outcomes." Personnel Psychology 50: 395-426.

Schriesheim, C. and A.S. Tsui. 1980. "Development and Validation of a Short Satisfaction Instrument for Use in Survey Feedback Interventions." Paper presented at the Western Academy of Management meeting.

Tansey, R., M. White, R.G. Long and M. Smith. 1996. "A Comparison of Loglinear Modeling and Logistic Regression in Management Research." Journal of Management 22: 339-358.

Van Maanen, J. 1978. "People Processing: Strategies of Organizational Socialization." Organizational Dynamics 7: 18-36.

_____ and E. H. Schein. 1979. "Toward a Theory of Organizational Socialization." Research in Organizational Behavior 1: 209-264.

Wanous, J. P. 1992. Organizational Entry: Recruitment, Selection, Orientation and Socialization of Newcomers 2nd ed. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Zahrly, J. and H. Tosi. 1989. "The Differential Effect of Organizational Induction Process on Early Work Role Adjustment." Journal of Organizational Behavior 10: 59-74.

TABLE 1:
Means, Standard Deviations,
Correlations, and Reliabilities
    Variable                        Mean  s.d.
 1. Job Offers                      1.74  1.25
 2. Job Availability                3.30   .81
 3. Choice Difficulty               1.76  1.09
 4. Pre-Entry Person-Job Fit        4.46  1.06
 5. Collective Tactic               2.85   .84
 6. Sequential Tactic               3.29   .69
 7. Fixed Tactic                    3.00   .80
 8. Serial Tactic                   3.52   .73
 9. Investiture Tactic              3.72   .74
10. Post-Entry Person-Job Fit       2.46   .79
11. Organization-based Self-esteem  3.88   .69
12. Organizational Commitment       3.64   .71
13. Job Satisfaction                3.50   .79
14. Turnover Intentions             1.64   .81
15. Turnover                        1.09   .28
                                    Correlations (Reliabilities)
    Variable                                                   1     2
 1. Job Offers                                               ...
 2. Job Availability                                         .20   ...
 3. Choice Difficulty                                        .29   .14
 4. Pre-Entry Person-Job Fit                                -.04  -.18
 5. Collective Tactic                                       -.00  -.02
 6. Sequential Tactic                                       -.07   .05
 7. Fixed Tactic                                            -.03   .05
 8. Serial Tactic                                           -.06  -.10
 9. Investiture Tactic                                      -.07  -.06
10. Post-Entry Person-Job Fit                               -.01   .06
11. Organization-based Self-esteem                          -.00  -.07
12. Organizational Commitment                               -.05  -.09
13. Job Satisfaction                                        -.05  -.06
14. Turnover Intentions                                      .04   .10
15. Turnover                                                -.06   .18
    Variable                           3     4    5      6      7
 1. Job Offers
 2. Job Availability
 3. Choice Difficulty                ...
 4. Pre-Entry Person-Job Fit        -.25   ...
 5. Collective Tactic               -.09   .10  (.75)
 6. Sequential Tactic               -.20   .16   .48   (.75)
 7. Fixed Tactic                    -.12   .13   .42    .61   (.71)
 8. Serial Tactic                   -.12   .15   .44    .59    .58
 9. Investiture Tactic              -.25   .23   .31    .45    .49
10. Post-Entry Person-Job Fit       -.24   .36   .25    .37    .54
11. Organization-based Self-esteem  -.10   .15   .25    .44    .43
12. Organizational Commitment       -.26   .37   .25    .52    .46
13. Job Satisfaction                -.26   .38   .28    .49    .57
14. Turnover Intentions              .10  -.25   .12   -.13   -.20
15. Turnover                         .07  -.22   .08   -.12   -.15
    Variable                          8      9      10   11     12
 1. Job Offers
 2. Job Availability
 3. Choice Difficulty
 4. Pre-Entry Person-Job Fit
 5. Collective Tactic
 6. Sequential Tactic
 7. Fixed Tactic
 8. Serial Tactic                   (.74)
 9. Investiture Tactic               .67   (.77)
10. Post-Entry Person-Job Fit        .44    .47    ...
11. Organization-based Self-esteem   .45    .51    .38  (.93)
12. Organizational Commitment        .53    .61    .61   .46   (.92)
13. Job Satisfaction                 .59    .61    .66   .46    .74
14. Turnover Intentions             -.22   -.22   -.45  -.16   -.52
15. Turnover                        -.15   -.12   -.24  -.13   -.25
    Variable                         13     14    15
 1. Job Offers
 2. Job Availability
 3. Choice Difficulty
 4. Pre-Entry Person-Job Fit
 5. Collective Tactic
 6. Sequential Tactic
