Journal of Applied Psychology

Transcription

1 Journal of Applied Psychology The Role of Organizational Insiders' Developmental Feedback and Proactive Personality on Newcomers' Performance: An Interactionist Perspective Ning Li, T. Brad Harris, Wendy R. Boswell, and Zhitao Xie Online First Publication, June 20, doi: /a CITATION Li, N., Harris, T. B., Boswell, W. R., & Xie, Z. (2011, June 20). The Role of Organizational Insiders' Developmental Feedback and Proactive Personality on Newcomers' Performance: An Interactionist Perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology. Advance online publication. doi: /a

2 Journal of Applied Psychology 2011 American Psychological Association 2011, Vol., No., /11/$12.00 DOI: /a BRIEF REPORT The Role of Organizational Insiders Developmental Feedback and Proactive Personality on Newcomers Performance: An Interactionist Perspective Ning Li, T. Brad Harris, and Wendy R. Boswell Texas A&M University Zhitao Xie Shanghai Jiao Tong University Drawing from an interactionist approach and feedback research, we examine the role of developmental feedback and proactive personality on newcomer task performance and helping behavior. Data were collected from 2 high-tech joint-ventures within the information technology and manufacturing industries located in Shanghai, China. Results based on 151 newcomer manager dyads showed that supervisor developmental feedback (SDF) positively related to newcomer helping behavior and that SDF and coworker developmental feedback interactively predicted newcomer task performance. We also found differential moderating effects of proactive personality: SDF more strongly related to helping behavior when proactive personality was lower; conversely, coworker developmental feedback more strongly related to helping behavior when proactive personality was higher. Keywords: socialization, developmental feedback, proactive personality, performance Organizational socialization, the process by which employees learn the necessary attitudes, behaviors, and knowledge to fulfill an organizational role (Van Maanen & Schein, 1979), involves two forces: an organization s seeking to influence and shape newcomer adjustment and an employee s proactive effort to define his or her role within the organization (Bauer, Morrison, & Callister, 1998; Morrison, 2002). This approach, known as the interactionist perspective (Griffin, Colella, & Goparaju, 2000; Jones, 1983; Reichers, 1987), highlights the interactions between newcomers and organizations during the socialization process. In contrast to traditional socialization research, the interactionist perspective views the newcomer as a proactive agent in his or her adjustment to a new job, rather than as a passive reactor to the organization s socialization efforts (Ashford & Taylor, 1990; Morrison, 1993a; Saks & Ashforth, 1997). Despite promising progress in the socialization literature, several questions remain open to further investigation. First, there are several calls to investigate how newcomer individual differences might interact with organizational socialization tactics to influence socialization outcomes (e.g., Bauer, Bodner, Erdogan, Truxillo, & Tucker, 2007; Griffin et al., 2000; Gruman, Saks, & Zweig, 2006; Kim, Cable, & Kim, 2005). Little research, for example, has Ning Li, T. Brad Harris, and Wendy R. Boswell, Department of Management, Texas A&M University; Zhitao Xie, Antai College of Economics and Management, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China. We thank Dan Chiaburu, Richard Gardner, and Stephanie Payne for their helpful comments on a prior draft of this paper. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Ning Li, Department of Management, Mays Business School, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX nli@mays.tamu.edu examined the potential moderating role of newcomer personality traits in the socialization process. This is puzzling, given research that suggests work behaviors are jointly influenced by personality traits, including proactive personality, and situational factors (e.g., Tett & Burnett, 2003). Kim et al. (2005), for instance, argued that employee proactivity [emphasis added] can replace, rather than harmonize with, institutional socialization tactics (p. 239). Thus, to better understand newcomer acculturation, one must examine the interactions between newcomer traits and organizational socialization efforts (Reichers, 1987). Additionally, it is well documented that socialization occurs through social interactions between newcomers and organizational insiders, especially peers and supervisors (Feldman, 1981; Louis, 1990; Morrison, 2002; Reichers, 1987). However, few studies have examined how multiple sources differentially influence the socialization process (Kammeyer-Mueller & Wanberg, 2003). This is a potentially critical shortcoming, given that messages originating from the organization, supervisors, and peers may have different relationships with newcomer behaviors. Moreover, existing research has provided little understanding of how these differing sources (e.g., coworker, supervisor) may jointly influence socialization outcomes and/or how newcomer personality affects reactions to different socialization sources (Bauer et al., 1998). It is also important to note that past research has primarily focused on socialization s relationship with attitudinal criteria, including job satisfaction and organizational commitment, rather than primary criteria, such as newcomer behavior and performance (Bauer et al., 1998; Chen & Klimoski, 2003). Indeed, researchers seem to understand more about how newcomers feel than how they act. Of the scant research that has examined newcomer performance as an outcome of socialization, most has focused on task 1

