Relational, Organizational and Individual Antecedents of the Socialization of New Recruits Assaad El Akremi Université Toulouse 1 Capitole assaad.el-akremi@univ-tlse1.fr Mohamed Ikram Nasr EM Lyon Business School NASR@em-lyon.com Nathalie Richebé SKEMA Sophia-Antipolis CERGAM - IAE d'Aix en Provence nathalie.richebe@skema.edu Relational, Organizational and Individual Antecedents of the Socialization of New Recruits Assaad El Akremi � Mohamed Ikram Nasr � Nathalie Richebé Abstract. This article draws on research in socialization, social support and organizational justice to explore the interactions among the relational, organizational and individual determinants of newcomers' adjustment. More specifically, we examine the interactive effects of perceived supervisor support (PSS), organizational socialization tactics, perceived overall justice and proactive personality on newcomers' task mastery, role clarity and job satisfaction. The results of a 2-wave longitudinal study on 104 new recruits of a large French bank point out that effective socialization is a result of a synergy between relational, organizational and individual paths. In particular, we found that the socializing effects of PSS are stronger under conditions of institutionalized socialization tactics, high perceived overall justice, and high newcomers' proactivity. The theoretical and managerial implications of these results are discussed. ! Joining a new firm is one of the most significant events in an employee’s career and working life. The period of socialization into the organization is usually synonymous with anxiety and uncertainty for the new recruit who has to face the demands of adapting to and integrating with the firm, all the more so since the organizational context is not only unknown but also hard to predict (Miller & Jablin, 1991; Saks & Ashforth, 2000). The degree to which new recruits manage to overcome this uncertainty and understand both what is expected of them and the tacit and explicit organizational norms, largely conditions the success of their transformation from the status of outsider to that of insider, and consequently their well-being, performance and length of service in the firm (Bauer, Bodner, Erdogan, Truxillo, & Tucker, 2007). ! The socialization of new recruits is indeed essential if the firm’s distinctive competences are to be preserved (Ashforth, Sluss & Saks, 2007; Lacaze, 2007). This socialization represents a considerable economic challenge, both directly (because of the impact on recruitment costs) and indirectly (poor integration of new recruits might for example have an effect on the firm’s reputation on the job market). Finally, integration is a major challenge for the recruits themselves; if they fail to integrate, they may suffer heavy consequences (stress, loss of confidence, costs of seeking a new job). The successful integration of new recruits is therefore an essential component of effective and sustainable HRM. ! The highly sensitive process of socialization (Liden, Bauer, & Erdogan, 2004) has given rise to a wealth of literature, mainly based on uncertainty reduction theory (Berger, 1979; Falcione & Wilson, 1988). Along this line of analysis, successful integration depends on the extent to which new recruits manage to overcome the uncertainty associated with their entry into the organization (Saks & Ashforth, 1997). For new recruits, successful integration M@n@gement 2014, vol. 17(5): 317-345 317 mailto:NASR@em-lyon.com?subject= mailto:NASR@em-lyon.com?subject= mailto:assaad.el-akremi@univ-tlse1.f?subject= mailto:assaad.el-akremi@univ-tlse1.f?subject= mailto:NASR@em-lyon.com?subject= mailto:NASR@em-lyon.com?subject= mailto:nathalie.richebe@skema.edu?subject= mailto:nathalie.richebe@skema.edu?subject= translates into having a clear understanding of the tasks and roles to which they are assigned, internalising organizational norms and being socially well- integrated (Bauer et al., 2007; Perrot, 2008). Three actors play a key role in this process: (1) the new recruits themselves through the efforts they make to adopt a proactive attitude to integration; (2) the organization, thanks to the practices it implements to guide and encourage new employees’ socialization; (3) and finally the other members of the organization, in particular supervisors who are at once a source of information, support and feedback (Bauer & Erdogan, 2010; Saks & Ashforth, 1997). In further research along these lines, works inspired by the interactionist approach to socialization (Reichers, 1987) highlight the central role of the interactions between new recruits and their supervisors, for it is by exchanging with others that the former derive the knowledge they need to make sense of their environment (Bauer & Green, 1998; Jokisaari & Nurmi, 2009; Kammeyer-Mueller, Wanberg, Rubenstein, & Song, 2013). Moreover, these studies suggest that the socialization process depends largely on the interactions between new recruits and their organizational and relational environment (Ashforth et al., 2007; Griffin, Colella, & Goparaju, 2000; Reichers, 1987). ! In any case, and surprisingly, little research has until now focused systematically on the mechanisms through which the insiders, and in particular hierarchical superiors, influence the socialization of new recruits (Jokisaari & Nurmi, 2009; Kammeyer-Mueller et al., 2013). Liden and his colleagues (2004: 228) for example, note that “the literature could be significantly enriched by research on specific behaviours supervisors undertake to socialise new recruits”. Moreover, the way in which this relational source of socialization interacts with other socialization sources (organizational and individual), supplementing or replacing them, remains largely unknown despite a few rare recent attempts to explore this (e.g., Harris, Boswell, Zhang, & Xie, 2013; Kammeyer-Mueller et al., 2013). Finally, these authors call for research on socialization to be decompartmentalised by introducing new variables likely to play an important role in a context of uncertainty and shed new light on the conditions for successful integration (Harris et al., 2013; Liden et al., 2004). ! The study below belongs to this still wide-open field of investigation. We rely on research in socialization (Berger, 1979; Jones, 1986; Kammeyer-Mueller et al., 2013; Reichers, 1987), social support (Eisenberger et al., 2002) and organizational justice (Ambrose & Schminke, 2009; Lind, 2001) to explore the interactions among the relational, organizational and individual determinants of socialization. More specifically, our study has three major objectives: (1) to examine the effects of perceived supervisory support on task mastery, role clarity and new recruits’ job satisfaction; this is in line with recent studies on the active role played by managers in the socialization process (Jokisaari & Nurmi, 2009; Kammeyer-Mueller et al., 2013); (2) to echo calls for opening up the field of socialization by integrating a variable that is particularly relevant in a context of uncertainty, although it has never been studied in socialization research : overall justice perceptions (Ambrose & Schminke, 2009) ; (3) finally, to contribute to the interactionist stream of socialization (Griffin et al., 2000  ; Reichers, 1987) by examining the triple interactions among perceived supervisory support as a relational factor, the level of institutionalisation of socialization tactics and overall justice as organizational factors and the proactive personality of new recruits as an individual factor of socialization. This approach enables us to examine how these contextual and dispositional elements amplify or limit the socializing effects of supervisory support. ! From a practical