« Acadamy ofManagfinant Joantal

2002, Vol. 45. No. R. 114g-1160.

NEWCOMERS' RELATIONSHIPS:
THE ROLE OF SOCIAL NETWORK TIES DURING SOCIALIZATION
ELIZABETH WOLFE MORRISON
New York University

A samplB of 154 new anditon was Burrayed to invastigate how pattanis of social
relationships afieclBd socialization. Characteristics of the newcomers' infimnational
networks (size, density, strength, range, and status) related to three different indicators
of learning: organizational knowledge, task mastery, and role clarity. Also, the struc-
ture of the newcomers'friendshipnetworks related to their social integration and
organizational commitment. By linking socialization outcomes to social network struc-
ture, this study sheds new light on the role of relationships in newcomer leaining and

Organizational socialization is the process by comers to have relatively few relationships or

which an individual acquires the attitudes, be-
havior, and knowledge she or he needs to partic-
ipate as an organization member (Van Maanen &
Schein, 1979). It involves hoth an organization's
seeking to mold new employees to fit its needs
and an employee's attempting to define an ac-
ceptable role for him- or herself within the organ-
ization (Fisher, 1986). This process is important
because of its potentially strong and lasting im-
pact on employees' behaviors and attitudes, and
because it is one of the primary ways by which
organizational culture is maintained (Bauer, Mor-
rison, & Callister, 1998). Several scholars have
argued that an important way in which socializa-
tion occurs is through social interactions be-
tween newcomers and "insiders," or more expe-
rienced members of their new organization
(Feldman, 1981; Louis, 1990; Reichers, 1987).
Empirical research has also highlighted the im-
portance of insiders, especially peers and super-
visors, for helping newcomers to acquire infor-
mation and "leam the ropes" (Louis, Posner, &
Powell, 1983; Morrison, 1993; Ostroff & Kozlow-
ski, 1992).
Yet despite this recognition that relationships
with insiders facilitate socialization, there is much
that is not imderstood about this aspect of the so-
cialization process. For example, researchers know
very little about whether it is more useful for new-
I would like to thank Susan Ashford, Sharon Lieba-
O'Sullivan, Amy Wrzesniewski, and the three anony-
mous AM/reviewersfortheir comments on a draft of this
work. I especially owe gratitude to Grag Janicik for his
advice and comments. As well, I would like to thank
Emily Fernandez for her assistance on this project, and
all those individuals who took the time to complete the
survey instruments.
1149
many; tight relationships or looser ones; diverse
relationships or more homogeneous ones. Relation-
ships might be important, but little is known about
the types of relationship patterns that are most con-
ducive to effective socialization. The objective of
this study was to address some of these issues by
viewing die socialization process from the perspec-
tive of social network structure.
In social network research, organizations are
viewed as clusters of people joined by a variety of
links. Such research focuses on patterns of rela-
tionships between people rather than on people
in isolation from one another (Brass, 1995). An
assumption behind network research is that
structured social relationships are more powerful
sources of explanation than are the personal at-
tributes of the members of a social system. Social
network scholars argue that one can understand
organizational phenomena and outcomes by con-
sidering not merely the presence of social rela-
tionships, but also the overall pattern of relation-
ships among people (Brass, 1995). In the study
reported here, I applied that logic to newcomer
socialization and proposed that different struc-
tures of relationships imply different things for
socialization success.
The socialization literature has not addressed the
implications of network structure, yet research and
theory suggest that network relationships may be
very important for newcomer learning and integra-
tion (e.g.. Brass, 1995; Burt, 1992; Ibarra, 1995).
Hence, an objective of this study was to link the
socialization literature with the literature on social
networks as a means to better imderstand how dif-
ferent patterns of social relationships (that is, dif-
ferent network structures) relate to indicators of
e^ctive socialization.
 1 l.ill .•\aianwy of Mniiu^Hnifiu
THEORY AND HYPOTHESES
Informational Ties and Newcomer Learning
There are several tasks that must be accom-
plished for socialization to be considered complete.
One is learning, which requires newcomers to ac-
quire and integrate a wide range of new informa-
tion (Bauer et al., 1998; Saks & Ashforth, 1997). [n
particular, socialization scholars have emphasized
the importance of newcomers' acquiring (1) infor-
mation about organizational issues and attributes
(such as norms, policies, reporting relationships,
terminology, goals, history, and politics), (2) infor-
mation about how to perform specific work tasks,
and (3) information about role expectations and
responsibilities (Chao, O'Leary-Kelly, Wolf, &
Klein, 1994; Morrison, 1993; Ostroff & Kozlowski,
1992). These three types of information can be
termed organizational, job, and role information,
respectively, and they have been shown to relate to
critical indicators of newcomer learning (Morrison,
1993; Ostroff & Kozlowski, 1992). Specifically, or-
ganizational information facilitates organizational
knowledge (knowing about one's larger organiza-
tional context); job information facilitates task mas-
tery (knowing how to perform one's job); and role
information facilitates role clarity (knowing the re-
sponsibilities and constraints associated with one's
position).
It is proposed here that a newcomer's network
structure will have implications for the success of
these three types of learning. Network scholars
have emphasized that, for an individual to attain
career-related outcomes that require access to in-
formation, such as finding a job or getting pro-
moted, there is value in having a large network of
nonredundant informational contacts. In other
words, it is argued that a person reaps informa-
tional benefits by having a network of numerous
people who are not themselves highly intercon-
nected (Burt, 1992; Podolny & Baron, 1997). This
combination of large size and an absence of many
connections among ties—or low density among
ties—implies that sources of information will be
diverse or unique (Burt, 1992). In these types of
networks, ties are often "weak," meaning that they
represent relationships involving relatively low in-
timacy and in&equent contact (Granovetter, 1973).
The instrumental value of such large, low-
density informational networks, however, may
vary with the type of information an individual
needs to obtain and how that information will be
used. For example, for learning about an organiza-
tion's structure, rules, culture, and so forth, a large
network of unconnected informational contacts
may be ideal, as the network literature would sug-
luunivi
gest. Such n network is likely to provide varied
information, enabling a broader and more complete
view of one's organization. On the other hand, ob-
taining the information needed to master a job and
clarify one's role may require a smaller, tighter
group of contacts. For this type of learning, the
breadth and variety of information are likely to be
less important than its reliability and consistency.
That is, given the criticality of quickly coming up tu
speed in one's job (Ostroff & Kozlowski, 1992),
newcomers need contacts whom they can approach