3 2 LI, HARRIS, BOSWELL, AND XIE rather than contextual performance, such as organizational citizenship behaviors (Organ, 1988). This omission is noteworthy because organizational citizenship behaviors are important for both individual and organizational effectiveness (e.g., Podsakoff, Whiting, Podsakoff, & Blume, 2009). To address these gaps in the literature and in response to the call to understand the effects of multiple socialization agents (Bauer et al., 1998), we investigate the role of developmental feedback from the supervisor and from coworkers as it relates to newcomer helping behavior and task performance. Next, using an interactionist perspective, we examine the interactive effects between different developmental sources and individual differences (i.e., proactive personality) in predicting newcomer behavior (Jones, 1983; Reichers, 1986). We argue that proactive personality (i.e., tendency to identify opportunities to change things at work and act on those impulses; Bateman & Crant, 1993) moderates the relationship between supervisor developmental feedback (SDF) and coworker developmental feedback (CDF) and newcomer work behaviors. Our focus on proactive personality as a moderator was guided by the notion that newcomers are agents in their adjustment to a new job and that individuals may vary in their tendencies to positively and actively engage in the socialization process. Third, we extend the criteria of socialization research by including both newcomer task performance and helping behavior, providing a new understanding of how socialization relates to multiple criteria. Finally, by studying newcomers in China, we test the generalizability of socialization research within non-western countries. Hypotheses Development Organizational Insiders Developmental Feedback Upon entering an organization, newcomers may experience a reality shock as they reconcile their preconceived notions with their newfound reality (Jones, 1986; Louis, 1980). During this reconciliation process, newcomers are forced to learn critical behaviors and make important adjustments in order to adequately fill their organizational roles. From a theoretical standpoint, the socialization process is one of uncertainty reduction, whereby both organizations and newcomers play a role in reducing the uncertainty associated with the individual s new role (e.g., Bauer et al., 2007; Berger, 1979; Van Maanen & Schein, 1979). A rich source of help for newcomers may be the interpretations provided by organizational insiders, including supervisors and peers. The feedback provided by organizational insiders plays a pivotal role in facilitating newcomers fulfillment of organizational roles (Berger & Calabrese, 1975). We focus on supervisors and coworkers as sources of socialization, and, viewing socialization as a learning process (e.g., Bauer & Green, 1998; Chao, O Leary-Kelly, Wolf, Klein, & Gardner, 1994; Feldman, 1976; Haueter, Macan, & Winter, 2003), we examine the developmental feedback provided by each of these sources. Developmental feedback is defined as the extent to which organizational insiders provide newcomers with helpful and useful information that enables employees to learn, develop, and make improvements on the job (Zhou, 2003). Despite a large number of studies having explored the effects of other types of feedback, such as performance feedback on employee work behavior (Kluger & DeNisi, 1996), with few exceptions (e.g., Zhou, 2003), the role of developmental feedback in determining work behavior has rarely been studied. Therefore, it is important to discuss the uniqueness of developmental feedback in the nomological network of feedback research. Here, in line with prior work, we conceptualize developmental feedback as having two unique characteristics: (a) it provides helpful and useful (i.e., quality) information from others and (b) it is future oriented, as feedback recipients are directed toward making improvements on the job (Zhou, 2003). Therefore, developmental feedback is distinguishable from traditional performance feedback in that it is informational in nature, focuses on improvement, and is likely to boost intrinsic motivation (Deci & Ryan, 1980, 1985; Zhou, 2003). Developmental feedback is aligned with intrinsic motivation theory (Deci & Ryan, 2000) in that it leverages the intrinsic motivation of the newcomer and enhances his or her interest in the job itself and fosters an orientation toward learning and improvement. Performance feedback draws on feedback intervention theory (Kluger & DeNisi, 1996) in that either positive or negative feedback directs attention to the discrepancies between one s progress toward the goal and the goal itself. Performance feedback thus has a focus on past outcomes, and the sign of the feedback (i.e., positive vs. negative evaluation) is critical in determining employee behavior. Developmental feedback, however, has a future orientation and is informational in nature, even though it may contain unfavorable information (Zhou, 2003). As a result, the influence of developmental feedback is likely independent of the sign of feedback. For example, even though developmental feedback may convey negative signals, it unlikely to cause newcomers to give up; rather, it will motivate employees to work to improve future performance. Developmental feedback is also distinct from other contentbased feedback (e.g., social, technical, normative) in that it taps a general quality of feedback that may contain multiple informational cues, including technique and social norms, whereas content-based feedback focuses on specific task information. During the newcomer socialization period, newcomers are faced with a breadth of uncertainty; developmental feedback is paramount for communicating relational roles, cultural norms, and both in-role and extra-role expectations because it provides newcomers with general information rather than specific task-related information. Finally, as we have argued, newcomer socialization is jointly influenced by the organization s efforts and the newcomer s own proactive effort. Thus, developmental feedback provided by organizational insiders is different from a related but distinct construct feedback-seeking behavior in that the former construct captures the organization s effort in shaping newcomer adjustment whereas the latter reflects the proactive role of newcomers (Ashford, Blatt, & Van de Walle, 2003; Morrison, 1993a, 1993b; Parker & Collins, 2010). In this study, consistent with prior feedback research (e.g., Rosen, Levy, & Hall, 2006; Zhou & George, 2001), we assessed developmental feedback from the newcomer s perspective, which essentially captures the perceptions regarding feedback received rather than objective feedback. Our approach recognizes that a person responds to the situation (developmental feedback) that he or she perceives (Endler & Magnusson, 1976). Thus, to understand how newcomers are socialized, we need to understand how they perceive feedback provided by organizational insiders and how this relates to their behaviors. Also, because we focus on feedback

