Socialization Practices in Innovative Organizations: A Case Study of LINC, Lecture notes of Innovation

Download Socialization Practices in Innovative Organizations: A Case Study of LINC and more Lecture notes Innovation in PDF only on Docsity! \ WORKING PAPER ALFRED P. SLOAN SCHOOL OF MANAGEMENT Socialization practices and their consequences; The case of an innovative organization Karen A. Epstein Sloan School of Management Massachusetts Institute of Technology December, 1983 WP#1502-83 MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY 50 MEMORIAL DRIVE CAMBRIDGE, MASSACHUSETTS 02139 Socialization practices and their consequences: The case of an innovative organization Karen A. Epstein Sloan School of Management Massachusetts Institute of Technology December, 1983 WP#1502-83 Prepared with the support of: Chief of Naval Research, Psychological Sciences Division (code 452), Organizational Effectiveness Research, Office of Naval Research, Arlington, VA 22217, under Contract #N0014-80-C-0905: m 170-911 -2- I Introduction In any organization, new employees (newcomers) through their socialization experiences will learn what behaviors, attitudes, work styles, norms, career paths, etc., that organization considers acceptable. The critical period of socialization begins with the initial contact between an individual and an organization (often a recruiting interview) and continues until some time after the individual actually enters the organization. In the course of the first contact, the organization presents to the potential employee an overview of itself and possibly the specifics of a position. After entry into the organization, the words and actions of those around the newcomer expose him or her to additional information, both implicit and explicit, pertaining both to the organization and to working in the organization. Thus, the individual picks up cues regarding appropriate attitudes and behaviors, the norms and values of the organization, and what people with a given job title actually do. These early socialization experiences expose the newcomer to what goes on and to what is acceptable within the organization of which he or she is becoming a member. As will be discussed, different socialization practices elicit different responses in individuals experiencing the socialization. The purpose of this study is to test, in an innovative organization, a theory (Van Maanen, 1978; Van Maanen & Schein, 1979) which relates socialization practices to their outcomes. The time frame or passage of concern is entry into the organization. Thus, all socialization practices will be measured for this passage. -3- The socialization agents whose views and practices will be described are individuals on the first rung of a management career ladder (supervisors). The organization whose socialization practices are considered is the main engineering organization of a computer firm. In this paper, the engineering organzation will be referred to as LINC. -4- II Socialization theory Organizational socialization is the process by which a newcomer learns to function in an organization by an internalization of its norms, values, appropriate behaviors, and attitudes in order to make sense of the new environment (Moore, 1969; Marcson, 1960; Van Maanen, 1976; Schein, 1971; Feldman, 1980). Brim (1966) describes socialization as the means by which an individual acquires the culture of his or her group both by understanding status positions and by learning role prescriptions and role behaviors. Van Maanen (1976) and Feldman (1980) discuss the continuous nature of the socialization process: Van Maanen (1976: 68) describes the process as a "matching and melding of individual and organizational pursuits" and Feldman (1980) refers to the need for continuous acqusition of new behaviors and attitudes as ongoing socialization. Socialization can be formal or informal, its results intended or unintended (LeVine, 1969). When successful, organizational socialization results in "individuals becom[ing] members and continu[ing] as members of an organization" (Van Maanen, 1977: 15) and in the individual's developing an identity with the organization (Feldman, 1980). Studies have considered socialization of individuals into a variety of occupations. This paper focuses on socialization of computer scientists/engineers in one organization. Organizational socialization begins with the initial contact between an individual and an organization. During the period of 2 pre-entry or anticipatory socialization, the individual begins to -7- Because no socialization strategy is practiced independently of the others, what emerges for an organization is a patterning of socialization 4 practices along the seven dimensions. Anxiety and socialization outcomes Any transition or passage, a crossing of an organizational boundary, is a potential anxiety producing situation, which, in order to reduce the anxiety to a comfortable level for an individual, requires that the individual learn to understand or to make sense of the new situation (Van Maanen & Schein, 1979; Louis, 1980). The notion of anxiety used here is similar to Pelz' (1960) and Pelz & Andrews' (1976) concept of creative tension which refers to a situation in which some level of ambiguity/uncertainty, coupled with a fairly high level of security exists. In such a situation, an individual — a scientist or engineer in Pelz & Andrews' work — is enabled to take some risks and thereby to respond creatively. Thus, a certain level of tension (anxiety) is required for innovation. The level of anxiety experienced may be viewed as a function of the degree to which an individual "buys into" the norms and values of an organization. Therefore, anxiety is a key factor in determining outcomes along the innovative to non-innovative continuum. To relate Pelz & Andrews' concept of creative tension (anxiety) to socialization practices and outcomes, I propose the following. The level of anxiety associated with a transition can be affected by the form of socialization practiced at the time of the transition; a socialization strategy can either create or reduce anxiety. The effect of socialization -8- on anxiety is a function of both the completeness of the information regarding the new role transmitted to the individual and the individual's ability to meet the expectations and requirements of the new role. With too much or too little anxiety, an individual will be less able to innovate. Thus, a non-innovative outcome to the socialization strategy would result. With a moderate level of anxiety, innovation is possible and the associated socialization strategy, in this situation, would lead to innovative outcomes. What is a moderate level of anxiety will differ from individual to individual. This view of anxiety, as it relates to socialization practices, can be linked to the three outcomes of socialization described by Schein (196A): rebellion, creative individualism, and conformity. The links between level of anxiety, Schein' s outcomes, and innovation are