again and again with questions and who are famil-
iar with the newcomers' particular job and role
requirements. Hence, a smaller network of strong,
interrelated (that is, dense) contacts may be best for
job and role learning.
Hypothesis 1. Newcomers with large, low-
density informational networks of relatively
weak ties will have greater organizational
knowledge than newcomers with small, dense
networks of relatively strongties. That is, organ-
izational knowledge will be positively related
to network size and negatively related to net-
work density and tie strength.
Hypothesis 2. Newcomers with small, dense
informational networks of strong ties will have
greater task mastery and role clarity than those
with large, less dense networks of weak ties.
That is. task mastery and role clarity will be
negatively related to network size and posi-
tively related to network density and tie
.strength.
Social network research also suggests that access
to useful information might be greatest in a network
with diverse members (for instance, individuals
from different units within an organization), since
this diversity enables tapping multiple pockets of
information. Such diversity has been referred to as
network range (Campbell, Marsden, & Hurlburt,
1986). Social network research also emphasizes the
instrumental value of network status, defined as
the extent to which one's network contacts hold
high positions in the relevant status hierarchy (Lin,
1982). Although research has emphasized the po-
litical advantages of a high-status network (Ibarra,
1995), informational benefits may also be associ-
ated with this variable, as persons at higher levels
in an organization may be better sources of certain
types of information than those at lower levels
(Louis, 1990; Ostroff & Kozlowski, 1992).
Predictions can therefore be made about the re-
lationship between the range and status of a new-
comer's informational network and various indica-
tors nf learning. Organizational knowledge, for
2002
example, is likely to be enhanced by a newcomer's
having infonnational contacts from a variety of dif-
ferent organizational units, since this type of learn-
ing requires a broad perspective on die organiza-
tion. Task and role learning are unlikely to benefit
from network range, however, because individuals
from different units may not have expertise related
to the newcomer's job and may provide conflicting
information about what he or she should be doing.
These forms of learning are more likely to benefit
from network status. That is, task and role learning
might be easier to the extent that a newcomer's
informational network contains supervisors and
not just peers, because the former are likely to have
greater relevant experience and greater understand-
ing of the newcomer's role responsibilities.
Hypothesis 3. Newcomers' organizational
knowledge will be positively related to the
range of their informational networks, de-
fined as the number of organizational units
represented.
Hypothesis 4. Newcomers' task mastery and
role clarity will be positively related to the sta-
tus of their informational networks, defined
as the average hierarchical level of network
members.
Friendship Ties and Newcomer Assimilation
The socialization literature has emphasized not
just the importance of newcomer learning, but also
the importance of what might be called the social
assimilation aspect of socialization. Indeed, Chao
and colleagues (1994) highlighted the importance
of the "people" domain of socialization that entails
the establishment of successful and satisfying work
relationships, and Ostroff and Kozlowski (1992)
noted a "group" domain that focuses on individu-
als' inclusion into their work groups. These works,
and others, suggest that for socialization to be con-
sidered effective, newcomers need to fBel both a
part of their immediate work groups and also at-
tached to their organizations overall (Bauer et al.,
1998; Feldman, 1981; Reichers, 1987). The
former has been referred to as social integration
(Morrison, 1993), and the latter reflects organiza-
tional commitment.
It is also noteworthy that, in addition to their
infonnational networks, individuals also have "ex-
pressive," or friendship, networks that provide
support and a sense of belonging and identity
(Brass, 1984; Ibarra, 1992; Krackhardt, 1992;
Podolny & Baron, 1997). In some cases, the same
relationship can represent both an infonnational
and an expressive tie, whereas in other cases a
Morrison 1151
particular relationship is exclusively informational
or exclusively expressive. Yet even when there is
some overlap, it is generally possible to talk about
an individual's friendship network as distinct from
his or her informational network (Brass, 1984;
Ibarra, 1995).
Whereas the overall structure of a newcomer's
informational network is likely to affect his or her
learning, it is expected that the overall structure of
a newcomer's friendship network will affect the
assimilation aspect of socialization. Indeed, re-
search on friendship networks suggests that they do
affect people's attitudes and sense of support and
attachment (see Brass, 1995). Research also sug-
gests that the ideal friendship network is config-
ured differently than the ideal informational net-
work. Podolny and Baron (1997) aigued that for a
network to provide social support and a sense of
identity and belonging, it should be a dense net-
work of strong relationships, in part because such a
network is likely to convey consistent social cues.
Ibarra (1995) has also suggested that individuals
derive the most social and career support from
close-knit networks of relationships. Further,
Krackhardt (1992) highlighted the value of strong
friendship ties for developing trust.
These arguments suggest that newcomers' social
assimilation will be aided by strong, dense friend-
ship networks. In other words, by conveying sup-
port, identity, and acceptance, friendship networks
made up of strong and interconnected ties will
facilitate the development of social integration and
organizational commitment. Network strength and
density also imply smallness, as size tends to be
inversely related to density and strength. This is
because there are time and energy limits to the
number of strong, interconnected relationships that
an individual can maintain (Burt, 1992; Scott,
1991).
Hypothesis 5. Newcomers with small, dense
friendship networks composed of strong ties
will have a greater sense of social inte^ation
and organizational commitment than those
with larger, less dense networks composed of
weak ties. That is, social integration and com-
mitment will be negatively related to network
size and positively related to network density
and tie strength.
Just as organizational learning has different re-
quirements than task and role learning, attachment
to an organization overall (organizational commit-
ment) may have different requirements than attach-
ment to a workgroup (social integration). In partic-
ular, commitment may be stronger if an individual
has a set of friendship contacts that is somewhat
 11SU
diverse with respect to position in the organization,
both in terms of unit membership and hierarchical
level. That is, newcomers with friendship ties that
span organizational units and levels, as opposed to
those with ties only within a single unit and only
with peers at the same level, will have a stronger
attachment to their overall organizations. Without
such diversity of social contacts, a newcomer may
form an attachment to his or her immediate set of
peers, but at the expense of attachment to the larger
organization, as suggested by Reichers's (1985) dis-