point of view, our research aims to show that it is worthwhile for firms to develop global newcomers' socialization strategies that encourage coherence and complementarity among the three components, namely supervisory roles, new recruits’ individual characteristics and the socialization policy set up by the firm. M@n@gement, vol. 17(5): 317-345! Assaad El Akremi et al. 318 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK AND HYPOTHESES ! This study aims to understand the effects of complementarity and/or substitution existing between relational, organizational and individual factors of socialization. In what follows, we develop the theoretical argument supporting our model (see Figure 1 below). Figure 1. Theoretical model: a three-way interaction effect SUPERVISORY SUPPORT AS A KEY FACTOR OF SOCIALIZATION ! The literature on organizational socialization traditionally recognises the role of interpersonal relations between insiders and new recruits as a prime resource for reducing uncertainty and improving integration (Reichers, 1987). In particular, much research highlights the central role of direct supervisors in the socialization process. These supervisors are both sources of information and models for young recruits (e.g., Bauer & Green, 1998; Jokisaari, 2013; Jokisaari & Nurmi, 2009; Kammeyer-Mueller et al., 2013; Liden et al., 2004; Sluss & Thompson, 2012; Weiss, 1977). However, the mechanisms through which managers influence their new collaborators’ adjustment have not been much studied (Harris et al., 2013; Kammeyer-Mueller et al., 2013; Liden et al., 2004). Kammeyer-Muller and his colleagues (2013) thus remark on the fact that up till now, most research on socialization has considered supervisors either as just a “component” of the organization or as passive information sources. As a result, these authors add, we know little about their active contribution to the socialization process. ! In this respect, the concept of social support defined as the contribution of emotional, instrumental and informational support (Vinokur & Van Ryn, 1993), offers an interesting perspective. The perception of supervisory support (Eisenberger et al., 2002) is in fact likely to influence different facets of socialization by reducing new recruits’ feelings of uncertainty (Falcione & Wilson, 1988). Such support is synonymous with benevolence and positive encouragement; by providing these very soon after new recruits enter the organization, supervisors can actively contribute to their learning and acculturation processes (Jokisaari & Nurmi, 2009). ! Firstly, a high level of perceived support makes new recruits feel they have primary access to the technical and normative information that they need to learn about their job and do it well. This gives them an impression of personal Antecedents of Socialization of the new recruits! M@n@gement, vol. 17(5): 317-345 319 efficiency for they feel that they are mastering their new tasks; it also results in an increase of their intrinsic motivation (Harris et al., 2013; Liden et al., 2004). Through supervisor support, managers can also transmit information and keys for new collaborators giving them a better understanding of organizational decisions and policies, what is expected of them in terms of behaviours and performance, as well as the functional and hierarchical links between their positions and those of other organization members (Bauer & Green, 1998; Jokisaari & Nurmi, 2009). By doing this, supervisors help new recruits to make sense of their situation and appropriate their new roles. Finally, the theory of affective events (Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996), suggests that positive interpersonal interactions such as those characterized by a perception of high supervisor support, can produce a positive emotional state and increased satisfaction. This is all the more true if interactions with superiors are perceived as new and significant and thus as a significant affective trigger for new employees in a situation of uncertainty (Kammeyer-Mueller et al., 2013). ! However, until now, relatively few studies have examined the effects of perceived supervisor support on the socialization of new recruits empirically (e.g., Bauer & Green 1998; Jokisaari & Nurmi, 2009; Kammeyer-Mueller et al., 2013; Slaughter & Zickar, 2006). For example Jokisaari and Nurmi (2009) showed that the decrease in perceived supervisor support during the first two years of an employee’s career have negative effects on the clarity of his/her role and job satisfaction. Similarly, the results of Kammeyer-Mueller and colleagues (2013) suggest that the level of perceived supervisor support during the first week after recruitment has a significant effect on several areas of socialization. Supervisor support thus appears as a critical resource for the socialization of new employees: it provides an important channel of information, models of behaviour and emotional experiences that condition recruits’ learning of new tasks and new role as well as their job satisfaction. We thus propose to retain the following hypothesis: H1. Perceived supervisory support (PSS) positively influences new recruits’ level of task mastery, role clarity and job satisfaction. S P E C I F I C A N D G L O B A L O R G A N I Z AT I O N A L C O N T I N G E N C I E S : SOCIALIZATION TACTICS AND OVERALL JUSTICE PERCEPTIONS ! In their role as agents of socialization, managers operate in an organizational context that may amplify or limit the effects of their actions on the integration and adjustment of new recruits (Lind et al., 2004). More specifically, new employees call on different organizational and contextual sources as well as their wider entourage to reduce their uncertainty. These sources interact with the psychological and instrumental support contributed by interpersonal sources (Harris et al., 2013). In the same line of analysis, studies inspired by the interactionist approach to socialization (Reichers, 1987) suggest that if we want to grasp the full complexity of the socialization process, our models must integrate the interactions and synergies among its relational, organizational and individual sources (Ashforth et al., 2007; Griffin, Colella, & Goparaju, 2000; Liden et al., 2004). Taking this research further, the next section focuses on the interaction between perceived supervisor support and two organizational factors that are particularly significant during the entry phase: the firm’s socialization tactics and overall justice perceptions. The role of organizational socialization tactics ! In 1979, Van Maanen and Schein showed how certain organizational practices can influence the socialization process. These authors suggest that by M@n@gement, vol. 17(5): 317-345! Assaad El Akremi et al. 320 setting up suitable socialization tactics, firms can reduce new recruits’ uncertainty and structure their integration process. They thus developed a typology of organizational socialization tactics comprising six continuums: collective vs. individual, formal vs. informal, sequential vs. random, fixed vs. variable, serial vs. disjunctive, and investiture vs. divestiture. ! Jones (1986) was the first to empirically measure and test the Van Maanen and Schein (1979) typology. His results suggest that the six socialization tactics can be considered as a single continuum with at one extremity, institutionalised tactics (collective, formal, sequential, fixed, serial and investiture) that reflect systematic and structured socialization; and at the other, individualised tactics (individual, informal, random, variable, disjunctive and divestiture) that correspond to the absence of any well-defined socialization programme where new recruits are left