depicted below. Outcome Response (Schein) Level of Anxiety Innovative Creative individualism Moderate Non-innovative Rebellion or conformity Extreme: none or high Using the level of experienced anxiety as a critical factor in the determinantion of responses to socialization, the following section presents each of the seven socialization dimensions which may be used in an organization to socialize newcomers or individuals who are crossing or have crossed an organizational boundary. These seven dimensions will later be used with espoused agent socialization practices at LINC to test Van Maanen's and Schein' s theoretical link between socialization practices and outcomes. -9- Descrlption of socialization dimensions 1. Setting; formal/informal This socialization dimension considers the degree of formality in the learning of new roles. An informal strategy prepares the newcomer for a new role, whereas a formal stratgey prepares the newcomer for a new status, a. In the informal strategy, newcomers are left to their own devices to learn their new roles: it's a sink or swim approach. This strategy emphasizes the development of actions appropriate to the new role. The role may be learned through loosely defined "on-the-job-training" assignments. According to the theory, the informal strategy has the "potential for more extreme responses" (Van Maanen & Schein, 1979: 49), The results of an informal strategy, dependent on the socialization agent(s), will tend to be either innovative or non-innovative. With innovative socialization agents, i,e. an innovative organization, outcomes are expected to be innovative. Similarly, when socialization agents are non-innovative, i.e, the organization has a primarily non-innovative orientation, outcomes are expected to be non-innovative. In this way outcomes of an informal strategy are situationally determined. b. A formal socialization strategy segregates or isolates newcomers from the regular members of the organization in order to provide the newcomers with a specific and common set of experiences. The emphasis is on developing appropriate attitudes and learning what one may or may not do in the new role. Because of the clear prescriptions to the newcomers, little anxiety is experienced. Hence, formal socialization is "most likely to produce custodial [non-innovative]" outcomes (Van Maanen & Schein, 1979: 48). -12- decreasing experienced anxiety, variable socialization should result in non-Innovative responses. o 4. Tracking: tournament /contest In this dimension, a career is viewed as a series of competitions, each of which has Implications for an individual's future career options. In a tournament socialization process, one mistake turns a person into a loser forever: the person is not likely to progress and may even move down in the organization. Contest socialization avoids making distinctions among individuals. In each competition, assuming similar levels of performance, each individual has the same opportunity for career growth. a. A tournament strategy causes individuals to be tracked, on the basis of presumed differences, as either winners or losers. The tracking typically occurs quite early in the individual's tenure with the organization. In an extreme tournament strategy an individual can not afford even one failure. Thus, to avoid failure, conformity to known rules and roles will be the 'safe' approach, little risk-taking is expected, employees will tend to a homogenous group, and responses are likely to be non-innovative. b. The contest socialization strategy is accommodating: everyone begins equal and has the same opportunities. Performance is the key criterion for advancement within the organization. These features are likely to result in the acceptance of individual differences, risk-taking, and high levels of participation and cooperation among organization members. Hence, high mobility is likely. Individuals are -13- encouraged to perform and not to conform. Thus, responses are likely to be innovative. 5. Stages; sequential/random This socialization dimension is concerned with the degree of knowledge regarding career stages along the path to a specific role in the organization. This role is viewed by the socialization targets as their career goal in that organization. When random socialization is practiced, knowledge of explicit stages on the path to the target role is unknown, whereas, in sequential socialization these stages are identifiable and known by members of the organization. a. Sequential socialization refers to the existence of discrete, identifiable stages, along the path to a career goal, a specific role. The socialization targets, both newcomers and current organization members, learn what is necessary for advancement. One stage may build on preceding stages and any required training is assumed to be available. This socialization strategy assumes that people who have passed through a given stage (or set of stages) are available to newcomers as resources. Because knowledge of stages is known, anxiety will be minimal and conformity will be expected in order to progress. Thus, sequential socialization should result in non-innovative responses. b. Random socialization refers to a lack of knowledge of clearly discernible and distinct stages leading to a career goal. There may be no consensus on what the target roles are, let alone how to reach those roles. Because individuals are not concerned with being in step or being on the path to some defined career goal, they are able to focus on their -14- work. For this reason and because the ambiguity may result in some g anxiety, responses to a random strategy should be innovative. 6. Role models; serial/disjunctive The existence or lack of existence of role models is key to this dimension. Role models serve to perpetuate the current operating practices in an organization and their lack leads to or results from changes in the organization's mode of functioning. In a serial socialization strategy, role models exist and in a disjunctive strategy they do not exist. a« Serial socialization requires the existence of role models in prescribed roles, who groom their successors. This allows an individual to predict and to plan his or her future by simply following role models or "following [in] the footsteps of immediate or recent predecessors" in a role (Van Maanen & Schein, 1979: 61). Minorities of any type are perceived as deviants. There are likely to be few changes in the organization over time: the organization will be stable. A risk of this strategy is stagnation. Because of the lack of ambiguity and consequent lack of anxiety, responses are likely to be non-innovative. b. Disjunctive socialization refers to a situation in which either no clear role models exist to introduce the newcomer to the new role or no clear role exists. Disjunctive socialization incorporates the idea that individuals will learn by ordeal: by being tested and exposed to the "reality" of working. It is practiced when continuity in the organization is not important