4 NEWCOMER SOCIALIZATION 3 perceptions, we argue that the quality of developmental feedback is a critical correlate to newcomer work behavior. In this study, in line with our conceptualization, we examined the relationship of two sources of developmental feedback perceptions, supervisors and coworkers, with in-role and extra-role (helping) performance. Developmental Feedback and Newcomer Behavior Prior research has demonstrated the central role of supervisors and coworkers in helping newcomers transition from organizational outsiders to insiders. Supervisors are in an especially good position to provide guidance and information on work role expectations, enable newcomers to better understand job and task expectations (Bauer & Green, 1998), and enhance newcomers identities toward the work unit, which in turn may promote newcomers workplace helping behavior (Sparrowe, Soetjipto, & Kraimer, 2006). Likewise, coworkers help newcomers learn social norms, organizational culture, task-related information and expected behaviors (Chiaburu & Harrison, 2008; Moreland & Levine, 2001; Morrison, 1993b). We offer two theoretical explanations for SDF and CDF to promote newcomer task performance and helping behavior during the socialization process. First, unlike other types of feedback, such as performance feedback, developmental feedback focuses on learning and development. This focus serves to enhance intrinsic motivation by engaging newcomers in the job. As a result, intrinsically motivated employees devote attention to the task with greater duration, intensity, and persistence, particularly when they encounter mistakes likely to occur during the socialization process (Deci & Ryan, 2000; Hackman & Oldham, 1980). In addition, feedback intervention theory suggests that feedback effectiveness decreases as attention moves up the hierarchy, closer to the self and away from the task (Kluger & DeNisi, 1996). As a result, newcomers are likely to accept the feedback and improve their work behaviors accordingly even when the feedback contains unfavorable information. Developmental feedback from supervisors and coworkers contains task- and social-related information. Task performance will benefit from formal role clarification and referent information provided by supervisors as well as the technical information provided by coworkers. Similarly, helping behaviors are expected to be influenced as newcomers learn social expectations and role expectations from coworkers and supervisors, respectively. Second, developmental feedback from supervisors and coworkers is meant to facilitate newcomers learning and development in a future-oriented manner, which signals to newcomers that organizational insiders support them and care about their future at the organization. From a social exchange perspective (Blau, 1964), newcomers will view developmental feedback as supportive and benevolent and will reciprocate this by investing greater efforts on tasks and exhibiting more prosocial behaviors toward their exchange partners. We made the following predictions: Hypothesis 1: Supervisor developmental feedback positively relates to (a) helping and (b) task performance. Hypothesis 2: Coworker developmental feedback positively relates to (a) helping and (b) task performance. As two important agents in the socialization process, coworkers and supervisors represent different types of relationships with newcomers. For the newcomer, the relationship with the supervisor is vertical and formal, whereas the relationship with coworkers is horizontal and informal (Liao, Liu, & Loi, 2010). As a result, information from a supervisor may differ from that from a coworker (Chiaburu & Harrison, 2008). Although both technical and social information are important for newcomers to transition into the new organization (Morrison, 1993a), research suggests newcomers obtain technical and role information primarily from supervisors but obtain social and normative information from peers (Morrison, 1993b). For example, a newcomer may learn general task and job expectations from the supervisor but more specific task behaviors and group role expectations from experienced coworkers in similar jobs. Because developmental feedback from different sources contains unique, nonoverlapping information, we expected that receiving information from both sources would be particularly beneficial to newcomer performance. Empirical evidence suggests that newcomers will be more effective when developmental support comes from multiple sources (de Janasz, Sullivan, & Whiting, 2003; Higgins & Thomas, 2001). In a sense, coworker feedback can help to amplify the influence of leader feedback. That is, leaders may clarify newcomers role expectations and help newcomers set reasonable goals to leverage their motivation level, but newcomers will have to master the required knowledge and skills to perform well. Coworkers, particularly experienced colleagues in similar jobs, play critical roles in helping newcomers master the required knowledge and skills needed to excel in their new roles (Morrison, 1993b). Similarly, coworkers are likely critical in defining social expectations, including helping behaviors, as well as fostering reciprocity-driven behavior. Conversely, when newcomers fail to receive valuable information from coworkers, the relationship between SDF and newcomer performance is likely attenuated because newcomers have incomplete job knowledge and skills. Thus, we made the following prediction: Hypothesis 3: Sources of developmental feedback (supervisor and coworker) interactively relate to newcomer socialization outcomes (a) helping and (b) task performance such that SDF will more strongly predict performance outcomes when CDF is high. The Moderating Role of Proactive Personality As discussed above, socialization is a process shaped by the influences of various socialization agents as well as newcomers own efforts. Therefore, it is theoretically important to examine the joint effects of socialization agents and employee proactivity on newcomer adjustment (Bauer et al., 1998). One important indicator of the employee s proactive effort is proactive personality, a stable disposition to take personal initiative in a broad range of activities and situations (Seibert, Kraimer, & Crant, 2001, p. 847). Proactive personalities initiate positive change in their environments regardless of situational constraints (Parker, Bindl, & Strauss, 2010; Seibert et al., 2001), and past research has shown positive relationships between proactive personality and desirable work outcomes (for a review, see Fuller & Marler, 2009) as well as substantial variance in proactivity across individuals in the