cussion of multiple and sometimes conflicting foci
of commitment. Thus, I hypothesize that organiza-
tional commitment will be stronger when a new-
comer's friendship network has both broad range
and high status.
Hypothesis 6. Newcomers' organizational com-
mitment will be positively related to the range
and status of their friendship networks.
METHODS
Sample and Procedures
The sample for this study consisted of first-year
staff accountants at a large global accounting firm.
They were employed in three different offices, each
located in the northeastern United States. All had
graduated from college in the spring of 1998 and
had begun employment with the firm between Au-
gust and October 1998. Sixty-three percent of the
respondents were female; 76 percent were white,
and 87 percent were single. The average age at the
time of survey completion was 24,17 years (s.d. =
3.78). Thirty-six percent of the respondents had
experience in the form of a summer internship in
accounting.
In May 1999, all of the 1998 auditing recruits
within the three offices [n = 235) were sent an
e-mail message from their staffing department in-
forming them that they would be receiving surveys
in the mail and asking for their cooperation. Aver-
age tenure at the time of survey distribution was
nine months. I chose nine months on the basis of
evidence from prior research (Morrison, 1993) and
also on the basis of interviews with informants.
Both sources indicated that the learning and assim-
ilation process for new staff accountants is lengthy
and is generally not viewed as complete until new-
comers have survived the industry's "busy season,"
which ends in mid April. It is also noteworthy that
new staff accoimtants do not begin on the job until
several weeks after their hiring. They spend six
weeks in a formal classroom setting, and following
this, many spend time in the office "unassigned,"
or not working on projects. Throughout the first
year, newcomers work on several audits of varying
duration. In most cases, tbese assignments are
within a particular "industry group" reflecting the
type of companies being audited (such as financial
service firms, technology firms, and so forth).
Within a week of receiving the e-mail, potential
respondents received a packet containing two sur-
veys. They were instructed to complete the two
surveys at different sittings, in an attempt to reduce
common source bias. The surveys were accompa-
nied by a cover letter explaining that the surveys
were part of a research project designed to "better
understand the experiences of first year staff within
Big 5 accoimting firms." The cover letter also as-
sured respondents that their answers would be con-
fidential. Included was a return envelope so that
respondents could send completed surveys directly
to me. After two weeks, I sent nonrespondents a
reminder via e-mail. After an additional two weeks,
nonrespondents were sent replacement surveys. A
total of 154 people responded, for a response rate of
65.5 percent.
Measures
All of the measures used in this study were based
on existing scales. I pretested the measures to es-
tablish the clarity of instructions, the amount of
time required to complete the instruments, the
thoroughness and relevance of the items, and the
psychometric properties of the scales. This pretest-
ing was conducted in spring 1998 with a sample of
24 first-year auditors who had begun at the same
company in the fall of 1997. These individuals
completed the surveys in three groups ranging in
size from seven to nine people. Immediately after
each group of individuals completed the surveys, I
conducted a focus group with them to obtain de-
tailed feedback on their reactions to the survey
instruments. Drawing on this feedback, I elimi-
nated or replaced some items and changed the
wording of items and instructions where needed.
Whereas some network studies focus on the en-
tire social structure of a population (that is, a "com-
plete" network), others, such as this one, focus on
what are known as egocentric networks (Marsden,
1990). An egocentric network is an individual's
unique set of social contacts. Studies of egocentric
networks are not intended to provide an overall
description of the social structure within an organ-
ization. Instead, they are useful for understanding
how a person's unique web of contacts (his or her
ego-centered "universe") relates to variables at the
individual level of analysis, such as social support,
power, advancement, perceptions, and attitudes
(Walker, Wasserman, & Wellman, 1993). A focus on
2002 Monison
egocentric networks is ideal for studying organiza-
tional newcomers since they represent only a small
fraction of the social systeni in which they are
embedded. Here, taking a complete network ap-
proach would have meant studying either a very
small niunher of newcomers or, alternatively, a net-
work that was too large to analyze.
Newcomers' egocentric networks, both informa-
tional and friendship, were assessed on the first
survey, which was modeled after surveys used in
prior studies [Bvat, 1984; Ibarra, 1995; Podolny &
Baron, 1997). Part 1 contained a chart for respon-
dents to complete. Across the first row, they were
instructed to write the initials of "people at [the
firm] who have been regular and valuable sources
of job-related orfirm-relatedinformation for you."
The. wording was based on similar measures used
by Ibarra (1992, 1995). Eight columns were pro-
vided, and respondents were told to "list as many
or as few people as are relevant." The decision to
provide eight columns was based on interviews
with 12 new associates who were not part of the
sample. Interviewees indicated that they had any-
where from zero to six sources of information, so I
concluded that eight columns would be more than
sufficient.
After writing initials across the first row, the
newcomer ("ego") responded to a set of questions
for each of the listed persons (hereafter referred to
as "alter"). Newcomers were asked to indicate each
alter's hierarchical position (1 = "first year staff";
2 = "experienced staff"; 3 = "senior"; 4 = "man-
ager"), the industry group within which each alter
worked, the average frequency with which they
were talked to or exchanged information with each
alter (1 = "daily"; 2 = "a few times a week"; 3 =
"3-5 times a month"; 4 = "once or twice a month";
5 = "less than once a month"), and the nimiber of
other persons in the network with whom each alter
talked during any given week.
Part 2 was very similar to part 1, except that
respondents were asked to list the initials of up to
eight friends rather than informational contacts
("people at [the firm] who you consider to be
friends, that is, people whom you might choose to
see socially outside of work or when you are not
working together"). The wording here was also
adapted from Ibarra's (1992,1995) work. The deci-
sion to provide eight columns was based on the
same interviews described above. When asked, 9 of
the 12 interviewees indicated that there were 8 or
fewer people in the firm whom they considered to
be friends (most said 5 or fewer). The other 3 indi-
viduals responded that there were 10-15 people
whom they considered to be friends, but when
probed, they indicated that many of these were not
1153
people whom they would see socially outside of
work.
For each of the friends (alters) listed, respondents
were asked to indicate the alter's hierarchical level
and industry group, the closeness of ego's relation-
ship with alter (1 = "not very close"; 2 = "reason-
ably close"; 3 = "very close"), and the number of
other persons within the network with whom alter