or is not possible. Thus, the "old way" of doing things is de-emphasized. This strategy may result in confusion. -17- The socialization practices described here will be referred to later as data are used to test hypotheses linking outcomes to socialization practices in an organization. But first, the choice of organization and data collection (measurement of socialization practices) will be discussed. -18- III a) Choice of organization To test the socialization theory which links socialization practices with outcomes (Van Maanen, 1978; Van Maanen & Schein, 1979), one must consider organizational attributes which can affect the forms of socialization practiced within that organization. These socialization practices may be chosen explicitly or they may arise naturally, reflecting the norms and values of the dominant members of the organization. For an empirical test of Van Maanen and Schein' s theory, one must know first if an organization is innovative or non-innovative in its orientation, and, second be able to assess an organization's actual socialization practices. If the theory is valid, an organization's socialization practices will, through their outcomes, reinforce the orientation of the organization. For example, in an organization in which there are few changes over time, new ideas are frowned upon, and members are expected to conform to existing practices, the socialization practices should reflect the non-innovative orientation of members of the organization. Formal, collective, variable, tournament, sequential, serial, and divestiture socialization practices, which tend to reflect the non-innovative nature of the organization, are most likely to be the actual socialization strategies practiced. A similar argument can be made for a highly innovative organization. -19- Descrlptlon of LINC To test the seven hypotheses Implicit in the socialization theory, an innovative organization, LINC, was chosen. The socialization practices expected in an innovative organization are informal, individual, fixed, contest, random, disjunctive, and investiture. LINC is the main engineering organization of a computer firm and operates in a high technology, high growth industry. The firm of which LINC is a part was founded about 30 years ago and has experienced growth of over 20% annually for the past six years (1976-1982). LINC uses a matrix structure and a dual ladder of career paths (management/technical). LINC's dual ladder is depicted below. The percentages in parentheses reflect the percentages of individuals at each of the job levels. Dual ladder at LINC Managerial Technical ladder ladder Sr. Group Manager /VP (.3%)- Group Manager (2%)- -Sr. Fellow Sr. Manager (3%)- -Fellow (.2%) Manager (7%)- -Consultant Engineer (4%) Supervisor (9%)- -Principal Engineer (20%) Sr. Engineer (27%) Engineer II (22%) Engineer I (6%) As shown in the table below, for each job level, suggested education and/or experience requirements exist. Under the heading of "degree required" -22- group, those on the managerial ladder are more likely to be involved in recruiting new employees. Second, this group is more likely to have an espoused theory of enacting the socialization: knowing what newcomers 13 need to learn about LINC in order to work in the organization. And third, because the managerial ladder may tend to reflect the views of those at the top of the organization, managers — who are likely to be more closely linked to the top of the organization and its policies than non-managers — may be aware of the "LINC theory" of socialization, the company line. The following assumptions led to the choice of supervisors (first rung of the managerial ladder) as the most appropriate socialization agents with whom to begin this research, 1. As part of the management structure, supervisors will have theories, either LINC's or their own, of how to socialize newcomers and people moving up the ladders. 2. Supervisors are closest to the level of the engineers and as such are likely to be able to provide a good sense of what procedures and policies exist and how information on procedures and levels within LINC is transferred to these new and advancing engineers and technical people. 3. The matrix structure provides an employee with two individuals, each of whom is responsible for different areas: a supervisor who is responsible for administrative details, including evaluations of performance, career management, and salary determinations, and a project leader who oversees the individual's technical work. Therefore, supervisors are the initial socialization agents. They both present LINC to potential recruits during interviews when LINC, the work group, and possibly a particular position are described, and they are responsible for introducing newcomers to the organization at the time of entry. This introduction takes the form of "meet[ing] the person at the -23- door ..* I don't want somebody, on their first day, left wondering where their office is, wondering what to do ..." (LL13)*. The newcomer is also directed to individuals able to answer questions that arise. Supervisors are very likely to have been project leaders in their previous role, either Senior Engineers or Principal Engineers. Hence, at LINC, supervisors are in a unique position as socialization agents: they are most responsible for introducing newcomers to both administrative and technical aspects of the organization. This view of supervisors as the most appropriate choice for studying socialization agent practices is supported by Jacobson's (1977) study of TMR (the firm of which LINC is a part). He writes: The supervisor is perhaps the most central figure in the new hire's organizational life. The supervisor sets the climate of the work group, allocates work to the employees, evaluates their success, and determines in large measure promotion and salary increase, (p. 31) Socialization agents, in this case LINC supervisors, will have both espoused and actual theories of socialization. In this study, I am asking supervisors to describe how they bring newcomers into the organization. This enables an assessment of espoused practices. To assess actual practices would require a comparison of supervisor views with newcomers' perceptions of the socialization experiences. Although such an assessment is beyond the scope of this paper, comparing a limited set of newcomer perceptions (Jacobson, 1977) with the findings in this study shows many similarities. * LL13 is one of the supervisors in this study. See page 25 for details. -24- III c) Data collection Selection of subjects Supervisors having been determined to be the most appropriate socialization agents from whom to gather information on early socialization practices at LINC , I developed a representative sample of supervisors to interview from an anonymous list of about 200 LINC supervisors: I was provided a list of employees numbers, not names. The steps in this process were as follows. 