5 4 LI, HARRIS, BOSWELL, AND XIE socialization process (Crant, 2000; Kim et al., 2005; Seibert et al., 2001). Thus, we propose that proactive personality likely moderates the relationship between developmental feedback and newcomer work behaviors (Griffin et al. 2000; Kim et al., 2005) such that developmental feedback is less important for more proactive employees than for less proactive employees. Entry into an organization is characterized by high uncertainty. In an effort to reduce uncertainty, newcomers engage in behaviors to understand organizational norms and expectations (Kim et al., 2005). Proactive individuals may be able to reduce uncertainty more quickly because of three key attributes associated with proactivity, including being self-starting, change oriented, and future focused (Parker et al., 2010). For example, an individual who initiates more network building, a notable characteristic of proactive personality (Thompson, 2005), may gain information regarding the environment and job role and thus allow uncertainty to be reduced quickly (Kim et al., 2005). Additionally, past research has found links between proactive personality and relationship and network building (Li, Liang, & Crant, 2010; Thompson, 2005). This work suggests that an enlarged network may facilitate the communication of organizational policies and expectations (Ashford & Black, 1996; Kim et al., 2005; Morrison, 1993a, 1993b, 2002; Reichers, 1987), which ultimately helps to reduce uncertainty. If newcomers can anticipate and prevent potential problems in the socialization process, they may rely less on developmental feedback (Gruman et al., 2006). As a result, proactive efforts should attenuate the positive effects of developmental feedback from the supervisor and coworkers. Yet, developmental feedback is critical for less proactive newcomers to obtain the information needed to perform in their new role. Rather than proactively seeking information from a variety of sources, less proactive individuals tend to passively wait for information from supervisors and coworkers (Li et al., 2010). Consequently, nonproactive newcomers are likely to benefit more from SDF and CDF. Past work on affective socialization outcomes is consistent with this idea. Kim et al. (2005), for instance, found that institutional socialization tactics had a stronger impact on subjective fit for less proactive individuals, which suggests that proactivity may replace socialization tactics. Thus, we hypothesized as follows: Hypothesis 4: Proactive personality moderates the relationship between supervisor developmental feedback and newcomer (a) helping and (b) task performance such that the relationship will be stronger for newcomers with less proactive personalities. Hypothesis 5: Proactive personality moderates the relationship between coworker developmental feedback and newcomer (a) helping and (b) task performance such that the relationship will be stronger for newcomers with less proactive personalities. Method Sample and Procedure Our sample was drawn from newcomers at two high-tech joint ventures from the information technology (IT) and manufacturing industries located in Shanghai, China. Newcomers participating in this study were knowledge workers including IT engineers, programmers, and new product developers. Given the complex nature of the jobs, new employees typically need 6 months to master the knowledge and skills required to perform their new job roles. Two hundred surveys were sent to randomly selected newcomers with less than 6 months job tenure (100 surveys to each firm). Matched surveys were sent to the newcomers managers 4 weeks later to avoid common method bias and help establish temporal precedence of our variables. The managers reported the newcomers helping and task performance. 1 In total, 151 usable newcomer manager dyads were obtained for an overall response rate of 75.5% (78 dyads from Company 1 and 73 dyads from Company 2). Demographic information indicated that the average newcomer age was 25.2 years, 30% of respondents were female, 63% of respondents had bachelor s degrees or higher, and the average organizational tenure was 3.2 months (SD 2.1). 2 Measures Subordinates completed measures of SDF and CDF and proactive personality, and managers provided ratings of helping and task performance. A 7-point Likert-type scale (1 strongly disagree, 7 strongly agree) was used for all items. All materials were presented in the Chinese language. They were translated into Chinese from English following the standard translation and backtranslation procedures (Brislin, 1986). SDF was measured with Zhou s (2003) three-item scale. Items include My supervisor provides me with useful information on how to improve my job performance, While giving me feedback, my supervisor focuses on helping me to learn and improve, and My immediate supervisor often gives me developmental feedback (.79). CDF was measured with a three-item scale adapted from Zhou and George (2001). Items include My coworkers provide me with valuable information about how to improve my job performance, I find the feedback I receive from my coworkers very useful, and The feedback I receive from my coworkers helps me improve my job performance (.80). Proactive personality was assessed with 10 items from Bateman and Crant s (1993) 17-item scale. The reduced scale has shown strong validity in prior studies (e.g., Thompson, 2005). A sample item is If I see something I don t like, I fix it (.79). Helping behavior was measured with a seven-item scale developed by Van Dyne and LePine (1998). A sample item is This newcomer assists others in this group with their work for the benefit of the group (.89). Task performance was measured with three items adapted from Williams and Anderson s (1991) In-Role Behavior Scale. The 1 Because newcomers were spread across multiple departments and work groups, managers generally provided performance and behavioral ratings for only one or two newcomers. Of the 118 managers who provided performance ratings, 91 (77.12%) rated one newcomer, 21 (17.80%) rated two newcomers, and only six (5.08%) rated three newcomers. As a result, the nonindependence of performance ratings is minimal. 2 Although we were unable to collect demographic data on management respondents, we note that female managers constituted 26% of the companies management.