to themselves. Since then, a great deal of research on socialization has adopted Jones’ (1986) one-dimensional conceptualisation (e.g., Ashforth et al., 2007; Cable & Parsons, 2001; Kim, Cable & Kim, 2005). These studies have consistently shown that the level of institutionalisation of socialization tactics has a significant influence on the adjustment of new recruits. As uncertainty reduction theory suggests (Berger, 1979; Falcione & Wilson, 1988), institutionalised tactics help reduce the ambiguity of the work context and encourage new recruits adhesion to organizational norms and rules. These tactics are thus associated with an improved level of task mastery, role clarity, social integration, person-job fit, organizational commitment and job satisfaction (Bauer et al., 2007; Saks, Uggerslev, & Fassina, 2007). Conversely, individualised tactics correspond to socialization «  by default  » that produces poorer quality integration (Bauer et al., 2007). On the basis of this research, we propose retaining the following hypothesis: H2. The level of institutionalisation of organizational socialization tactics positively influences task mastery, role clarity and job satisfaction. ! Beyond these direct effects, we suggest that organizational socialization tactics interact with perceived supervisor support to determine the domains of socialization. In fact, uncertainty reduction theory (Berger, 1979; Falcione & Wilson, 1988) and the interactionist approach to socialization (Harris et al., 2013; Griffin et al., 2000; Reichers, 1987) suggest that new recruits, in their quest for control and predictability, will rely on information and signals both from the organizational context and from their wider entourage. These authors also suggest that these sources are interdependent and influence each other. However, the extant literature provides no clear explanation of the nature of these interactions. Some authors advance the idea that the different paths to socialization (organizational, relational and individual) substitute for each other such that the effects of any one path increase when the others are lacking (e.g., Liden et al., 2004). On the contrary others suggest that they complement each other and interact by synergy such that each reinforces the socializing effects of the others (e.g., Harris et al., 2013; Griffin et al., 2000). ! In this study, we adopt the second thesis, arguing that the institutionalisation of socialization tactics tends to amplify the beneficial effects of perceived supervisor support on new employees’ adjustment. We believe this for two reasons: Firstly, institutionalised socialization tactics are more coherent with a high level of perceived supervisor support because they convey the same values of benevolence and care towards new recruits (Allen & Shanock, 2013; Harris et al., 2013). This coherence is likely to create a synergy that amplifies the beneficial effects of perceived supervisor support on the integration of new recruits. On the contrary, for new recruits, individualised tactics indicate the organization’s disengagement, weak investment and lack of interest in them (Allen & Shanock, 2013; Saks et al., 2007). Such messages are inconsistent with, Antecedents of Socialization of the new recruits! M@n@gement, vol. 17(5): 317-345 321 even contradictory to, a high level of support from supervisors and are likely to counter the socializing effects of the latter (Harris et al., 2013). This argument is supported by the literature in communication and information processing, notably by Information Integration theory (Anderson, 1981) and by Cue Consistency Theory (Miyazaki, Grewal, & Goodstein, 2005). These studies in fact show that when an individual is simultaneously in relation with several information sources, the messages and signals these convey have more weight and are thus more remarkable and useful when they are consistent and in agreement with each other than when they are disparate and contradictory. ! Secondly, institutionalised socialization tactics enable new recruits to follow a systematic, organised and structured integration process (Jones, 1986). These formal guidelines provided by the firm complement the less formal but more specific everyday information and explanations contributed by the supervisor (Bauer & Green, 1998; Li, Harris, Boswell, & Xie, 2011; Sluss & Thompson, 2012). The synergy between these two sources of regulation (organization and the immediate supervisor) is essential to the learning process. It is in this sense that Kammeyer-Mueller and colleagues (2013) think that supervisors, through their support, may interact positively with the organizational system by providing information and the social acceptance necessary for successful socialization. Similarly, Harris and colleagues (2013: 26) remark that “receiving consistent support and informational cues from multiple socialization sources is critical for promoting newcomers’ creative expressions.” On the basis of these arguments, we suggest that institutionalised socialization tactics amplify the effects of perceived supervisor support on the socialization of new recruits. Thus, we formulate the following hypothesis: H3. Organizational socialization tactics moderate the effects of perceived supervisor support on task mastery, role clarity and job satisfaction such that these effects will be stronger when socialization tactics are institutionalised than when they are individualised. The role of overall justice perceptions ! The effects of managers’ actions on their subordinates depend not only on elements close to the context (directly related to the action in question), but also on more distant and diffuse elements such as the general climate of the firm or the employees’ representations of it (Harris et al., 2013). Thus as well as specific socialization tactics, we suggest that the effects of perceived supervisor support on new recruits’ adjustment could be moderated by more general organizational contingencies that are particularly noticeable in times of uncertainty: overall justice perceptions. Overall justice in fact corresponds to individuals’ holistic appreciation of the fairness of treatment generally received within their organization (Ambrose & Schminke, 2009). Recent research suggests that this overall perception has effects that reach far beyond those of more specific appreciations of organizational justice (i.e. distributive, procedural and interactional: Aryee, Walumbwa, Mondejar, & Chu, 2013), particularly in contexts of uncertainty (Jones & Martens, 2009; Lind & Van den Bos, 2002; Priesemuth, Arnaud, & Schminke, 2013). The salience of feelings of overall justice in the context of socialization is justified by the fact that it reflects an overall evaluation of organizational entities (social entity justice; Ambrose & Schminke, 2009) corresponding to the need for social inclusion and control at times of uncertainty (Bobocel, 2013). Furthermore, perceptions of overall justice are developed more quickly and easily than perceptions of specific justice dimensions (distributive, procedural and interactional). It is in this sense that Priesemuth and colleagues (2013: 233) suggest "that people form overall justice perceptions regarding their work environment to reduce uncertainty and increase understanding of a situation and workplace.” M@n@gement, vol. 17(5): 317-345! Assaad El Akremi et al. 322 The theory of uncertainty management (Lind & Van den Bos, 2002) in fact suggests that in order to manage situations of uncertainty, individuals rapidly and systematically form an overall appreciation of the fairness of their environment. This perception is based on information that is easily accessible; it comes from the individual’s