1. Consider only those supervisors with at least one year of supervisory experience. It was assumed that those with less experience at this level might still be learning the ropes of the job and thus provide less useful information than an individual with more experience. This step created a population of roughly one third of the supervisors. 2. Break this population down by education, type of work (hardware/software), and age group (21-30, 31-40, 41-50). Percent of population in age group by education and hardware/software distinction Age Education Hardware /Software no degree Assoc. BA/BS MA/MS Hardware Software Total 21-30 31-40 41-50 53% 47% 100% 11% 8% 10% 57% 72% 52% 32% 20% 38% 4% 74% 22% 7% 61% 32% Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Women comprise 7% of the total population: 20% of the 21-30 age group, 9% of the 31-40 age group, and none in the 41-50 age group. 3. Within each age group, choose individuals representative of the spread in each age group on the basis of education, years at LINC, years as a supervisor, gender, hardware /software orientation, and those who came to LINC as their first job. -27- The following is a list of guideline questions that I will be using. I would like to have your answers from three, possibly different perspectives. A. Your perceptions of LINC's theory B. How you, as a supervisor work. C. How your own career fits into what you have described. The information gathered during the course of the interview will remain confidential: only members of the research team will have access to it. 1. Recruiting/entry into the company -what do you tell people or want them to know about LINC -what do you tell them about how things are done at LINC -how formal is this process, how standardized -describe the early experiences of new employees 2 . Movement -describe the stages/levels and criteria for movement . -what do you tell employees about career movement -is there any formal career planning -what are employees told about technical and managerial opportunities available to them -how are job descriptions used, if at all -are any individuals identified as special and moved along more quickly 3. Job assignment and evaluation -how does the performance appraisal system work -how are job assignments made and by whom -what criteria are used for salary determination 4 Miscellaneous -is there much attrition, at what levels -are there any differences in career by product line or machine architecture (faster or slower career growth) -dual ladder issues/choice and transmission of knowledge -what is good (best) about LINC -what makes LINC different from other companies -what changes have there been during the time that you have been at LINC Thank you for your help. I would appreciate that you not discuss the issues mentioned here—I would like to collect as many different and uniquely personal perceptions as possible. -28- IV Findings: Socialization at LINC This section classifies empirical data gathered from LINC lA supervisors using seven dimensions of socialization practices (Van Maanen, 1978; Van Maanen & Schein, 1979; Rosenbaum, 1979). The classification of the data reflects inferences made by the author from interviews with thirteen LINC supervisors. For each dimension, a hypothesis is presented followed by data which note the number of supervisors who discuss the topic as well the number who support the statement. Representative quotes and/or summaries are presented for each topic. The data are then classified and used to test the hypothesis. The nature of the data collection, interviews consisting of open ended questions, is reflected in the presentation of the findings. Each supervisor discussed what he or she believed to be important, hence, data depicting a variety of views on a particular issue do not necessarily exist. In fact, the lack of opposing data can be taken as support for a homogeneous view held by LINC supervisors. (1) Setting; formal/informal a. Hypothesis; An informal strategy results in either innovative or non-innovative responses, depending on the situation. When socialization agents tend to innovative orientations, as is the case in an innovative organization such as LINC, outcomes are expected to be innovative. When socialization agents have non-innovative orientations, outcomes are most likely to be non-innovative. LINC is expected to practice an informal socialization strategy that will result in innovative outcomes. -29- b. Data The climate Is unstructured; sink or swim, you are on your own Discussed by: 12 Supported by: 12 (AAl, BB2 , CC3, DD4, EE5 , GG7 , HH8 , JJ9, KKIO, LLll, MM12, NN13) "LINC Is known for allowing people to do their own thing ... It's a very unstructured company" (NN13). It is the lack of structure which distinguishes LINC from other organizations (AAl). The "non-rigid" or "freeflowing environment" (the "LINC culture") is used to entice applicants to LINC: "You are supposed to ferret out your own things" (EE5). "... it's a very free atmosphere, it's very loose in the sense that your success at LINC is a function of your aggressiveness, your willingness, and your ability to learn ..." (BB2). People can "make [their] own rules" (CC3). "I think ... that it's almost like ... a sink or swim situation" (HH8). Learning the ropes "by osmosis ."-*-^ Discussed by: 12 Supported by: 10 (AAl, CC3, EE5 , GG7 , HH8 , JJ9, KKIO, LLll, MM12, NN13) Two supervisors (DD4, FF6) tell newcomers about levels and career options. Both newcomers and current LINC employees find out about levels and career options "by osmosis" (n=5) or if they ask someone (n=5). This information is not explicitly provided to newcomers. It is assumed that the "college hires" (recent graduates) will somehow "find things out" about how LINC functions (MM12). There are no formal guidelines for working Discussed by: 3 Supported by: 3 (CC3, EE5 , GG7) It is what gets done, not how or when. c. Classification of data; The "sink or swim" approach of an informal strategy is an integral part of LINC's unstructured, hands off policy. Newcomers are expected to pick things up on their own. In some cases, an "official mentor" is assigned to help with the technical work and to answer more general questions about the work group and about LINC. The -32- (3) Time frames; fixed/variable a. Hypothesis; LINC is expected to practice a fixed socialization strategy which will result in innovative outcomes. b. Data There are no organizationally set timetables for career growth * Discussed by; 8 Supported by; 8 (AAl, BB2 , CC3, EE5 , GG7 , HH8 , MM12 , NN13) "It's ... your decision as to what you want to do and where you want to go. We'll help you get there, but we don't have any grand scheme laid out" (HH8). But, newcomers especially are not concerned with what they are "going to do five years from now," they are only concerned with the next project (AAl). "Your success is a function of your aggressiveness" (BB2). "The company is growing so fast ... it probably doesn't matter" what career planning exists, or what information is available to individuals (BB2). If a person does a good job, a