6 NEWCOMER SOCIALIZATION 5 items include This newcomer fulfills the responsibilities specified in his/her job description, This newcomer performs the tasks that are expected as part of the job, and This newcomer meets performance expectations (.83). Control variables. Because the data were collected from two firms, we created a dummy variable to control for the sample source. Further, consistent with prior socialization research, newcomers age, gender, education, and organizational tenure were included as controls (Bauer & Green, 1998; Kammeyer-Mueller & Wanberg, 2003). Such variables may influence a newcomer s reactions to the socialization process. Results Confirmatory Factor Analyses We performed a series of confirmatory factor analyses to assess the discriminant validity of our measures (Jöreskog & Sörbom, 1993). We compared a five-factor model with several alternative models in which the correlation between each pair of factors is fixed to 1 by conducting chi-square difference tests to show that the model with the freely estimated correlations displays superior fit to each model with fixed correlations (Bagozzi, Li, & Phillips, 1991). To maintain a favorable indicator-to-sample-size ratio, we randomly created three parcels of items each for the variables containing more than three items (i.e., proactive personality and helping behavior). Results (see Table 1) showed that the hypothesized five-factor model fit the data well, 2 (80, N 151) , comparative fit index.96, root-mean-square error of approximation.06, and displayed superior fit to each alternative model. Table 2 presents descriptive statistics for all variables in this study. 3 Hypotheses Tests We tested all the hypotheses using ordinary least squares regression. The results are presented in Table 3. Adding SDF and CDF accounted for 7% and 2% of the variance in helping and task performance above and beyond controls. As shown in Model 2, SDF was significantly positively related to helping (.16, p.05). Although the relationship between SDF and task performance was in the expected direction (.11, p.09), the relationship was not significant. Thus, we found support for Hypothesis 1a but not for Hypothesis 1b. With regard to Hypothesis 2, CDF was not significantly related to helping (.11, p.21) or to task performance (.01, p.93). Given that we included both SDF and CDF in the second step of the model, it is possible that the effects of CDF on the dependent variables were overwhelmed by the effects of SDF. Additional post hoc analyses examining the effects of CDF without including SDF in the model revealed that CDF had a significantly positive effect on helping (.19, p.05) but not on task performance (.05, p.52). Thus, we found some support for Hypothesis 2a. Hypothesis 3 proposed that CDF and SDF interactively relate to newcomer performance. The results of Model 3 and Model 7 in Table 3 show that the interaction of CDF and SDF was not significantly related to helping behavior (.07, p.25). Thus, Hypothesis 3a was not supported. The interaction of CDF and SDF on newcomer task performance was significantly positive (.11, p.05). The interaction term accounted for 3% additional variance in task performance. We plotted simple slopes using Aiken and West s (1991) simple slope testing procedure to better understand the form of the interaction. Figure 1 shows that when CDF was higher, SDF was more strongly positively related to newcomer task performance (.22, p.01 vs..00, p.80). Therefore, Hypothesis 3b was supported. The results of Hypotheses 4 and 5 are presented in Model 4 and Model 8 (see Table 3). As predicted, the interaction between SDF and proactive personality was significantly negatively related to helping behavior (.23, p.05), supporting Hypothesis 4a. However, the interaction was not significant for task performance (.13, p.14). Thus, Hypothesis 4b was not supported. A graphical plot of the interaction for Hypothesis 4a (see Figure 2) shows that, as expected, when proactive personality was lower, SDF was more strongly positively related to newcomer helping behavior (.35, p.01 vs..00, p.97). With regard to Hypothesis 5, the interaction between CDF and proactive personality was significantly positively related to helping behavior (.22, p.05) but not to task performance (.06, p.49). To investigate further, we plotted the interaction (see Figure 3). Contrary to our hypothesis (and contrary to the results for the SDF Proactive Personality interaction on helping behavior), the simple slope analysis revealed that when proactive personality was higher, CDF was more strongly positively related to newcomer helping behavior (.29, p.05 vs..04, p.72). Although the interaction between CDF and proactive personality on helping was significant, the direction did not match our prediction. Thus, neither Hypothesis 5a nor Hypothesis 5b was supported. We also conducted a post hoc dominance analysis (Budescu, 1993; Johnson & LeBreton, 2004) to assess the relative contributions of the feedback sources (CDF or SDF) as they related to performance outcomes. The relative weight coefficients reflect the percentage of total explained variance in a dependent variable attributable to each specific predictor (Johnson, 2000; Ondersma, Chaffin, Mullins, & LeBreton, 2005). As shown in Table 4, SDF explained more variance than CDF in predicting both helping (67.4% vs. 32.6%) and task performance (89.4% vs. 10.1%). In 3 To bolster the previous conceptual arguments regarding the developmental feedback construct, we also empirically differentiated developmental feedback from other feedback-related constructs, namely, negative/ positive feedback and feedback-seeking behavior, using an independent sample consisting of 142 full-time employees. The participants were alumni from a prestigious university in Shanghai who held a variety of jobs. Given the moderate sample size, we conducted separate exploratory factor analyses comparing SDF/CDF with each set of related constructs, including positive feedback from coworker, negative feedback from coworker, positive feedback from supervisor, negative feedback from supervisor, and feedback seeking. Positive feedback from coworker, negative feedback from coworker, positive feedback from supervisor, and negative feedback from supervisor were measured with the Feedback Environment Scale (Steelman, Levy, & Snell, 2004, validated by Rosen et al., 2006). Feedback seeking was measured with a scale developed by Morrison (1993b). Results of exploratory factor analyses indicate that all items loaded on the intended constructs, supporting the distinctiveness of developmental feedback. Detailed information is available upon request.