was friendly.
Using the datafromthis survey, I computed mea-
sures of size, density, tie strength, range, and status
for the newcomers' informational and friendship
networks. I measured size as the nimiber of alters
listed (Podolny & Baron, 1997). Density is typically
measured as the nimiber of actual links between the
members of a network (excluding ego) relative to
the total number of possible links (Ibarra, 1995;
Walker et al., 1993). In this case, that was equal to
liTf/n [n - 1), where T is the number of links bam
alter / and n is the total number of alters identified.
I measured range as the number of difEsrent indus-
try groups represented within a network. This vari-
able ranged from 1 to n, where n equals the number
of alters in the network. Status was the average
hierarchical level of the network members (Ibarra,
1995), and values could range from 1 ("all first year
staff") to 4 ("all managers"). For the informational
network, I computed strength by averaging re-
sponses to the question about the frequency with
which ego talked with each alter (rated on a five-
point scale). For the friendship network, strength
was computed by averaging responses to the ques-
tion about a newcomer's degree of closeness to each
alter, which was rated on a three-point scale
(Ibarra, 1995).
The second survey assessed the hypothesized
outcomes of network structure: organizational
knowledge, task mastery, role clarity, social inte-
gration, and organizational commitment. All items
were assessed on five-point agree/disagree re-
sponse scales. Organizational knowledge was as-
sessed with Ostroff and Kozlowski's eight-item
scale (1992). Task mastery was assessed with a
previously developed four-item scale (Morrison,
1993), plus three items from Chao et al. (1994). I
added the additional items ("I have learned how to
successfully perform my job in an efficient man-
ner," "I have mastered the required tasks of my
job," and "I have not fully developed the appropri-
ate skills and abilities to successfully perform my
job" [reverse-scored]) to have a more reliable scale
while also capturing aspects of task mastery not
fully reflected in my 1993 fbuivitem scale. Role
clarity was assessed with a ten-item scale (Morri-
son, 1993).
Because the three scales all tapped socialization-
1154 y of Managenwnl lotirnai
related learning, I factor-analyzed the entire set of
25 items to test for convergent and discriminant
validity. Five items failed to clearly "load" on a
single factor (one job item, three role items, and one
organizational item). I eliminated these items to
ensure both discriminant validity and reliability.
The remaining items formed three distinct fectors.
The alpha coefficients were .87 for organizational
knowledge, .76 for task mastery, and .87 for role
clarity.
Social integration was measured with three items
from an earlier scale (Morrison, 1993), one from
Chao et al. ("With my co-workers I would be easily
identified as 'one of the gang'"), plus three new
items (an example is "I feel little attachment to my
co-workers"). In selecting items, the objective was
to develop a scale that would reflect a newcomer's
feelings of attachment and inclusion, rather than
perceptions about his or her coworkers (such as
"my coworkers are friendly") or about the number
of friends that the newcomer had. Together, the
seven items were unidimensional, with a reliability
coefficient of .93. Organizational commitment was
measured with Allen and Meyer's (1990) affective
commitment scale (a = .89). This scale was also
unidimensional.
RESULTS
Before testing the hypotheses, I compared the
initials and background information (rank and in-
dustry group) for the people within each network,
to ensure that the two networks were not identical.
The average number of alters listed as both friend
and information source was 1.93 (s.d. = 1,71),
which represented, on average, 30 percent (s,d. =
0.25) of the members of the friendship networks.
Hence, an average 70 percent of the people in the
two networks were different, providing a basis for
concluding that the two types of networks were
distinct.
Means, standard deviations, and correlations for
all variables are in Table 1. To test Hypotheses 1-4,
I regressed organizational knowledge, task mastery,
and role clarity on the informational network vari-
ables. To test Hypotheses 5-6, I regressed social
integration and commitment on the friendship net-
work variables. Following this, the learning out-
comes were regressed on the friendship network
variables, and the assimilation outcomes were re-
gressed on the information network variables. I ex-
pected that less variance would be explained in
these latter analyses, consistent with the study's
premise that informational ties are more important
for learning and that friendship ties are more im-
portant for social assimilation.
Hypothesis 1 predicts that organizational knowl-
edge would be positively related to informational
network size and negatively related to informa-
tional network density and tie strength. As shown
in Table 2, the size prediction was supported (/3 -
.21, p < .05), but the others were not. Hypothesis 2
predicted that task mastery and role clarity would
be negatively related to informational network size
and positively related to informational network
density and tie strength. As shown in Table 2, both
outcomes were positively related to density (/3 =
.29, p < .01, for task mastery; j3 = .31, p < .01. for
role clarity), and both were positively related to
strength O = .30, p < .01, for task mastery; 0 = .23.
p < .01, for role clarity). Task mastery was also
related to size, although this relationship was pos-
itive rather than negative (J3 = .18, p < .05). Hy-
pothesis 2 was therefore partly supported. Hypoth-
esis 3 predicts that organizational knowledge will
be positively related to the range of an ego's infor-
mational network. This prediction was supported
(^ = .30, p < .01). Hypothesis 4 predicts that task
mastery and role clarity will be positively related to
the status of ego's informational network. This was
supported for both outcomes (/3 = ,56, p < .001, for
task mastery: ^ = .21, p <. .05. for role clarity). In
addition, network range was positively related to
role clarity O = .31, p < .01).
Hypothesis 5 predicts that social integration and
commitment will be negatively related to friend-
ship network size and positively related to friend-
ship network density and tie strength. As shown at
the bottom of Table 2, the prediction for tie strength
was supported for both outcomes (0 = .36, p <
.001, for social integration; j3 = .40, p < .001, for
conunitment). Density, however, was not related to
either dependent variable. Size was unrelated to
commitment and had a significant, positive rela-
tionship with social integration rather than a neg-
ative one O = .25, p < .05). Hypothesis 6 predicts
that commitment will be positively related to the
range and status of an individual's friendship net-
work. Both predictions were supported. The beta
for range was .30 (p < .01). and the beta for status
was .25 (p < .01).
As also shown in Table 2, the measures based on
the informational networks were better predictors
of the learning outcomes than the measures based
on the friendship networks, explaining 15, 48, and
23 percent of the variance in organizational knowl-
edge, task mastery, and role clarity, respectively.
These results are consistent with the premise that it
is primarily the characteristics of a newcomer's
informational network that promote learning. As
well, the measures based on the friendship net-
works were better predictors of the assimilation
 04
t.H