initial experiences but also from observations and anticipations relative to the different facets of organizational fairness (Ambrose & Schminke, 2009; Lind & Van den Bos, 2002). Once formed, this perception acts as a heuristic replacing perceptions that are more difficult to construct, such as those referring to others’ loyalty for example (Lind, 2001). This heuristic in fact guides individuals’ attitudes towards their environment. The feeling of justice in particular seems to act as a pivotal cognition that galvanises the transfer from « individual mode » where the person is centred on his or her short-term interests and is thus reluctant to collaborate with others for fear of rejection or exploitation, to « group mode » where the person willingly trusts others, collaborates and accepts being exposed to the risks of social interaction in order to benefit from the advantages this offers (Lind, 2001: 67). ! Applied to the context of socialization, this theory suggests that when faced with the uncertainty of starting out in an organization, new recruits will rapidly form an appreciation of the overall justice of their firm. Those who have the impression that the firm treats its employees fairly will be more likely to engage in a collaborative approach that will enable them to take full advantage of positive interactions with insiders and in particular with their immediate superior. On the other hand, those who perceive their new firm as unfair will be less trusting and will probably derive less benefit from their wider entourage. By setting in action the transfer to « group mode », the feeling of overall justice thus cultivates the socializing effects of relational factors, especially of perceived supervisor support. Moreover, overall justice produces a climate of security that contributes to reducing new recruits’ feelings of uncertainty, encourages their initiative (Harris et al., 2013) and arouses positive emotions and self evaluations (Barclay & Kiefer, 2013; Colquitt et al., 2013). This can be explained by the fact that the feeling of being fairly treated corresponds to different basic individual needs such as feelings of belonging, self-esteem and the feeling that one’s existence has meaning (Cropanzano, Byrne, Bobocel, & Rupp, 2001). Because of this, justice corresponds to organizational signals that are consistent with supervisory benevolence and help, thus making new recruits more receptive to the benefits of perceived supervisor support. The above arguments lead us to propose the following hypothesis: H4. Overall justice perceptions moderate the effects of perceived supervisor support on task mastery, role clarity and job satisfaction such that these effects are stronger when perceived overall justice is high than when it is low. Individual contingency: the proactive personality ! Since this article intends to examine the interactions among relational, organizational and individual factors of socialization, we shall now focus on a particularly important personality trait for new recruits’ adjustment: proactive personality. Proactive personality can be defined as an individual disposition to take initiative, act on the environment and identify and benefit from the opportunities offered by that environment (Bateman & Crant, 1993; Parker, Bindl, & Strauss, 2010; Seibert, Kraimer, & Crant, 2001). ! Recently, Parker and Collins (2010) showed that proactive personality is a significant antecedent to the majority of proactive behaviours at work. Proactivity as a personality trait and an individual difference in new recruits should therefore be distinguished from proactive socialization behaviours (e.g. information and feedback-seeking), although the two are obviously linked (Chan & Schmitt, 2000; Antecedents of Socialization of the new recruits! M@n@gement, vol. 17(5): 317-345 323 Kammeyer-Mueller & Wanberg, 2003.) In general, research on socialization shows that the most proactive new recruits engage in behaviours of information- and feedback-seeking, positive assessment of situations, relationship building and networking that enable them better to adjust and integrate socially than other personality types (e.g., Ashford & Black, 1996; Kammeyer-Mueller & Wanberg, 2003; Li et al., 2011; Thompson, 2005). ! While we recognise the contribution of these works in helping to put the new employee at the centre of the socialization process (Kammeyer-Mueller et al., 2013), we have chosen here to focus on a question that is less commonly studied: that of the interaction between new recruits’ proactivity and the relational and organizational determinants of socialization (Griffin et al., 2000; Kim et al., 2005; Li et al., 2011). We argue that the proactive personality is a boundary condition that tends to moderate the synergy effects mentioned above between perceived supervisor support and socialization tactics on one hand, and perceived supervisor support and overall justice on the other. ! In fact, proactive individuals are often described as having higher motivation and a higher need for self-actualization than others (Major, Turner, & Fletcher, 2006; Thompson, 2005). They are also more conscientious, more perseverant and are better able to identify and benefit from the opportunities of their environment (Bateman & Crant, 1993; Miceli, Near, Rehg, & Scotter, 2012). New recruits with a high level of proactivity also have a strong wish to control and master the situations they come up against (Ashford & Black, 1996). Thanks to their penchant for learning objectives and career development and their capacity to make the most of favourable situations (Fuller & Marler, 2009), the most proactive new recruits should obtain more advantages than those who are less so, from the complementary nature and consistency between the formal guidelines of institutionalised socialization tactics and the informal information that comes with a high level of support from direct superiors. The complementarity between relational and organizational determinants of socialization constitutes an opportunity that is particularly to the advantage of the most proactive new recruits. We thus propose the following hypothesis of three- way interaction: H5. The moderating effects of the level of institutionalisation of organizational socialization tactics on the positive relationships between on one hand, perceived supervisor support and on the other, task mastery, role clarity and job satisfaction will be stronger for new recruits with a high level of proactive personality. ! Proactivity and the initiative taking that goes with it involve inevitable social costs. Several studies thus suggest that new recruits consider the risks of exclusion and rejection when they envisage engaging in proactive behaviours such as seeking information or feedback (e.g., Miller & Jablin, 1991; Morrison, 1993). These behaviours, in essence visible, are often held back by fear of being rejected by the group, “losing face” through being considered incompetent and lacking autonomy or simply to avoid bothering other people. These risks are liable to damage new recruits’ relationships with other members of the firm as well as their own identity and self-esteem. ! The climate of security, trust and support correspond to the juxtaposition of a high level of overall justice and perceived supervisor support; these contribute to minimising the risks and new recruits’ apprehensions; they thus give rise to a context that encourages the expression of individual differences in terms of proactivity and initiative. This context can be beneficial to all new recruits, but even more to the most proactive among them for these individuals can give free rein to their natural tendencies without fearing exclusion, rejection