7 6 LI, HARRIS, BOSWELL, AND XIE Table 1 Comparison of Measurement Models for Study Variables Model Description 2 df 2 RMSEA CFI Null model All the indicators are independent. 1, The baseline 5-factor model Subordinates survey: SDF, CDF, PP Managers survey: Help and task performance. Model 1 Five factors. The correlation between SDF and CDF was fixed to 1. Model 2 Five factors. The correlation between helping and task performance was fixed to 1. Model 3 Five factors. The correlation between PP and SDF was fixed to 1. Model 4 Five factors. The correlation between PP and CDF was fixed to Note. df degrees of freedom; RMSEA root-mean-square error of approximation; CFI comparative fit index; SDF supervisor developmental feedback; CDF coworker developmental feedback; PP proactive personality. p.05. addition and consistent with the moderating hypotheses, the interactions between proactive personality and developmental feedback (13.5% for SDF and 11.6% for CDF) contributed a notable amount of the total explained variance in helping. The interaction between SDF and CDF accounted for 40.5% of the total explained variance in task performance. Discussion Drawing from an interactionist perspective (Griffin et al., 2000), we examined the interactive relationships between developmental feedback from multiple sources and newcomer proactive personality with newcomer helping behavior and task performance. Although supervisor developmental feedback (SDF) positively related to newcomer helping behavior, coworker developmental feedback (CDF) was not related to helping above and beyond developmental feedback from supervisors. However, results showed an important moderating role for CDF in the SDF task performance relationship, such that SDF more strongly related to task performance when CDF was higher. Socialization agents also had divergent relationships with newcomer behaviors dependent on newcomer proactive personality. In particular, SDF had a stronger relationship with helping behavior when newcomer proactive personality was lower, whereas CDF showed a stronger relationship with helping behavior when newcomer proactive personality was higher. These results enrich our understanding of the joint influences of socialization agents and newcomers in the socialization process. Theoretical and Managerial Implications Taken together, our results suggest several distinct contributions. First, we connected developmental feedback from different agents (supervisors and coworkers) with newcomer work behaviors, demonstrating the importance of developmental feedback and the source of the development in predicting newcomer performance. To our knowledge, this represents the first empirical endeavor to underpin the influences of developmental feedback on newcomer performance. SDF explained more variance than did CDF in newcomer helping performance (see Table 4). However, this finding should be interpreted with some caution. In particular, because we obtained newcomer behavior ratings from supervisors, the SDF helping relationship may be enhanced compared to a more global rating of helping behaviors. Thus, we might expect a stronger relationship between newcomer perceptions of CDF and newcomer behaviors if helping behavior had been assessed by coworkers. 4 Our specific research setting may also help to explain why SDF is more important than CDF for facilitating newcomer helping behaviors. According to Ilgen, Fisher, and Taylor s (1979) feedback processing model, employees tend to accept feedback from sources with high credibility. Therefore, in a society with high power distance, such as China, employees may view their supervisors as a more credible source for feedback than their coworkers. Thus, consistent with recent studies examining the validity of coworker socialization (e.g., Kammeyer-Mueller & Wanberg, 2003), our results suggest that the role of coworkers in socialization may not be as clear cut as previous theories have suggested. Although we do not contend that the role of coworkers in newcomer socialization is minimal or unimportant, our findings do allow for the possibility that contextual factors may be a key for understanding coworker feedback. Despite our finding that CDF did not explain variance in newcomer behaviors above and beyond SDF, CDF showed an important moderating role in the SDF task performance relationship. As shown in Figure 1, when CDF was lower, SDF mattered less. This suggests that CDF and SDF are nonsubstitutable and that high SDF cannot compensate for low CDF in predicting task performance. Instead, coworkers and supervisors both provide valuable and unique information relevant to newcomer task performance. Thus, coworkers play a critical role in the socialization process, although the effect may not be as direct as prior research has advocated (Moreland & Levine, 2001). A second contribution of this study is examining the interactive role of proactive personality. Drawing from interactional psychology, (e.g., Endler & Magnusson, 1976; Tett & Burnett, 2003), we argued and found that newcomer behavior depends on the interaction between individual differences and the work situations 4 We thank an anonymous reviewer for this alternative explanation.