promotion will ensue. Thus, there is no need for concern with career stages (MM12). There are great variations is project time frames across groups Discussed by: 11 Supported by: 11 (AAl, BB2 , CC3, DDA, GG7 , HH8, JJ9 , KKlO, LLll, MM12, NN13) Because time frames for projects vary from three months to five years, it becomes difficult to determine manpower needs for any given time. No consensus of the use of job descriptions Discussed by: 8 Supported by: 8 (AAl, BB2 , DD4 , GG7 , JJ9 , KKIO, MM12, NN13) LINC job descriptions of the stages (levels) are generally not used. Instead, many groups have developed their own descriptions to meet the group's requirements (n=5) or use no job descriptions (n=l) . For two supervisors it is unclear whose job descriptions are used, those of the group or LINC's. Because individuals may move through groups as they progress in their careers, this lack of consensus affects the organization-wide clarity of timetables and stages. -33- Discussed by : 12 Supported by: 10 (AAl, CC3, EE5 , GG7 , HH8, JJ9, KKIO, LLll, MM12 , NN13) Two supervisors tell their subordinates (DD4, FF6) The variable nature of the socialization is reinforced through the learning of career options and stages primarily "by osmosis." Performance measures are few Discussed by: 1 Supported by: 1 (AAl) There are few measures of performance, a function of the lack of structure in the environment. c. Classification of data; LINC's high growth rate has resulted in a constant need for additional people at all levels and great variance in project time frames, thereby tending to disallow the practice of a fixed socialization strategy. Although fixed timetables for movement are not possible, the majority of supervisors do schedule evaluations (salary and performance) in accord with the frequency requested by LINC. The regularity of the evaluations may provide LINC employees with some sense of structure. For, even if movement timetables do not exist, salaries will be reviewed, and most likely increased, on an annual basis. d. Conclusion; As this dimension refers primarily to career movement timetables, LINC has been determined not to practice fixed socialization. Thus, the hypothesis is rejected. (4) Tracking; tournament /contest a. Hypothesis: LINC is expected to practice a contest socialization strategy which will result in innovative outcomes. -34- b. Data Individuality Is encouraged, labeling Is not Discussed by: 11 Supported by: 11 (AAl, CCS, DD4, EE5, FF6 , GG7 , HH8, JJ9, LLll, >D^2, NN13) Because individuals are included in the making of job assignments, there is no one individual who is judging or tracking omnipotently. Four supervisors claim sole resposnsibility for making job assignments. Seven supervisors include the employee in the making of job assignments. Of these eleven supervisors, five stress the need to meet the needs of the individual and four to meet the needs of the group. Discussed by: 10 Supported by: 10 (AAl, CC2, DD4, EE5 , GG7 , HH8, JJ9 , LLll, MM12 , NN13) LINC provides individuals with responsibility and freedom. Individuals must push themselves. Finding one's spot Discussed by: 8 Supported by: 8 (BB2, EE5 , FF6 , GG7 , HH8 , KKIO , LLll, MM12) The option of mobility within LINC functions as a means of allowing each individual to find his or her own slot — no one is viewed as a loser, it is just that he or she is in the wrong spot (n=8). It is acceptable to shift between the two ladders (n=3: EE5, HH8, LLll). Performance is key Discussed by: 5 Supported by: 5 (CC3, EE5, FF6 , GG7 , MM12) It is the work that counts and not how or when it gets done (CC3, EE5, GG7). If a person is not willing to "be a performer," it will not go over well (FF6). Performance creates opportunities (MM12). No fast track Discussed by: 11 Supported by: 11 (AAl, BB2 , DD4, EE5 , FF6 , GG7 , HH8 , JJ9, LLll, MM12, NN13) LINC has a policy of paying for performance: "One thing that LINC really does, I think, is pay ... and promote on performance" -37- "The company is growing so fast ... that it probably doesn't matter ... [whether you] become a principal engineer or [an] engineering supervisor ... we have a need for just about everybody." Also, with rapid growth, career stages will necessarily change as the organization structure is forced to accommodate to the growth (BB2). Variable project time frames impact on careers Discussed by: A Supported by: 4 (EE5, FF6 , GG7 , MM12) As project time frames and priorities change, an individual's career might be affected when an individual is moved onto a project with higher priority or off a project which has been cancelled. c. Classification of data; LINC is an organization that prides itself on selecting newcomers for their individuality and creativity. A result of the emphasis on individuality is that career goals (target roles) are not commonly shared. The lack of consensus on career goals is reinforced by the loose nature of the transmittal of career/movement information. Thus, LINC practices a form of socialization in which individuals focus more on their work than on career planning issues, d. Conclusion: LINC has been determined to practice a random socialization strategy. The hypothesis is accepted. (6) Role models: serial/disjunctive a. Hypothesis: LINC is expected to practice a disjunctive socialization strategy which will result in innovative outcomes. b. Data Lack of norms and rapid growth at LINC . Discussed by: 9 Supported by: 9 (AAl, DD4, EE5, GG7 , HH8, JJ9, LLll, MM12, NN13) The group is growing now (n=5). Growth is projected (n=2). In two groups, no growth is planned. -38- Discussed by: 11 Supported by: 11 (AAl, BB2 , CC3, DD4 , GG7 , HH8, JJ9 , KKIO, LLll, MM12, NN13) Project time frames overlap and the project priorities change. Thus, career planning by stages is not inherently predictable. Discussed by: 8 Supported by: 8 (AAl, BB2 , DD4, GG7 , JJ9 , KKIO, MM12, NN13) No norms exist for the dissemination of career option and level information. Each group does it differently. In fact, many groups (n=5) develop their own job descriptions. Discussed by: 12 Supported by: 10 (AAl, CCS, EE5 , GG7 , HH8, JJ9, KKIO, LLll, MM12, NN13) Two supervisors tell their subordinates (DD4, FF6) Much of the information regarding levels within LINC is learned "by osmosis" and not from specific role models or predecessors, although some Individuals will look around to see who is doing what and at what level that person is (GG7). Individuals are responsible for their own career planning and progress . Discussed by: 12 Supported by: 12 (AAl, BB2 , CC3, DD4 , EE5 , FF6 , GG7 , HH8, JJ9 , LLll, MM12, NN13) Individuals must be responsible for themselves, they must work toward realizing their own goals. Individuals' interests are incorporated into the making of job assignments. "It's your decision as to what you want to do and where you want to go" (HH8). It is the work that counts, not how or when it actually gets done (CC3, EE5, GG7). Confusion and gaps in the structure . Discussed by: A Supported by: A (BB2, EE5, FF6 , NN13) The matrix structure has gaps and vagueness and LINC has developed more rules to govern work. NN13 related a story of someone who had reported to work on his first day and the person who had hired him was no longer at LINC. The newcomer felt totally abandoned. This happens, "though maybe -39- not as often as it used to happen ... people have been, tend to be, very shocked, because they are just sort of left (abandoned) ." Role models Although there is no explicit evidence for the existence of role models at LINC, "mentors," whose primary role is to provide technical guidance might be viewed as role models (see (2) collective/individual: discussed by eleven supervisors). c. Classification of data; A lack of internal role models, typical of disjunctive socialization is reflected in LINC's rapid growth which effectively forces people's careers to move quickly and in a variety of directions. No clear norms for movement can exist and the socialization agents are likely to be relative newcomers to the organization, with insufficient time to have learned from role models, should they exist. One consequence is that the organization will be in a state of transition with too few role models to socialize the newcomers. In addition to the lack of role models, LINC, as a result of its emphasis on individuality, does not take any initiative for career planning. Individuals must learn what is necessary and look after themselves. d. Conclusion; LINC has been determined to practice a disjunctive socialization strategy. The hypothesis is accepted. 18 (7) Identity; investiture/divestiture a. Hypothesis; LINC is expected to practice an investiture socialization strategy which will result in innovative outcomes. b. Data At LINC, screening for an initial fit of personality is very important; The type of individual who will function well at LINC is actively sought . -42- c. Classification of data; LINC practices a socialization strategy in which individuals are not molded into a common form ("clones"). LINC's concern for its employees and for the maintenance of their individuality is typical of an investiture strategy. By its practice, LINC reinforces the importance of fit: both in terms of selection and the criterion for selection (individuality) . d« Conclusion: LINC has been determined to practice an investiture socialization strategy. The hypothesis is accepted. To summarize this section, six of the seven hypotheses have been accepted. With one exception, LINC's socialization practices, as determined by the data, are as expected. The next section considers the implication of this finding. -43- V Analysis This research set out to validate a theory by testing hypotheses linking socialization practices to predetermined outcomes in an innovative organization. With one exception, as depicted in the table below, the hypotheses have been accepted. The one exception, in the fixed/variable dimension, can be explained in terms of situational or organizationally specific factors. In fact, two of the six other hypotheses are also situationally determined in that responses to both informal and individual socialization strategies are expected to be extreme and, in the case of an innovative organization such as LINC, we expect the innovative response. An innovative organization is most likely to socialize for innovative responses, because its members will tend to have innovative orientations and, as socialization agents, their orientations will be transmitted to the newcomers. Summary table of LINC's socialization practices Dimension formal /informal individual /collective variable /fixed tournament /contest random/sequential serial /disjunctive investiture /divestiture Hypothesized Practice at LINC informal individual fixed contest random disjunctive investiture Actual Practice informal individual variable contest random disjunctive investiture Accept/reject Hypothesis accept accept *reject accept accept accept accept Variable socialization; What happens to the theory? It is possible, under some conditions, for variable socialization to result in innovative responses. An innovative outcome to a variable -44- socialization practice is due to two factors. First, for an organization in a rapid growth industry it is difficult, if not impossible, to adhere to organizationally set timetables. And second, for a highly technical organization whose technologies are rapidly changing, career moves will necessarily reflect the technological changes because technical obsolescence may occur quickly. Elaborating on these two factors requires a return to the descriptions of each strategy fixed and variable. According to the theory, in a fixed socialization strategy an individual is considered deviant if "off schedule." At LINC, the norms for movement are dictated by the larger environment and not by the organization: what might be considered deviant in another environment may well be normal for ling's high growth and high technology environment. LINC's growth rate, over 20% annually for the past six years (1976-1982), allows for rapid career progress and makes it difficult to maintain organizationally set timetables for movement if they were to exist. In addition, the dominance of technical work results in tangible measures of individual achievement. Each of these reasons tends to negate a need for an organizationally imposed structure. Thus, because the rapid growth and evolving technology force frequent moves, the practice of a fixed socialization strategy is not possible at LINC. Although LINC's environment forces the practice of variable socialization, the consequent ambiguity affects everyone and the anxiety and frustration typical of variable socialization need not be experienced. Therefore, LINC's practice of variable socialization reflects the organization's situation, its environment, and it need not result in non-innovative responses typical of variable socialization. -47- unify the organization: "status differences interfere with establishing a feeling of community" (Dyer, 1982: 18). Selection on the basis of fit also emphasizes similarity of personalities. And, according to Holland (1973), in an organization in which there are similar personalities, individuals will tend to respond to problems in similar ways. Thus, the theme of fit and the assumption that GEM is one family both serve to reinforce similarities and consequently unity within the organization, be it LINC or the whole of GEM. The assumption that people are capable of governing themselves reflects the belief that "humans are assumed to be innately good and are seen as being proactive, enterprising, and willing to take responsibility for their own actions ... people have the ability to govern themselves" (Dyer, 1982: 27). By allowing and encouraging self-government, newcomers are left alone. It is believed that creativity and initiative will be encouraged by not dictating specific rules that might result in additional red tape, a loss of freedom, or GEM's becoming more like a big