or shame. In as much as they are more extrovert, more open and more likely to take initiative M@n@gement, vol. 17(5): 317-345! Assaad El Akremi et al. 324 than the others (Fuller & Marler, 2009; Miceli et al., 2012), the most proactive new recruits will probably get more benefit from the climate created by the synergy between high levels of overall justice and perceived supervisor support. This complementarity between the relational and organizational determinants of socialization could therefore be viewed as an opportunity for the most proactive new recruits, who would take more advantage of it. We thus posit the following hypothesis of triple interaction: H6. The moderating effect of overall justice perceptions on the positive relationships between perceived supervisor support on one hand and task mastery, role clarity and job satisfaction on the other, will be stronger for new recruits with a high level of proactive personality. METHODS LONGITUDINAL APPROACH AND SAMPLE ! This study was carried out in two measurement waves separated by three months with 104 new recruits of a large French bank. The bank had just recruited 140 new agents (client consultants) and agreed to support this study to gain a better understanding of the determinant factors for integrating new recruits. The questionnaires were administered electronically: an email from the research team asked new recruits to connect to the study website. The email described the objective of the study and reassured respondents that their answers would remain confidential. Each participant was given an access code to connect to the site so that we could track respondents’ answers at both times of measure. At Time 1, after their first week working at the bank, new recruits were asked to reply to a first questionnaire to measure their perceptions of supervisor support, socialization tactics, overall justice perceptions and proactive personality. After two reminders sent during the following two weeks, 112 questionnaires were completed, corresponding to a response rate of 80%. ! The choice to administer the first questionnaire very soon after recruits had started to work at the organization was based on the recommendations of several researchers in socialization. These stipulate that the new recruits’ perceptions are formed very rapidly after arrival, and have significant impacts on their future perceptions, attitudes and behaviours (e.g., Chao et al., 1994; Kammeyer-Mueller et al., 2013; Liden, Wayne, & Stilwell, 1993; Major, Kozlowski, Chao, & Garner, 1995). Furthermore, this time frame is similar to that retained in several recent studies (e.g., Allen & Shanock, 2013; Cooper-Thomas & Anderson, 2002; Kammeyer-Mueller & Wanberg, 2003; Dulac, Coyle-Shapiro, Hendersen, & Wayne, 2008; Kammeyer-Mueller et al., 2013; Sluss & Thompson, 2012). Three months later (Time 2), a second questionnaire measuring task mastery, role clarity and job satisfaction was administered. Finally, 104 questionnaires were completed giving a final response rate of 73%. The average age of new recruits participating in the study is 28 years old; 69% are women and 51% have been educated to above a level of two years beyond high school (Baccalaureate + 2). MEASURES ! The scales were translated from English using Brislin’s (1986) back- translation approach. For all measures of variables, new recruits had to give their degree of agreement according to a Likert type 5-point scale (from 1: completely disagree to 5 completely agree). Antecedents of Socialization of the new recruits! M@n@gement, vol. 17(5): 317-345 325 Perceived supervisor support. We adapted the scale developed by Eisenberger et al. (1986, 2002) to measure perceived supervisor support. The scale comprises 7 items and presents an excellent Cronbach’s alpha (α = 0.93). A sample item is: « My supervisor really cares about my well-being ». ! Organizational socialization tactics. We used 12 items from the scale developed by Jones (1986) to measure the degree of institutionalisation of socialization tactics. We opted for this short version because it comprises two main advantages: 1) It saves space because the questionnaires are shorter - without compromising the content of the measure and (2) Given the one dimensional nature of the scale, these 12 items capture the construct of organizational socialization tactics as a continuum going from individualised tactics to institutionalised tactics (Allen & Shanock, 2013). The Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of the scale is 0.84. « I have a good knowledge of the time it will take me to go through the various stages of the training process in this organization » is a sample item from this scale. ! Overall organizational justice. We used 5 items from the scale developed by Ambrose and Schminke (2009). This scale has very good internal reliability; Cronbach’s alpha is 0.87. « Overall, I’m treated fairly by my organization » is a sample item from this scale. ! Proactive personality. Proactive personality (Claes, Beheydt, & Lemmens, 2005) was measured using a short version (6 items) of the scale developed by Bateman and Crant (1993). It has a satisfactory Cronbach’s alpha (α = 0.73). A sample item is: « I am always looking for better ways to do things ». ! Task mastery. To measure task mastery we used the 7-item scale developed and tested by Morrison (1993, 2002). This scale has good internal reliability; the Cronbach’s alpha is 0.80. A sample item is « I have learned how to successfully perform my job in an efficient manner ». ! Role clarity. We used 6 items from the scale of Rizzo, House and Lirtzman (1970) and to items from Ashford (1986) to measure role clarity. The Cronbach’s alpha is 0.92. A sample item is « I know exactly what is expected of me ». ! Job satisfaction. We used the 3-item scale of Cammann et al. (1983) to measure job satisfaction. The Cronbach’s alpha is highly satisfactory (α = 0.85). « All in all, I am satisfied with my job » is a sample item from this scale. ! Control variables. We also measured demographic variables of sex, age and educational level that can influence socialization indicators (Kim et al., 2005). By relying on Becker’s (2005) and Carlson and Wu’s (2012) recommendations for using control variables, we left these variables out of the analyses, given that they were not related, or only very weakly, to both the independent and dependent variables (cf. Table 1 of correlations). This “strict” approach (Carlson & Wu, 2012) also has the advantage of maintaining the model’s statistical power given the size of the sample. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS ! We first tested the convergent and discriminant validity of the variables of our measurement model with a series of Confirmatory Factor Analyses (CFAs) using Mplus (Muthén & Muthén, 2010). Given the size of the sample and to maintain statistical power in these analyses, we parcelled items in order to have a maximum of 3 to 4 indicators per variable according to the recommendations of Little, Rhemtulla, Gibson and Schoemann (2013). All the items in Appendix 1 were retained and combined each time as averages of two or three items according to the theoretical coherence of their content (Bandalos, 2002; Little, Cunningham, Shahar, & Widaman, 2002; Little et al., 2013). ! We then tested our hypotheses of two-way and three-way interactions using a series of hierarchical moderated regressions and by using the bootstrap method (Hayes, 2013). Our analyses were based on 5000 replications generating M@n@gement, vol. 17(5): 317-345! Assaad El Akremi et al. 326 1. We specify that our statistical process results in similar findings when overall justice, socialization tactics or even proactive personality are