r
HI
11
OO
n °
r

,35*'
n
*
rr
CO
Ol

,37**
,39**
HI
HI
in rH
q
r

28**

18*
20*
rH

HI HI H HI
rH in rH 01
eg
1
m Ol Ol
1 s
HI * «

33'
S

02
eo
01 Ol * rH

29**
25*

24*
s ss rH
CO
rH
1 1 1 1

.44'

.20'
.23'

rH m

.03

.09
.06
•« Ol
r
01 01 ^
23

eo s ^ g
1
01
rg s O] O3 Ol

*
17*
21*

HI M
OS m
rH m rH O
o

rHO

r r rr rr
oia) rH into o i n c q o o
rHrH N "-JCO q a O r H M
' ' '

« « « «
c4^^^ t^ rH^ N o o c o n
CSrHrH^ q N O O O O O m

r ' ' ' ''

S_ iNn ai nci sp. iov o. rrHHN eo
t>>
*co
t>.in
1
o o o d e o j d d d d

Nj;OrHOrH«D OJ eOCQrH
incoeo^-rH^jn q rH^rn
m m ai m m ^ d j dd

V V
HI «
liiiCi .\iiiiii-tny i>f Mdiuijinnwnl ,

TABLE 2

Variables Oiganizational Knowledge Task Mastery Role Qarity Social Integration Organizational Commitment

Informational network
Size .21* 1K- 14 .1!5* .00
Density .09 2<r* .16 .10
Strength .06 .30" .2:1* .lfi
Range .30*- .07 .SI** .03 .1.-)
Status -.16 .S()*** .Jl* .12 .2^*
.15 .4H .23 .12 .08
F 3.46* 14.60*** 4.77'** 2.24 l.fli

Friendship network
Size -.12 .17 .20 .25* - .Ot"!
Density .04 .14 .05 -.16 .07
Strength -.14 .in .22* .36*** .40***
Range -.08 -.11 .05 -.03 .30**
Status .32** .10 .21 -.06 .2.=;**
If .11 .09 .14 .28 .20
F 2.76* 2.43 3.58* 8.34*** 6.72***

" Entries a n standardized regression coefficients.