company. This assumption too reflects the theme of fit (creativity and individuality). Thus, Dyer's findings of GEM's cultural assumptions support the theme of fit at the firm (GEM) level and consequently the choice of LINC as an innovative organization. Fit and socialization practices Clearly, LINC's socialization practices reflect the concept of fit as an operating theme at LINC. Fit supports the innovative nature of the work at LINC: individxiality arises from the selection process, it is not -48- a result of the socialization. The socialization strategies practiced are those which both result in innovative outcomes and least constrain individuals, thereby reinforcing the innovative nature of members of the organization and the selection criteria. Examples of fit as an underlying theme of the socialization practices at LINC are included below. Example Selection of good people; those who can do the work and whose personalities match with those of existing LINC employees No constraints are needed when newcomers are chosen on the basis of fit The dual ladder option allows individuals to find their own niche within LINC There are no pre-set career stages that would shape employees Mobility within LINC allows each individual to find an appropriate spot Socialization Practice investiture informal & variable random & individual random individual, investiture, & contest To summarize, six of the seven hypotheses have been confirmed. The one disconfirmed hypothesis (fixed/variable) is shown to be determined by situational factors. Thus, on the whole, the theory presented by Van Maanen and Schein holds through this empirical test: an innovative organization will practice socialization strategies that support the organization's innovative nature. In addition, the patterning of socialization strategies may reflect something more: in this case the theme of fit, which is itself a reflection of the organization's cultural assumptions. -49- VI Future Issues As LINC continues its dramatic growth, it may become less possible to successfuly select new employees on the basis of "fit": there may not exist enough individuals with personalities matching LINC's concept of its employees. Hence, there may be a weakening in the homogenous personality at LINC (in terms of high levels of creativity and individuality) and, therefore, a consequent change in the level of innovation and possibly changes in the socialization practices as well. As LINC has grown, some supervisors, "old-timers" who have been at LINC for over five years, recognize the beginnings of an increase in structure (formalization) at LINC.^^ Dyer (1982: 30-31) learned that Oldtimers frequently express the fear that GEM will become more bureaucratic and accumulate more 'red tape' as it continues to grow ... some oldtimers have left GEM because they felt that the company was becoming more rule oriented, and as a result, they felt that they were losing some of the freedom that they once enjoyed. This view is supported by LLll who sees no reason to leave LINC as it is today, but he fears the changes that may occur as LINC grows. As more people come to work at LINC, it may not be possible to maintain LINC's current philosophy. With formalization and growth, GEM's cultural assumptions may become less pervasive, resulting in a shift away from socialization practices with innovative outcomes toward the non-innovative end of the continuum. For instance, with increased hiring, LINC may be forced to resort to more formal or more collective socialization practices. It may become necessary to standardize career paths, resulting in a shift from -52- Notes (1) Marquis (1965) studied engineering and science students and Miller & Wager (1971) studied scientists and engineers in an aerospace company, and Becker & Carper (1956A; 1956B) describe the occupational choice and socialization for three groups of graduate students: physiologists, engineers, and philosophers. (2) The term "anticipatory socialization," originated by Merton (1957), is described by Van Maanen & Schein (1977: 59) as "the degree to which an individual is prepared, prior to entry, for an occupational or organizational position." (3) Each pair of socialization strategies represents a continuum. The practice of a particular strategy refers to a practice which is nearer to one end of the continuum than to the other. In fact, on a particular dimension, an organization's socialization practice may fall directly in the middle of the continuum, implying a neutral or ambiguous practice. (4) The pattern will reflect the dominant response among the seven strategies practiced in an organization. Responses range from innovative to non-innovative. (5) The boundary may be a change of function, a change of hierarchical level or a shift relative to the core of the organization: a change in inclusionary status (Schein, 1978). (6) There are two distinct results of the four combinations of ability and knowledge: innovation or non-innovation First, an individual who knows exactly what is expected and has the ability to do just that will experience no ambiguity and consequently no anxiety. This person is not likely to be innovative. Second, an individual who does not know what is expected and yet has the ability to meet the expectations will experience some ambiguity and hence some anxiety. This person will be able to be innovative. Third, an individual may know what is expected and also know that he or she is unable to do what is expected. This individual will experience a great deal of anxiety and thus be unable to be innovative. Finally, we have an individual who would be unable to do what is expected, even if he or she knew what that was. This person may or may not experience ambiguity or anxiety. In either case, innovation is unlikely. (7) According to Brim & Wheeler (1966), the level of dissent will be inversely related to the individual's degree of commitment to the organization. (8) This dimension is based on work by Rosenbaum (1979) on mobility patterns in organizations. The theory for this dimension is fairly vague, a function of a general lack of empirical evidence. (9) Van Maanen & Schein (1979) refer to an innovative outcome to a random socialization process. I would argue that responses could go either way — dependent upon the level of anxiety experienced. -53- (10) LINC is part of a larger computer firm that has been studied by others and given a variety of pseudonyms. In particular, the firm has been referred to as TMR (Jacobsen, 1977) and GEM (Dyer, 1982). (11) Because targets are new to the organization or new to a position within the organization, they lack the clues necessary to accurately Interpret socialization processes. In fact, their views will be biased by their prior experiences both in and out of the organization. Socialization agents are more directly involved in the presentation of "the way things are done" in their organization. Though direct, their involvement may be implicit as well as explicit. Thus the difference between espoused