considered as independnet variables in the model. In fact, in the test of two-way or three-way interaction effects, changing the role of the variables such as independent or moderating makes no difference to the test of interaction effects and the results are similar. The argument should only be made about theoretical choices and coherence (Dawson, 2014:11). bootstrap confidence intervals for each regression coefficient. Furthermore, following the recommendation of Cohen et al. (2003), before the regression analyses, we centered all the variables except the dependent variables (task mastery, clarity of role and job satisfaction). Next, in a first step, we introduced the direct effects of perceived supervisor support, organizational socialization tactics, overall justice perceptions and proactive personality. The introduction of the direct effects of all these variables is a necessary step from a statistical point of view to avoid bias in the results of the interaction effects and to be able to interpret these even if the effects do not all correspond to the hypotheses of the theoretical model (Aiken & West, 1991; Jaccard & Turrisi, 2003; Aguinis & Gottfredson, 2010; Hayes, 2013; Dawson, 2014). As suggested by Dawson (2014: 2): “The inclusion of the direct effects is essential; without this step the regression equation is not complete and the results cannot be interpreted.” In a second step, we introduced all the effects of two-way interactions. Finally, in a third step, we introduced all the effects of three-way interactions between on one hand perceived supervisor support, socialization tactics and proactive personality, and on the other, perceived supervisor support, perceptions of overall justice and proactive personality1. RESULTS RESULTS OF CONFIRMATORY FACTOR ANALYSES AND COMMON METHOD VARIANCE TESTS ! The results of the test of the quality of the measurement model contribute to support the convergent and discriminant validity of our variables. In fact, the 7- factor model (perceived supervisor support, socialization tactics, overall justice, proactive personality, task mastery, role clarity and job satisfaction) was tested first. All the loadings relating the indicators to latent factors ware significant with an average value above 0.70. This model has an excellent fit to the data with a χ2 [253] = 324.06; NNFI = 0.96; CFI = 0.97; RMSEA = 0.052 with a confidence interval CI = (0.033; 0.068). This model proved to be better, in terms of significance of χ2 difference (Δχ2) tests, than a series of other models that combine: (1) socialization tactics and overall justice perceptions (Δχ2 [6] = 57.09, p < 0.01); (2) perceived supervisor support and socialization tactics (Δχ2 [6] = 308.35, p < 0.01); (3) perceived supervisor support and overall justice perceptions (Δχ2 [6] = 279.59, p < 0.01); (4) task mastery and role clarity (Δχ2 [6] = 65.98, p < 0.01). Finally, our model is better than that constituted with a single factor (Harman, 1976) (Δχ2 [21] = 1032.29, p < 0.01). This set of results demonstrates the quality of the measurement model in terms of the variables’ convergent and discriminant validity. ! Even if we used a longitudinal design with two waves of measure separated by 3 months, there is a risk of Common Method Variance (CMV) given that the data were collected from the same source, that is, new recruits (Podsakoff, MacKensie & Podsakoff, 2012). We therefore tested this bias risk by adding a latent method factor to our measurement model: this factor is related to the set of indicators of our variables and is supposed to capture method bias (Podsakoff et al., 2012). This new model has a global fit equivalent to that of our measurement model (χ2 [245] = 316.45; NNFI = 0.96; CFI = 0.97; RMSEA = 0.054). However, the amount of additional variance contributed by this model compared to ours is only 4%. The lack of significant improvement in fit indices and the weak value of additional variance contributed by adding a method factor prove the absence of common method variance in our data and hence in the analysis of our results. Antecedents of Socialization of the new recruits! M@n@gement, vol. 17(5): 317-345 327 HYPOTHESES TESTS ! The descriptive statistics, reliability and correlations among variables are shown in Table 1. ! Hypothesis 1 posits that perceived supervisor support positively influences new recruits’ levels of task mastery, role clarity and job satisfaction. The results presented in Table 2 show that perceived supervisor support is significantly related to role clarity and job satisfaction (β = 0.30, p < 0.01 and β = 0.25, p < 0.01, respectively in columns Step 1), but the direct effect of perceived supervisor support was shown not to be significant on task mastery (β = 0.05, ns., column Step 1 Table 2). Hypothesis 1 is therefore partly supported. Table 1. Descriptive statistics and correlationsTable 1. Descriptive statistics and correlationsTable 1. Descriptive statistics and correlationsTable 1. Descriptive statistics and correlationsTable 1. Descriptive statistics and correlationsTable 1. Descriptive statistics and correlationsTable 1. Descriptive statistics and correlationsTable 1. Descriptive statistics and correlationsTable 1. Descriptive statistics and correlationsTable 1. Descriptive statistics and correlationsTable 1. Descriptive statistics and correlationsTable 1. Descriptive statistics and correlationsTable 1. Descriptive statistics and correlations M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1. Gender a 1.29 0.46 - 2. Age b 29.33 5.77 -0.04 - 3. Educational Level c 2.55 0.99 -0.05 -0.09 - 4. Perceived supervisor support 3.76 0.79 0.11 -0.01 -0.03 (0.93) 5. Socialization tactics 3.22 0.59 0.08 -0.21* 0.01 0.47** (0.84) 6. Overall justice perceptions 3.11 0.75 0.12 -0.16 0.07 0.37** 0.72** (0.87) 7. Proactive personality 4.07 0.41 -0.02 -0.08 0.03 0.26** 0.13 0.09 (0.73) 8. Task mastery 3.52 0.45 0.06 -0.11 0.12 0.25** 0.24* 0.1 0.31** (0.80) 9. Role clarity 3.89 0.65 0.03 -0.07 0.04 0.50** 0.44** 0.38** 0.19* 0.54** (0.92) 10. Job satisfaction 3.78 0.74 0.05 -0.1 0.22* 0.36** 0.33** 0.47** 0.11 0.32** 0.49** (0.85) Note. N = 104. Cronbach’s alpha is shown diagonally. a. For Gender: (1) Female; (2) Male. b. Age in years. c. For Educational Level: (1) lower than high school diploma; (2) High school diploma (Baccalaureat); (3) Bachelor’s degree; (4) 4 year Master’s degree; (5) 5 year Master’s degree or higher. † p < .10 ; * p < .05 ; ** p < .01.  Note. N = 104. Cronbach’s alpha is shown diagonally. a. For Gender: (1) Female; (2) Male. b. Age in years. c. For Educational Level: (1) lower than high school diploma; (2) High school diploma (Baccalaureat); (3) Bachelor’s degree; (4) 4 year Master’s degree; (5) 5 year Master’s degree or higher. † p < .10 ; * p < .05 ; ** p < .01.  Note. N = 104. Cronbach’s alpha is shown diagonally. a. For Gender: (1) Female; (2) Male. b. Age in years. c. For Educational Level: (1) lower than high school diploma; (2) High school diploma (Baccalaureat); (3) Bachelor’s degree; (4) 4 year Master’s degree; (5) 5 year Master’s degree or higher. † p < .10 ; * p < .05 ; ** p < .01.  Note. N = 104. Cronbach’s alpha is shown diagonally. a. For Gender: (1) Female; (2) Male. b. Age in years. c. For Educational Level: (1) lower than high school diploma; (2) High school diploma (Baccalaureat); (3) Bachelor’s degree; (4) 4 year Master’s degree; (5) 5 year Master’s degree or higher. † p < .10 ; * p < .05 ; ** p < .01.  Note. N = 104. Cronbach’s alpha is shown diagonally. a. For Gender: (1) Female; (2) Male. b. Age in years. c. For Educational Level: (1) lower than high school diploma; (2) High school diploma (Baccalaureat); (3) Bachelor’s degree; (4) 4 year Master’s degree; (5) 5 year Master’s degree or higher. † p < .10 ; * p < .05 ; ** p < .01.  