 7. Fixed Tactic
 8. Serial Tactic
 9. Investiture Tactic
10. Post-Entry Person-Job Fit
11. Organization-based Self-esteem
12. Organizational Commitment
13. Job Satisfaction                (.82)
14. Turnover Intentions             -.43   (.61)
15. Turnover                        -.20    .38   ...
N=160
Correlations greater than or equal to
\.20\ are significant at a p[less than].01 level
Correlations greater than or equal to
\.15\ are significant at a p[less than].05 level
TABLE 2:
Results of Multiple Regression Analyses
for Hypothesis 1
Variables                 Post-Entry P-J Fit     OBSE
Job Offers                        .07            .07
Job Availability                  .09           -.10
Choice Difficulty                -.11            .02
Pre-Entry Person-Job Fit          .26 ***        .02
Collective Tactic                 .01           -.02
Sequential Tactic                 .03            .26 ***
Fixed Tactic                      .20 ***        .09
Serial Tactic                     .24 **         .15
Investiture Tactic                .10            .17 *
F                               10.00 ***       6.58 ***
n                              161.00         161.00
[R.sup.2]                         .37            .28
Adjusted [R.sup.2]                .34            .24
(*)p [less than] .05
(**)p [less than] .01
(***)p [less than] .001
TABLE 3:
Results of Multiple Regression
Analyses for Hypothesis 2
Variables                      Job                   Organizational
                           Satisfaction                Commitment
                                1           2              3
                             Model A     Model B        Model A
Job Offers                     .04          .01           .06
Job Availability              -.00         -.03          -.05
Choice Difficulty             -.10         -.06          -.10
Pre-Entry Person-Job Fit       .23 ***      .13 **        .22 ***
Collective Tactic             -.03         -.04          -.07
Sequential Tactic              .15 *        .11           .29 ***
Fixed Tactic                   .08         -.00           .01
Serial Tactic                  .34 ***      .23 ***       .23 ***
Investiture Tactic             .16 *        .10           .18 ***
Post-Entry Person-Job Fit                   .38 ***
OBSE                                        .10
F                            15.85 ***    19.64 ***     14.76 ***
n                           160.00       160.00        161.00
[R.sup.2]                      .49          .59           .47
Adjusted [R.sup.2]             .46          .56           .44
Variables                               Turnover
                                       Intentions
                              4            5          6
                           Model B      Model A    Model B
Job Offers                    .03         .01         .04
Job Availability             -.07         .04         .09
Choice Difficulty            -.06         .01        -.05
Pre-Entry Person-Job Fit      .13 **     -.22 ***    -.09
Collective Tactic            -.07         .30 ***     .30 ***
Sequential Tactic             .25 ***    -.09        -.08
Fixed Tactic                 -.07        -.01         .08
Serial Tactic                 .13        -.25 **     -.14
Investiture Tactic            .12        -.01         .03
Post-Entry Person-Job Fit     .34 ***                -.48 ***
OBSE                          .12 *                   .02
F                           17.29 ***    3.34 ***    5.97 ***
n                          161.00      161.00      161.00
[R.sup.2]                     .56         .17         .31
Adjusted [R.sup.2]            .53         .12         .25
(*)p [less than] .05
(**)p [less than] .01
(***)p [less than] .001
TABLE 4:
Logistic Regression Analysis
for Hypothesis 3
Variables                  Turnover
                              1          2
                           Model A    Model B
Job Offers                   -.25       -.34
Job Availability              .37        .46 *
Choice Difficulty            -.05       -.07
Pre-Entry Person-Job Fit     -.46 *     -.36
Collective Tactic             .50 *      .31
Sequential Tactic            -.28       -.32
Fixed Tactic                 -.11       -.03
Serial Tactic                -.34       -.17
Investiture Tactic            .15        .02
Post-Entry Person-Job Fit               -.20 *
OBSE                                    -.15
Job Satisfaction                         .19
Organizational Commitment                .19
Turnover Intentions                      .56 *
-2 Log likelihood           21.89 *    32.94 **
Model Chi-Square            22.21 **   35.63 **
n                          161.00     160.00
(*)p [less than] .05
(**)p [less than] .01
(***)p [less than] .001