and actual practice. (12) There are differences between espoused theory and practice. It is difficult within the framework of this research to fully assess such differences. (13) Wheeler (Brim & Wheeler, 1966) notes that a socialization agent may be unaware of his role. Thus, a supervisor at LINC may have an espoused theory — which is what this research hopes to learn — as well as more implicit socialization practices which are beyond the scope of this research. Implicit practices would have to be assessed from the socialization targets. Jacobson (1977) has done this for TMR. His results compare favorably with the findings in this paper. (14) All findings should be read and interpreted with the understanding that since supervisors are on the managerial path, their views should reflect the perceptions of those on the managerial ladder. (15) "By osmosis" means that a person will pick something up just by virtue of being at LINC and interacting with others who are there — in the natural course of working. Osmosis does not imply the conscious choice to which Van Maanen & Schein (1979: 46) refer when they comment that informal socialization places "recruits in the position where they must select their own socialization agents." (16) At LINC, an "official mentor" is often assigned to a newcomer. This individual is typically one or more levels above the newcomer and is responsible for guidance, primarily with regard to the technical work. For newcomers to LINC who have work experience, the level of guidance and supervision tends to be lower than for newcomers right out of college. (17) All thirteen supervisors schedule annual salary reviews for their subordinates, and nine of the thirteen schedule semi-annual performance reviews, the frequencies required by LINC. The remaining four supervisors schedule performance reviews as follows: -54- Knows should be Supervisor Frequency of review semi-annual FF6 every 3 months yes BB2 every 12 months yes LLll unclear—less than yes semi-annual JJ9 never: provides feedback no—believes annual as deemed necessary (18) Though, in highly technical organizations, divestiture may be practiced as one moves into management, this analysis is only concerned with the time of entry into the organization, at which time investiture is the strategy practiced. The shift to management incurs a change of emphasis (technical work to planning and administrating) and a change in one's peer group. For technically-trained individuals, such as LINC's engineers, the move into management may imply the relinquishing of their training and values for those of the new domain—management. According to LINC supervisors, the pros of the management ladder are less tangible than the pros of the technical ladder, with which the individual will already be familiar. Thus, a move to managment may be viewed as a move from the known into the unknown (a "twilight zone" in which the rules are new and less explicit). (19) This multi-dimensional pattern may reflect underlying assumptions or themes by which the organization operates (Dyer, personal communication, 1982). (20) As support for selection on the basis of fit, I will recount a personal experience. In the course of my interviews at LINC, five or six of the thirteen supervisors offered me a job at LINC. In all but the last case, I am unsure of the seriousness of the offers. The one supervisor I pushed in this matter said that the offer was genuine. My interpretation of this is that I was perceived as "fitting" at LINC. I know my way around computers, have programmed off and on for many years: I know the jargon of computers and programming. In addition, through my initial background interviews at LINC and through subsequent interviews of supervisors, I learned the 'LINC language.' I appeared to fit, both in terms of the work and also in terms of the organization. V/hether the criterion of fit is applied and works in all cases remains an empirical question. (21) LINC's underlying theme of fit may refer to the same notion as Schein's (1968) socialization outcome of creative individualism. LINC's investiture socialization practice can be shown to support an outcome of creative individualism which is in line with the innovative responses of LINC's other socialization practices. Investiture, together with selection for individuality (fit), will result in creative individualism because individuals who are recruited by LINC are preselected for their agreement with the pivotal norms (fit) and then are not forced to accept the other norms (investiture). In this way, outcomes of rebellion and conformity are ruled out. -57- Miller, G.A. and L.W. Wager. Adult socialization in organizational structure and role orientations. Administrative Science Quarterly . 1971, 16, 151-163. Moore, Wilbert E. Occupational socialization, in David A. Goslin (ed). Handbook of socialization theory and research . Chicago: Rand McNally College Publishing Company, 1969, 861-863. Pelz, Donald C. Uncertainty and anxiety in scientific performance . Ann Arbor: Institue for Social Research, University of Michigan, 1960. Pelz, Donald C. and Frank M. Andrews. Scientists in organizations . Ann Arbor: Institue for Social Research, 1976 (revised edition). Perrucci, Robert and J.E. Gerstl. Profession without community; Engineers in American society . NY: Random House, 1969. Rosenbaum, James E. Tournament mobility: career patterns in a corporation. Administrative Science Quarterly . June 1979, 24, 220-241. Schein, Edgar H. How to break in the college graduate. Harvard Business Review . Nov/Dec 1964, 68-76. Schein, Edgar H. Organizational socialization and the profession of management. Industrial Management Review . 1968, 9(2), 1-16. Schein, Edgar H. The individual, the organization, and the career: A conceptual scheme. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science . 1971, 7(4), 401-426. Schein, Edgar H. Career dynamics: Matching individual and organizational needs . Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, 1978. Van Maanen, John. Breaking in: Socialization to work, in Robert Dubin (ed). Handbook of work, organization, and society . Chicago: Rand McNally College Publishing Company, 1976, 67-130. Van Maanen, John. Experiencing organization: Notes on the meaning of careers and socialization, in John Van Maanen (ed). Organizational careers: Some new perspectives . NY: John Wiley & Sons, 1977,15-45. Van Maanen, John. People processing: Strategies of organizational socialization. Organizational Dynamics . Summer 1978, 19-36. Van Maanen, John and Edgar H. Schein. Career development in J.R. Hackman and J.L. Suttle (eds). Improving life at work . Santa Monica, CA: Goodyear Publishing Company, 1977, 30-95. Van Maanen, John and Edgar H. Schein. Toward a theory of organizational socialization, in Barry Staw (ed). Research in organizational behavior (vol 1). NY:JAI Press, 1979. W kWO 061 IASI OO4 480 825 Date Due ,- . r. 1987 AUG0b199p OEC.06i«i DEC. 3 \ fes*' Lib-26-67 ummu'--*''^^*-*^^*-' Bcir Code Oa La-b't' T-'aoe. 'f