Note. N = 104. Cronbach’s alpha is shown diagonally. a. For Gender: (1) Female; (2) Male. b. Age in years. c. For Educational Level: (1) lower than high school diploma; (2) High school diploma (Baccalaureat); (3) Bachelor’s degree; (4) 4 year Master’s degree; (5) 5 year Master’s degree or higher. † p < .10 ; * p < .05 ; ** p < .01.  Note. N = 104. Cronbach’s alpha is shown diagonally. a. For Gender: (1) Female; (2) Male. b. Age in years. c. For Educational Level: (1) lower than high school diploma; (2) High school diploma (Baccalaureat); (3) Bachelor’s degree; (4) 4 year Master’s degree; (5) 5 year Master’s degree or higher. † p < .10 ; * p < .05 ; ** p < .01.  Note. N = 104. Cronbach’s alpha is shown diagonally. a. For Gender: (1) Female; (2) Male. b. Age in years. c. For Educational Level: (1) lower than high school diploma; (2) High school diploma (Baccalaureat); (3) Bachelor’s degree; (4) 4 year Master’s degree; (5) 5 year Master’s degree or higher. † p < .10 ; * p < .05 ; ** p < .01.  Note. N = 104. Cronbach’s alpha is shown diagonally. a. For Gender: (1) Female; (2) Male. b. Age in years. c. For Educational Level: (1) lower than high school diploma; (2) High school diploma (Baccalaureat); (3) Bachelor’s degree; (4) 4 year Master’s degree; (5) 5 year Master’s degree or higher. † p < .10 ; * p < .05 ; ** p < .01.  Note. N = 104. Cronbach’s alpha is shown diagonally. a. For Gender: (1) Female; (2) Male. b. Age in years. c. For Educational Level: (1) lower than high school diploma; (2) High school diploma (Baccalaureat); (3) Bachelor’s degree; (4) 4 year Master’s degree; (5) 5 year Master’s degree or higher. † p < .10 ; * p < .05 ; ** p < .01.  Note. N = 104. Cronbach’s alpha is shown diagonally. a. For Gender: (1) Female; (2) Male. b. Age in years. c. For Educational Level: (1) lower than high school diploma; (2) High school diploma (Baccalaureat); (3) Bachelor’s degree; (4) 4 year Master’s degree; (5) 5 year Master’s degree or higher. † p < .10 ; * p < .05 ; ** p < .01.  Note. N = 104. Cronbach’s alpha is shown diagonally. a. For Gender: (1) Female; (2) Male. b. Age in years. c. For Educational Level: (1) lower than high school diploma; (2) High school diploma (Baccalaureat); (3) Bachelor’s degree; (4) 4 year Master’s degree; (5) 5 year Master’s degree or higher. † p < .10 ; * p < .05 ; ** p < .01.  Note. N = 104. Cronbach’s alpha is shown diagonally. a. For Gender: (1) Female; (2) Male. b. Age in years. c. For Educational Level: (1) lower than high school diploma; (2) High school diploma (Baccalaureat); (3) Bachelor’s degree; (4) 4 year Master’s degree; (5) 5 year Master’s degree or higher. † p < .10 ; * p < .05 ; ** p < .01.  ! Hypothesis 2 posits that institutionalised socialization tactics positively influence task mastery, role clarity and job satisfaction. The result in Table 2 for the direct effects (Step 1) show that there is a significant positive link between socialization tactics and task mastery (β = 0.16, p < 0.05), role clarity (β = 0.29, p < 0.01) and job satisfaction (β = 0.26, p < 0.01). Hypothesis 2 is thus supported. Hypothesis 3 suggests that the effects of perceived supervisor support are moderated by socialization tactics. The results of the test of two-way interactions (Step 2, Table 2) show that the interaction (perceived supervisor support x tactics) has a significant impact on role clarity (β = 0.37, p < 0.01; ΔR2 = 0.046) and job satisfaction (β = 0.51, p < 0.01; ΔR2 = 0.067), but has no significant impact on task mastery (β = 0.09, ns.). In order to facilitate the interpretation of these interaction effects, we represented them graphically, following the recommendations of Aiken and West (1991). Figure 2 shows that the impact of M@n@gement, vol. 17(5): 317-345! Assaad El Akremi et al. 328 perceived supervisor support on role clarity is stronger in the case of strongly institutionalised socialization tactics (Mean + Standard deviation) than in the case of weakly institutionalised (individualised) socialization tactics (Mean – Standard deviation). We also carried out a significance test of this moderating effect. For strongly institutionalised socialization tactics, the link between perceived supervisor support and role clarity is positive and significant (β = 0.43, p < 0.01) whereas this link has no significance when the institutionalisation of tactics is weak (β = 0.05, ns.). The test of difference between these two cases is also significant (T of Student = 4.43, p < 0.01). Figure 3 shows that the impact of perceived supervisor support on job satisfaction is positive and significant when the institutionalisation of socialization tactics is strong (β = 0.43, p < 0.01) whereas this impact becomes non significant (β = − 0.16, ns.) when the institutionalisation of socialization tactics is weak. The test of difference between the two cases is also significant (T of Student = 6.10, p < 0.01). Hypothesis 3 is thus partially supported. Figure 2. The moderating effect of socialization tactics on the relationship between perceived supervisor support and role clarity Figure 3. The moderating effect of socialization tactics on the relationship between perceived supervisor support and job satisfaction Antecedents of Socialization of the new recruits! M@n@gement, vol. 17(5): 317-345 329 Ta bl e 2. R es ul ts o f h ie ra rc hi ca l m od er at ed re gr es si on s: in te ra ct io ns b et w ee n pe rc ei ve d su pe rv is or s up po rt, s oc ia lis at io n ta ct ic s an d pr oa ct iv e pe rs on al ity Ta bl e 2. R es ul ts o f h ie ra rc hi ca l m od er at ed re gr es si on s: in te ra ct io ns b et w ee n pe rc ei ve d su pe rv is or s up po rt, s oc ia lis at io n ta ct ic s an d pr oa ct iv e pe rs on al ity Ta bl e 2. R es ul ts o f h ie ra rc hi ca l m od er at ed re gr es si on s: in te ra ct io ns b et w ee n pe rc ei ve d su pe rv is or s up po rt, s oc ia lis at io n ta ct ic s an d pr oa ct iv e pe rs on al ity Ta bl e 2. R es ul ts o f h ie ra rc hi ca l m od er at ed re gr es si on s: in te ra ct io ns b et w ee n pe rc ei ve d su pe rv is or s up po rt, s oc ia lis at io n ta ct ic s an d pr oa ct iv e pe rs on al ity Ta bl e 2. R es ul ts o f h ie ra rc hi ca l m od er at ed re gr es si on s: in te ra ct io ns b et w ee n pe rc ei ve d su pe rv is or s up po rt, s oc ia lis at io n ta ct ic s an d pr oa ct iv e pe rs on al ity Ta bl e 2. R es ul ts o f h ie ra rc hi ca l m od er at ed re gr es si on s: in te ra ct io ns b et w ee n pe rc ei ve d su pe rv is or s up po rt, s oc ia lis at io n ta ct ic s an d pr oa ct iv e pe rs on al ity Ta bl e 2. R es ul ts o f h ie ra rc hi ca l m od er at ed re gr es si on s: in te ra ct io ns b et w ee n pe rc ei ve d su pe rv is or s up po rt, s oc ia lis at io n ta ct ic s an d pr oa ct iv e pe rs on al ity Ta bl e 2. R es ul ts o f h ie ra rc hi ca l m od er at ed re gr es si on s: in te ra ct io ns b et w ee n pe rc ei ve d su pe rv is or s up po rt, s oc ia lis at io n ta ct ic s an d pr oa ct iv e pe rs on al ity Ta bl e 2. R es ul ts o f h ie ra rc hi ca l m od er at ed re gr es si on s: in te ra ct io ns b et w ee n pe rc ei ve d su pe rv is or s up po rt, s oc ia lis at io n ta ct ic s an d pr oa ct iv e pe rs on al ity Ta bl e 2. R es ul ts o f h ie ra rc hi ca l m od er at ed re gr es si on s: in te ra ct io ns b et w ee n pe rc ei ve d su pe rv is or s up po rt, s oc ia lis at io n ta ct ic s an d pr oa ct iv e pe rs on al ity Va ria bl es Ta sk m as te ry Ta sk m as te ry Ta sk m as te ry R ol e cl ar ity R ol e cl ar ity R ol e cl ar ity Jo b sa tis fa ct io n Jo b sa tis fa ct io n Jo b sa tis fa ct io n Va ria bl es S te p 1 S te p 2 S te p 3 S te p 1 S te p 2 S te p 3 S te p 1 S te p 2 S te p 3 D ir ec t e ff ec ts P er ce iv ed s up er vi so r s up po rt (P S S ) 0. 