* p < .05
** p < .01
*** p < .001

outcomes than the measures based on the infonna-
tional networks, consistent with the premise that
it is the former that promote affective attachment.
The friendship network variables explained 28
percent of the variance in social integration and
29 percent of the variance in commitment. It
should be noted, however, that the friendship
network variables also explained significant vari-
ance in organizational knowledge and role clar-
ity, with status relating significantly to the
former O = .32, p < .01] and strength relating to
the latter O = .22, p < .05).
DISCUSSION
An important theme within the socialization lit-
erature has been that interactions with and rela-
tionships to experienced coworkers provide a valu-
able way for newcomers to leam and assimilate.
Yet the literature provides little insight into
whether, and how, the overall structure of new-
comers' relationships matters. An integration of the
socialization and network literatures is potentially
valuable because it enables a focus on the effects of
patterns of relationships on newcomer learning and
integration. It provides insight into whether the
number of relationships is important, whether a set
of strong relationships is better than a set of weak
ones, whether it is important for newcomers to
have a configuration of relationships that spans
different areas and levels within an organization.
and whether the answers to these questions differ
depending on the type ofrelationship(information-
al or friendship) or the type of outcome being
assessed.
As expected, structural characteristics of new-
comers' informational and fiiendship networks re-
lated in systematic ways to discrete socialization
outcomes. For example, newcomers with larger in-
formational networks that cut across organizational
units reported greater organizational knowledge,
whereas those with denser and stronger Informa-
tional networks indicated greater mastery of their
jobs and greater clarity with respect to their roles.
Having supervisors (as opposed to just peers)
within one's informational network also related to
job and role learning. Together, these results sup-
port the notion that job and role learning are very
different from more general organizational learning
and hence have different requirements (Bauer et al.,
1998; Ostroff & Kozlowski, 1992). A finding that
was not predicted was the positive relationship
between role clarity and network range. This find-
ing suggests that a network that provides a better
sense of the "big picture" will enable a newcomer
to imderstand how his or her position is interde-
pendent with others who occupy different roles in
the oiganization, thereby increasing role clarity.
Another unexpected finding was the positive rela-
tionship between the status of one'sfriendshipnet-
work and organizational knowledge. It is not clear
why this was found, particularly since the status
2002
of one's informational network was unrelated to
organizational knowledge.
The pattern of results for the two assimilation
outcomes was unlike the pattern for the three learn-
ing outcomes. Both variables were related to stron-
ger firiendship ties. In addition, newcomers were
more committed to the organization when their
friendship networks contained individuals from
different subunits and levels, and social integration
was stronger when newcomers had larger rather
than smaller networks. The latter relationship is
contrary to what was predicted on the basis of
arguments in the literature that strong ties imply
smaller networks (Burt, 1992; Scott, 1991). A pos-
sible reason for this finding is that the large net-
works in this study contained at most eight con-
tacts, so that largeness could be attained without a
necessary trade-off in strength. It is likely that with
larger networks the relationship between social in-
tegration and size is actually curvilinear, with very
large size implying generally weak ties and hence
less strong fBelings of attachment.
Theoretical and Practical Implications
Taken together, the results of this study suggest
that there is Indeed value in focusing on the role of
network structure on the learning and assimilation
processes that occur during socialization. They
suggest that newcomers hecome socialized not only
by interacting with insiders (Bauer et al., 1998) but
also by developing certain configurations of rela-
tionships with insiders. Studies such as this one
will enable researchers to more fully understand
the role of these different configurations. In their
review of the socialization literature, Bauer and
colleagues (1998) highlighted the need for a better
understanding of how organizational insiders, both
individually and collectively, influence newcom-
ers. This study addresses that need and provides a
structural perspective on the phenomenon. It ap-
pears that it is not just what insiders do—^provide
information, initiate interactions, and so forth—but
also how they are connected to a newcomer that
a^cts socialization. It also appears that a new-
comer distinguishes between his or her set of infor-
mational sources and his or her set of friends, with
the former having greater impact on the newcom-
er's learning and the latter having greater impact on
assimilation.
From a general theoretical perspective, this study
can be viewed as part of a growing body of litera-
ture that portrays newcomers as proactive during
socialization (Morrison, 1993; Ostroff & Kozlowski,
1992). It expands the focus of that literature by
suggesting that newcomers not only seek out infor-
Morrison 1157
mation, but also build networks to help them "learn
the ropes" and settle in. Just as the type and fre-
quency of information seeking appear to affect so-
cialization (Morrison, 1993; Ostroff & Kozlowski,
1992), the nature of network ties appears to affect
socialization as well.
The results of this study are also consistent with
research on newcomer proactivity in suggesting
that newcomers may face competing demands and
the need for trade-ofb. Just as newcomers must
choose between different strategies and sources
when seeking information (Morrison, 1993), they
may need to choose between a network structure
that is instrumental in one way but perhaps less
helpful in another. For example, a large informa-
tion network appears to facilitate organizational
learning, whereas a dense information network ap-
pears tofeciUtatejob and role learning. Since size
and density are generally negatively correlated, a
potential trade-off is suggested. The challenge that
newcomers face in trying to build an effective net-
work structure may also be similar to the challenge
that organizations face in trying to best structure
the socialization process. For example, it has been
found that institutionalized socialization tactics
have a positive effBCt on commitment, but a nega-
tive effect on role innovation (Allen & Meyer, 1990;
Jones, 1986), suggesting that it is difficult to
achieve these two ends simultaneously.
This study contributes not only to the socializa-
tion literature, but also to the literature on social
networks. Although research on intraorganiza-
tional networks has focused on a range of variables,
much of the emphasis has been on the implications
of network position for power and mobility (e.g..
Brass, 1984, 1985; Burt, 1992; Podohiy & Baron,
1997), and there has heen relatively little research
relating network structure to variables traditionally
investigated in organizational behavior research
(Krackhardt & Brass, 1994). This study is one of
only a few that have investigated the relationship
between network structure and individuals' cogni-
tions and attitudes (see Krackhardt and Brass