8 NEWCOMER SOCIALIZATION 7 Table 2 Means, Standard Deviations, Coefficient Alphas, and Intercorrelations Between Variables in the Present Study Variable M SD Firm Age Gender (female 1) Education Tenure (month) SDF (.79) 7. CDF (.80) 8. PP (.79) 9. Helping behavior (.89) 10. Task performance (.83) Note. N 151, listwise deletion. Estimated reliabilities are in parentheses along the main diagonal. SDF supervisor developmental feedback; CDF coworker developmental feedback; PP proactive personality. p.05, two-tailed. p.01, two-tailed. (Lewin, 1951). In particular, we found that proactive personality moderated the relationships of SDF and of CDF with newcomer helping behavior, though the nature of the influence differed across the developmental agents. Consistent with our prediction that employee proactivity may substitute the organizational socialization effect, we found that the SDF helping relationship was stronger for employees with less proactive personality. Conversely and inconsistent with our hypothesis, proactive personality accentuated the link between CDF and helping behavior. The nature of the outcome may provide insight into our contradictory findings. In the workplace, employee helping behaviors are typically targeted at coworkers in the organization (LePine & Van Dyne, 1998). Therefore, proactive employees tendencies to help coworkers are likely to be activated by situational cues from coworkers that are relevant to behaviors targeted at coworkers (Li et al., 2010; Tett & Burnett, 2003). Again, this interesting finding may be attributed to the Chinese context. For example, supervisors may see proactive personality as less of a virtue because proactive behaviors may challenge the supervisor s authority (Campbell, 2000). This may be particularly salient in a Chinese society, where power distance is higher than in Western cultures. Nevertheless, our results suggest that the interaction between organizational socialization and newcomer individual differences is complex. Thus, they support the value of future studies in generating a more complete understanding of how newcomer personality may play different roles depending on the socialization agent. Another contribution of this study was extending the criteria of socialization research beyond attitudinal criteria to behavioral outcomes such as helping behavior and task performance. Both helping and task performance contribute to overall employee effectiveness (Ng & Feldman, 2008, 2009; Podsakoff et al., 2009), yet citizenship behaviors are rarely examined in socialization research. Our results reveal that developmental feedback has a particularly noteworthy relationship with helping behavior compared to task performance, suggesting an important link between newcomer socialization and more discretionary workplace behaviors. Finally, our findings hold important implications for managers. Given the importance of extra- and in-role behavior in organiza- Table 3 Results of OLS With Helping and Task Performance Helping Task performance Predictor Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6 Model 7 Model 8 Intercept 3.21 (0.62) 3.24 (0.61) 3.30 (0.61) 3.20 (0.60) 4.75 (0.56) 4.80 (0.56) 4.90 (0.56) 4.86 (0.56) Firm.43 (.26).31 (.25).28 (.26).29 (.25).13 (.23).17 (.24).21 (.24).20 (.24) Age.05 (.03).05 (.02).04 (.03).04 (.03).02 (.02).01 (.02).00 (.02).01 (.02) Gender.07 (.16).00 (.16).00 (.16).02 (.18).11 (.15).14 (.15).13 (.15).12 (.15) Education.06 (.10).05 (.10).06 (.10).06 (.10).10 (.09).11 (.09).12 (.09).12 (.09) Tenure.04 (.05).01 (.05).00 (.05).02 (.05).00 (.04).02 (.05).02 (.04).02 (.05) CDF.11 (.08).13 (.09).13 (.09).01 (.08).03 (.08).01 (.08) SDF.16 (.07).16 (.07).18 (.07).11 (.06).11 (.06).11 (.07) CDF SDF.07 (.06).07 (.06).11 (.05).13 (.06) PP.07 (.10).04 (.09) SDF PP.23 (.09).13 (.09) CDF PP.22 (.08).06 (.09) R R Note. In all models, beta coefficients are presented and the corresponding standard errors are reported in the parentheses. OLS ordinary least squares; CDF coworker developmental feedback; SDF supervisor developmental feedback; PP proactive personality. p.05, two-tailed. p.01, two-tailed.

9 8 LI, HARRIS, BOSWELL, AND XIE Figure 1. Coworker developmental feedback as a moderator of the supervisor developmental feedback task performance relationship. SDF supervisor developmental feedback; CDF coworker developmental feedback. Figure 3. Proactive personality (PP) as a moderator of the coworker developmental feedback interactive helping behavior relationship. CDF coworker developmental feedback. Figure 2. Proactive personality (PP) as a moderator of the supervisor developmental feedback interactive helping behavior relationship. SDF supervisor developmental feedback. tions (Podsakoff et al., 2009), our findings support the value of developmental feedback from supervisors as a possible way to promote newcomers positive workplace behaviors. Managers should pay special attention to the quality of the feedback as being developmental rather than as just providing a large amount of information. Also, because CDF strengthens the relationship between supervisor feedback and performance, organizations should encourage coworkers to assist newcomers development. Involvement of coworkers in newcomer orientation, mentoring programs, and career management initiatives may be particularly helpful. In addition, we suggest that managers should move away from a one-size-fits-all logic and consider individual differences when designing socialization strategies to maximize the effects of newcomer socialization. Because employees proactivity is likely to compensate for a lack of SDF, such feedback may not be as effective in promoting citizenship behaviors among the more proactive newcomers. Conversely, managers should highlight the important role of developmental feedback from coworkers for the more proactive newcomers. In effect, the differential moderating effects suggest how organizations can personalize newcomer socialization strategies to most effectively facilitate positive performance outcomes. Limitations and Future Research We acknowledge several limitations in this study. The first limitation concerns the generalizability of the results. We obtained the data from China, a culture that has different values from most Western countries. Even though an increasing amount of organizational research is being conducted in China with relatively similar findings to the West (e.g., Chen, Tjosvold, & Liu, 2006; Kirkman, Chen, Farh, Chen, & Lowe, 2009), it is important to consider the extent to which our findings may be culture specific. For example, in China employees may be more comfortable seeking information from their coworkers than from their supervisors because of the high power distance orientation (Hofstede, 1980). Comparative studies across different cultural and international contexts are needed in order to determine if our results are culture specific. An interesting extension of our model is to include culture value dimensions and examine whether newcomers with different culture value orientations (e.g., power distance) respond to multiple socialization agents differently. We were unable to capture the specific nature of information contained in the feedback. This is consistent with our conceptualization of developmental feedback as the general usefulness and helpfulness of information. It is possible that newcomers receive the same quality of developmental feedback from supervisors and from coworkers, but the content of information from different sources varied. It would be interesting to examine whether coworkers mostly reinforce supervisor messages or instead provide distinct and novel information. There may also be differences across newcomers such that some primarily receive technical information and others receive social information. Future researcher may thus consider developing finer measures of feedback, such as technical developmental feedback and social developmental feedback. In addition, we focused on newcomers perceived developmental feedback rather than objective feedback. It is important to note that the potential inconsistency between feedback perceptions and objective feedback may have implications for newcomer work

10 NEWCOMER SOCIALIZATION 9 Table 4 Dominance Analysis: Importance of Factors Predicting Helping and Task Performance Helping Task performance Predictor Relative weight as % of R 2 Relative weight as % of R 2 Coworker developmental feedback (CDF) Supervisor developmental feedback (SDF) CDF SDF Proactive personality (PP) SDF PP CDF PP R Note. Relative weight coefficients restate this contribution as a percentage of the total R 2 explained by predictor variables. behavior. Moreover, perceptual measures may introduce potential retrospect bias. However, newcomers in our study had tenures of less than 6 months, which is a time frame commonly used to minimize retrospect bias (e.g., Blau, 1993). Last, although we collected data at two time points, we cannot draw definitive statistical conclusions about causality. In line with recent suggestions (Ployhart & Vandenberg, 2010), further research should measure the variables of interest at multiple points in time and employ methods such as time series analysis to examine how newcomer behaviors may change over time and/or are reciprocally related. By doing so, future research can gain more insight on a long-standing research question inherent in the feedback literature: What is the implicit relationship between feedback and performance? Feedback intervention theory argues that feedback is given on the basis of past performance, suggesting a linkage between performance feedback and performance (Kluger & De- Nisi, 1996). Accordingly, one may expect that individuals below performance expectations are more likely to receive feedback than are those who perform well. However, developmental feedback has a future orientation, and, regardless of prior performance outcomes, employees have room to improve, particularly in the socialization context. Yet the performance developmental feedback relationship warrants further investigation with a longitudinal design used to more fully examine the feedback performance interplay. Future research can measure both developmental feedback and work behavior over time and examine whether the relationship changes as a function of employee transition in the new job. References Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Ashford, S. J., & Black, J. S. (1996). Proactivity during organizational entry: The role of desire for control. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, doi: / Ashford, S. J., Blatt, R., & Van de Walle, D. (2003). Reflections on the looking glass: A review of research on feedback-seeking behavior in organizations. Journal of Management, 29, Ashford, S., & Taylor, M. (1990). Adaptation to work transitions: An integrative approach. In G. R. Ferris & K. M. Rowland (Eds.), Research in personnel and human resource management (Vol. 8, pp. 1 39). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Bagozzi, R. P., Li, Y. J., & Phillips, L. W. (1991). Assessing construct validity in organizational research. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36, doi: / Bateman, T., & Crant, J. (1993). The proactive component of organizational behavior: A measure and correlates. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 14, doi: /job Bauer, T. N., Bodner, T., Erdogan, B., Truxillo, D. M., & Tucker, J. S. (2007). Newcomer adjustment during organizational socialization: A meta-analytic review of antecedents, outcomes, and methods. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, doi: / Bauer, T. N., & Green, S. G. (1998). Testing the combined effects of newcomer information seeking and manager behavior on socialization. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, doi: / Bauer, T. N., Morrison, E. W., & Callister, R. R. (1998). Organizational socialization: A review and directions for future research. In G. R. Ferris (Ed.), Research in personnel and human resources management (Vol. 16, pp ). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Berger, C. R. (1979). Beyond initial interaction: Uncertainty, understanding, and the development of interpersonal relationships. In H. Giles & R. N. St. Clair (Eds.), Language and social psychology (pp ). Baltimore, MD: University Park Press. Berger, C. R., & Calabrese, R. J. (1975). Some explorations in initial interaction and beyond: Toward a developmental theory of interpersonal communication. Human Communication Research, 1, doi: /j tb00258.x Blau, G. (1993). Testing the relationship of locus of control to different performance dimensions. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 66, Blau, P. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York, NY: Wiley. Brislin, R. W. (1986). The wording and translation of research instruments. In W. Lonner & J. Berry (Eds.), Field methods in cross-cultural research (pp ). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Budescu, D. V. (1993). Dominance analysis: A new approach to the problem of relative importance of predictors in multiple regression. Psychological Bulletin, 114, doi: / Campbell, D. J. (2000). The proactive employee: Managing workplace initiative. Academy of Management Executive, 14(3), Chao, G. T., O Leary-Kelly, A. M., Wolf, S., Klein, H. J., & Gardner, P. D. (1994). Organizational socialization: Its content and consequences. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, doi: / Chen, G., & Klimoski, R. J. (2003). The impact of expectations on newcomer performance in teams as mediated by work characteristics, social exchanges, and empowerment. Academy of Management Journal, 46, doi: / Chen, G. Q., Tjosvold, D., & Liu, C. H. (2006). Cooperative goals, leader