[1994] for a review of such studies).
Ahuja attempted to reconcile some apparently
competing predictions within the network litera-
ture: "What constitutes an enabling social structure
for one set of actions may well be disabling for
others (Podolny & Baron, 1997). Thus, the form
taken by social capital is likely to be contingent on
what actors seek to enable through it" (2000: 452).
The present results add to the network literature by
supporting that assertion. They suggest that a low-
density informational network of weak ties will
enable a newcomer to leam about his or her organ-
ization by increasing overall access to diverse in-
 • \ i : i l i i i ' r i l \ III
formational sources (Burt, 1992; Granovetter,
1973). yet this type of network structure may not
best enable a newcomer to have the regular and
reliable flow of information needed for task and
role learning. Similarly, the results suggest that al-
though a friendship network of high range and
status may facilitate organizational commitment, it
is unrelated to integration into an immediate work-
group.
This study has both theoretical and practical im-
plications. Most importantly, the results suggest
that organizations should recognize that two dis-
tinct types of social networks appear to have rele-
vance for newcomer socialization. A newcomer
needs an informational network for acquiring vari-
ous types of information, and she or he needs a
friendship network for feeling integrated into the
organization. Organizations should recognize that
the ideal structure for these two types of networks
varies. Individuals responsible for bringing new-
comers "onboard" may want to consider how they
can provide opportunities for the newcomers to
build effective network structures. Some of the
ways that organizations can expedite the building
of these networks are the following: conduct orien-
tation programs that enable newcomers to form re-
lationships with others in their cohort as well as to
meet people from different parts of the organiza-
tion; hold social gatherings that allow for network-
ing opportunities; and install mentoring programs
that provide newcomers with high-status contacts.
Limitations and Suggestions for Future Research
A limitation of this study is that data were col-
lected at a single point in time, thus raising ques-
tions about the direction of causality. Predictions
were based on the logic that network structure af-
fects learning and assimilation, but I cannot rule
out the possibility that newcomers who are more
knowledjgeable and/or assimilated build different
types of networks than those who are not. Longitu-
dinal studies are necessary for more rigorous tests
of causal direction.
Longitudinal studies will also enable investiga-
tion of how network structure, and the effects of
structure, vary over time. Research on socialization
suggests that newcomers' needs change as they
move through the socialization process. For exam-
ple, Ostroff and Kozlowski's (1992) results suggest
that job and role learning are most important at first
and that organizational learning occurs somewhat
later. If this is the case, the effects of variables such
as network size, density, strength, and range may
vary as newcomers shift attention from one aspect
of socialization to another. Given the early impor-
I In
tance ot task learning, one might predict that it i.s
h(!.st for ci newcomer to begin by developing »
dense, strong informational network. Over time, as
organizational learning becomes more important, it
may be valuable for the newcomer to broaden her
or his informational network to gain the advantages
of size and horizontal range, which will imply a
network that is less dense (Burt, 1992). Studies that
measure network structure at multiple points in
time will permit an investigation of dynamics such
as these. The current study was unable to do this as
data were only collected once, nine months after
hiring.
There is also a need for studies that obtain data
from both newcomers and company insiders. In the
present study, data were all obtained from self-
reports, which raises questions about the accuracy
and objectivity of responses (Podsakoff & Organ.
1986). Although it is common to use self-report
measures of newcomer learning and assimilation
(Bauer et al., 1998), such measures may be inflated
by self-enhancement bias. Such bias is unlikely to
affect the magnitude of correlations between vari-
ables, but it is still a potential issue. Of perhaps
greater concern is the fact that the network mea-
sures were based on self-reports (that is, egocentric
data). In particular, respondents were asked to in-
dicate the number of links between alters, and 1
used this number to compute density measures.
Within research on networks, there is debate about
the use of density measures based on egocentric
data, with some scholars arguing that individuals
vary in their ability to accurately perceive ties be-
tween alters (Kilduff & Krackhardt, 1994), and
other scholars suggesting that it is appropriate to
compute density measures from egocentric data
(Burt, 1997; Ibarra, 1995; Podolny & Baron, 1997).
In this study, there were good reasons for using
egocentric data. Nonetheless, concerns can be
raised about the accuracy of the density measures.
As well, it should be noted that density is not as
rich a measure of nonredundance as a measure like
constraint, which allows taking into account the
pattern of ties between alters (for a discussion of
the difference between these two constructs, see
Burt [1992: 57-60]). However, the data for this
study did not permit me to compute a measure of
constraint as I only had data on the numbers of ties
between alters and lacked data on where those ties
wert: located.
Another issue related to the use of self-reports is
single-source bias. However, I believe that this is
unlikely to have had a significant effect on the
results of this study. The tendency to respond in
consistent ways across measures is most probleni-
atii; when measures easilv lend themselves to im-
2002 Morrison
plicit theories (Podsakoff & Organ, 1986). It is un-
clear whether people have implicit theories about
the impact of network structure on socialization.
Single-source bias is also most problematic when
both independent and dependent variables are
measured on similar types of scales (Podsakoff &
Organ, 1986), which was not the case in this study.
Additionally, I instructed respondents to complete
the two surveys at different times in an effort to
reduce consistency and response bias.
This discussion suggests that an important next
step will be to collect data from multiple sources
and at multiple points in time. Another important
direction for future research will be to collect data
from newcomers in different organizations, so that
generalizability can be assessed. The newcomers in
this sample entered as part of a cohort and experi-
enced a formal and collective form of socialization
(Van Maanen & Schein, 1979). They also spent
much of their time at client sites rather than in the
offices of their employing firm, which meant they
had a high level of on-the-job interaction with
members of their current work teams and relatively
little interaction with other employees. Whether
these factors affect the role of informal network ties
on learning and assimilation is unclear. A valuable
direction for future research will be to determine
whether social network structure plays a more im-
portant fole in the socialization process in some
contexts than in others.
Finally, a valuable step for futiu« research will be
to investigate the predictors of network structure
or, in other words, the reasons why different new-
comers might develop different types of networks.
It might be especially valuable to study variables
that have been addressed in the socialization liter-
ature, such as organizational tactics (Van Maanen &
Schein, 1979) and newcomer proactivity (Reichers,
1987). One might expect, for example, that formal
and collective socialization tactics will lead to
stronger friendship ties, since with these tactics
newcomers are socialized as part of a cohort. In
addition, more proactive newcomers are likely to
build stronger, and perhaps more numerous, net-
work ties than those who are less proactive. New-
comers with relevant work experience are also
likely to build more effective network structures
than those without. Further, personality variahles
such as extroversion, agreeableness, internal locus
of control, and need for power are likely to predict
effective network building. Employees high on ex-
troversion and agreeableness enjoy socializing and
developing relationships; employees with an inter-
nal locus of control may be more proactive in build-
ing network contacts; and employees with a high
need for power may be more aware of the in-
1159
strumental value of network ties for influence and
advancement.
Conclusion
Although several issues warrant further investi-
gation, this study provides a useful first look at the
relationship between social network structure and
newcomer socialization and suggests that further
investigation will be fruitful. Research on the net-
works that newcomers develop will not only enrich
understanding of how newcomers acquire the
knowledge, behaviors, and attitudes that they need
to successfully function within their organizations,
but will also enrich overall understanding of the
role of social networks within organizations.
REFERENCES
Ahuja, G. 2000. Collaboration networks, structural holes,
and iimovation: A longitudinal study. Aibiuiiisfra-
fivs Science Quartoriy, 45: 425-455.
Allen, N. J., & Meyer, J. P. 1990. The measurement and
antecedents of afGBCtive, continuance and normative
conunitmsnt to ths orsanization. Journal of Occu-
patiimul Psychology, 63:1-18.
Bauer, T. N., Moirison, E. W., & Callister, R. R. 1998.
Oiganizational socialization: A review and direc-
tions for future research. In G. R. Ferns (Ed.), Ae-
search in persannel and human resource manage-
ment, vol. 16:149-214. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Bra8s, D. J. 1984. Being in the right place: A structural
analysis of individual influence in an organization.
Aibiuiusfrative Sdawe Quartmfy, 29: 518-539.
Brass, D. J. 1985. Men's and women's networks: A study
of interaction patterns and influence in an oiganiza-
tion. AcacfsDiy af Managemmit Journal, 28: 327-
343.
Brass, D. J. 1995. A social network perspective on human
resources management. In G. R. Ferris (Ed.), He-
search in peraonnel and Aiunan resources man-
agement, vol. 13: 39-79. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Brass, D. J., & Burkhardt, M. E. 1993. Potential power and
power use: An investigation of structure and behav-
ior. Academy of Management Journal, 36: 441-
470.
Burt, R. S. 1984. Network items and the General Social
Survey. Social NetwoAs, 6: 293-339.
Burt, R. S. 1992. Structural holes: 7%e sadal fracture
of competition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Press.
Burt, R. S. 1997. Contingent value of social capital. Ad-
ministrative Science Quarterfy, 42: 339-365.
Campbell, K. E., Marsden, P. V., & Hurlbert, J. S. 1986.
Social resources and socioeconomic status. Social
Netwtaks, 8: 97-117.
1160 li.(if/p/;ii- iij
Chao, G. T., O'Leary-Kelly, A. M.. Wolf. S.. & Klein. H. J.
1994. Oiganizational socialization: Its content and
consequences. Joumal of Applied Psychology, 7Q:
730-743.
Feldman, D. C. 1981. The multiple socialization of or-
ganization members. Academy of Management Re-
view, 6: 309-318.
Fisher, C. D. 1986. Oiganizational socialization: An inte-
grative review. In K. M. Rowland & G. R. Ferris
(Eds.), Research in personnel and human re-
sources managanent, vol. 4: 101-145. Greenwich.
CT: JAI Press.
Granovetter, M. 1973. The strength of weak ties. Ameri-
can Joumal cf Sociology, 78: 1360-1380.
Ibaira, H. 1992. Homophily and differential returns: Sex
differences in network structure and access in an
advertising firm. Admiidstrative Science Quarterly,
37: 422-447.
Ibarra, H. 1995. Race, opportunity, and diversity ot social
circles in managerial networks. Academy of Man-
agement Journal, 38: 673-703.
Jones, G. R. 1986. Socialization tactics, self-efficacy, and
newcomers' adjustment to organizations. Academy
of Management Journal, 29: 262-279.
Kilduff, M., & Krackhardt, D. 1994. Bringing the individ-
ual back in: A structural analysis of the internal
market for reputation in organizations. Academy o/
Managemait Joumal, 37: 87-108.
Krackhardt, D. 1992. The strength of strong ties: The
importance of Philos. In N. Nohiia & R. Eccles (Eds.).
Netwmia and orgtudzations: Structure, fmn, and
actirni: 216-239. Boston: Harvard University Press.
Krackhardt, D., & Brass, D. J. 1994. Inter-oiganizational
networks: The micro side. In S. Wasserman & ).
Galaskiewicz (Eds.). Advances in sodal nefwoiir
analyas: Research in the social and beAaviami
s: 207-229. Thousand Oaks. CA: Sage.
Lin, N. 1982. Social resources and instrumental action, ln
P. V. Marsden & N. Lin (Eds.), Social stmcture and
netwtakaiuifysis: 131-145. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Louis, M. R. 1990. Acculturation in the workplace: New-
comers as lay ethnographers. In B. Schneider (Ed.),
Organizational climate and culture: 85—129. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Louis. M. R., Posner, B. Z., & Powell, G. N. 1983. The
availability and helpfulness of socialization prac-
tices. Persmnel Psychology, 36: 857-866.
Marsdeu, P. V. 1990. Network data and measurement. In
W. R. Scott & I Blake (Eds.), Aruiuai review of
sociology, vol. 16: 435-463. Palo Alto, CA: Annual
Reviews.
Morrison, E. W. 1993. Longitudinal study of the effects of
infonnation seeking on newcomer socialization.
Joumal of Applied Psydiology, 78: 173-183.
Ostroff. C:., & Kozlowski, S. W. j . 1992. Organizational
socialization as a learning process: The role of infor-
mation acquisition. Personnel Psychology, 45: 849-
874.
Podolny.). M., & Baron. J. N. 1997. Resources and rela-
tionships: Social networks and mobility in the work-
place. American Sodtdogical Review, 62:673-693.
Podsakoff, P. M., & Organ, D. W. 1986. Self-reports in
organizational research: Problems and prospects.
Joumal of Management, 12: 531-544.
Reichers, A. E. 1987. An interactionist perspective on
newcomer socialization rates. Academy of Manage-
ment Review, 12: 278-287.
Saks. A. M., & Ashforth, B. E. 1997. Socialization tactics
and newcomer information acquisition. Interna-
tional Joumal of Selection and Assessment, 5:
48-61.
Scott. ). 1991. Social network analysis: A handhook.
London: Sage.
Van Maanen, ]., & Schein, E. H. 1979. Toward a theory of
organizational socialization. In B. Staw (Ed.), lie-
search in laganbatitmal hehavior, vol. 1: 209-264.
Greenwich. CT: JAI Press.
Walker, M. E., Wasserman, S., & Wellman, B. 1993. Sta-
tistical models for social support networks. Socio-
logical Metiiods and Research, 22: 71-98.
EUzabeth WOUB Mmriaan (einonisa@stem.nyu.edu) holds
a research professorship in management and is the chair of
the Management and Oiganizatimial Behavior Department
at the Stem School of Business, New York University. She
received her Ph.D. in organization behavior firom North-
western University. Her research fecuses on proactive be-
haviors and initiative taking by employees, newcomer ad-
justment, and employee voice and silence.