05 0. 03 0. 02 0. 30 ** 0. 22 ** 0. 21 * 0. 25 ** 0. 13 0. 12 S oc ia lis at io n ta ct ic s 0. 16 * 0. 14 * 0. 23 ** 0. 29 ** 0. 28 ** 0. 30 ** 0. 26 ** 0. 25 * 0. 26 * P ro ac tiv e pe rs on al ity 0. 30 ** 0. 31 ** 0. 49 ** 0. 10 0. 19 02 4 0. 03 0. 13 0. 19 R 2 0. 15 6* * 0. 30 8* * 0. 16 3* * Δ R 2 − − − Tw o- w ay in te ra ct io ns P S S x S oc ia lis at io n ta ct ic s 0. 09 0. 03 0. 37 ** 0. 35 ** 0. 51 ** 0. 50 ** P S S x P ro ac tiv e pe rs on al ity 0. 02 0. 18 0. 07 0. 13 0. 08 0. 14 S oc ia lis at io n ta ct ic s x P ro ac tiv e pe rs on al ity 0. 03 0. 13 -0 .3 1 -0 .3 0 -0 .3 5 -0 .3 4 R 2 0. 16 3* * 0. 35 4* * 0. 23 0* * Δ R 2 0. 00 7 0. 04 6* 0. 06 7* Th re e- w ay in te ra ct io n P S S x S oc ia lis at io n ta ct ic s x P ro ac tiv e pe rs on al ity 0. 99 ** 0. 32 0. 28 R 2 0. 25 8* * 0. 35 8* * 0. 23 3* * Δ R 2 0. 09 5* * 0. 00 4 0. 00 3 N = 1 04 . T he c oe ffi ci en ts a re n on -s ta nd ar di se d. * p < .0 5  ; * * p < .0 1.   N = 1 04 . T he c oe ffi ci en ts a re n on -s ta nd ar di se d. * p < .0 5  ; * * p < .0 1.   N = 1 04 . T he c oe ffi ci en ts a re n on -s ta nd ar di se d. * p < .0 5  ; * * p < .0 1.   N = 1 04 . T he c oe ffi ci en ts a re n on -s ta nd ar di se d. * p < .0 5  ; * * p < .0 1.   N = 1 04 . T he c oe ffi ci en ts a re n on -s ta nd ar di se d. * p < .0 5  ; * * p < .0 1.   N = 1 04 . T he c oe ffi ci en ts a re n on -s ta nd ar di se d. * p < .0 5  ; * * p < .0 1.   N = 1 04 . T he c oe ffi ci en ts a re n on -s ta nd ar di se d. * p < .0 5  ; * * p < .0 1.   N = 1 04 . T he c oe ffi ci en ts a re n on -s ta nd ar di se d. * p < .0 5  ; * * p < .0 1.   N = 1 04 . T he c oe ffi ci en ts a re n on -s ta nd ar di se d. * p < .0 5  ; * * p < .0 1.   N = 1 04 . T he c oe ffi ci en ts a re n on -s ta nd ar di se d. * p < .0 5  ; * * p < .0 1.   M@n@gement 2014, vol. 17(5): 317-345 330 Hypothesis 4 posits that overall justice perceptions moderate the effects of perceived supervisor support on task mastery, role clarity and job satisfaction. The results of the analyses shown in Table 3 (Step 2) show that the moderating effect of overall justice perceptions is not significant for the link between perceived supervisor support and task mastery (β = − 0.01, ns.), or on the relation with role clarity (β = 0.10, ns.). However, the moderating effect of overall justice is significant on the relation between perceived supervisor support and job satisfaction (β = 0.25, p < 0.05; ΔR2 = 0.03). We represented this effect graphically (Aiken & West, 1991). Figure 4 shows that the impact of perceived supervisor support on job satisfaction is positive and significant when overall justice is strong (β = 0.31, p < 0.01), whereas this impact becomes non significant (β = − 0.06, ns.) when overall justice is weak. The test of difference between the two cases is also significant (T of Student = 2.98, p < 0.01). Hypothesis 4 is thus partially supported. Figure 4. Moderating effect of overall justice on the relationship between perceived supervisor support and job satisfaction ! Hypothesis 5 posits that the moderating effects of organizational socialization tactics between perceived supervisor support on one hand and task mastery, role clarity and job satisfaction on the other are stronger for new recruits with a high level of proactive personality. The results of the test of three-way interaction (Table 2, Step 3) show that this interaction is significant only for task mastery (β = 0.99, p < 0.01; ΔR2 = 0.095). These results are supported by non- standardised boundaries of the bootstrap confidence interval [CI = 0.42, 1.56] where there is no zero, which confirms the significance of the three-way interaction (Hayes, 2013). It is important to specify that in analysing three-way interaction effects, the significance of direct effects and lower-order interaction effects (i.e. two-way interactions) are not a necessary condition, thus only the significance of the term of three-way interaction should be considered (Aiken & West, 1991). To interpret this interaction effect, we followed Dawson and Richter’s (2006) approach and represented the triple interaction graphically. This procedure has recently been used in numerous studies (Andrevski, Brass, & Ferrier, 2013; Reinholt, Pedersen, & Foss, 2011; Godart, Maddux, Shipilov, & Galinsky, 2014; Perry et al., 2013; Zhang & Peterson, 2011). Figure 5 shows that for a high level of perceived supervisor support (PSS), task mastery is higher in the case of strong institutionalisation of socialization tactics and for new recruits with a high level of proactive personality. The additional part of variance explained by the three-way interaction (ΔR2) is equal to 0.095. This value is relatively high, but remains comparable to that of other studies dealing with three- way interactions (Reinholt et al, 2011; Den Hartog & Belschak, 2012). The level of task mastery appears to be weakest for combinations where proactive personality or institutionalisation of tactics is weak. Hypothesis 5 is thus partially supported. Antecedents of Socialization of the new recruits! M@n@gement, vol. 17(5): 317-345 331 Ta bl e 3. R es ul ts o f h ie ra rc hi ca l m od er at ed r eg re ss io ns : i nt er ac tio ns b et w ee n pe rc ei ve d su pe rv is or s up po rt (P S S ), o ve ra ll ju st ic e pe rc ep tio ns an d pr oa ct iv e pe rs on al ity Ta bl e 3. R es ul ts o f h ie ra rc hi ca l m od er at ed r eg re ss io ns : i nt er ac tio ns b et w ee n pe rc ei ve d su pe rv is or s up po rt (P S S ), o ve ra ll ju st ic e pe rc ep tio ns an d pr oa ct iv e pe rs on al ity Ta bl e 3. R es ul ts o f h ie ra rc hi ca l m od er at ed r eg re ss io ns : i nt er ac tio ns b et w ee n pe rc ei ve d su pe rv is or s up po rt (P S S ), o ve ra ll ju st ic e pe rc ep tio ns an d pr oa ct iv e pe rs on al ity Ta bl e 3. R es ul ts o f h ie ra rc hi ca l m od er at ed r eg re ss io ns : i nt er ac tio ns b et w ee n pe rc ei ve d su pe rv is or s up po rt (P S S ), o ve ra ll ju st ic e pe rc ep tio ns an d pr oa ct iv e pe rs on al ity Ta bl e 3. R es ul ts o f h ie ra rc hi ca l m od er at ed r eg re ss io ns : i nt er ac tio ns b et w ee n pe rc ei ve d su pe rv is or s up po rt (P S S ), o ve ra ll ju st ic e pe rc ep tio ns an d pr oa ct iv e pe rs on al ity Ta bl e 3. R es ul ts o f h ie ra rc hi ca l m od er at ed r eg re ss io ns : i nt er ac tio ns b et w ee n pe rc ei ve d su pe rv is or s up po rt (P S S ), o ve ra ll ju st ic e pe rc ep tio ns an d pr oa ct iv e pe rs on al ity Ta bl e 3. R es ul ts o f h ie ra rc hi ca l m od er at ed r eg re ss io ns : i nt er ac tio ns b et w ee n pe rc ei ve d su pe rv is or s up po rt (P S S ), o ve ra ll ju st ic e pe rc ep tio ns an d pr oa ct iv e pe rs on al ity Ta bl e 3. R es ul ts o f h ie ra rc hi ca l m od er at ed r eg re ss io ns : i nt er ac tio ns b et w ee n pe rc ei ve d su pe rv is or s up po rt (P S S ), o ve ra ll ju st ic e pe rc ep tio ns an d pr oa ct iv e pe rs on al ity Ta bl e 3. R es ul ts o f h ie ra rc hi ca l m od er at ed r eg re ss io ns : i nt er ac tio ns b et w ee n pe rc ei ve d su pe rv is or s up po rt (P S S ), o ve ra ll ju st ic e pe rc ep tio ns an d pr oa ct iv e pe rs on al ity Ta bl e 3. R es ul ts o f h ie ra rc hi ca l m od er at ed r eg re ss io ns : i nt er ac tio ns b et w ee n pe rc ei ve d su pe rv is or s up po rt (P S S ), o ve ra ll ju st ic e pe rc ep tio ns an d pr oa ct iv e pe rs on al ity Va ria bl es Ta sk m as te ry Ta sk m as te ry Ta sk m as te ry R ol e C la rit y R ol e C la rit y R ol e C la rit y Jo b sa tis fa ct io n Jo b sa tis fa ct io n Jo b sa tis fa ct io n Va ria bl es S te p 1 S te p 2 S te p 3 S te p 1 S te p 2 S te p 3 S te p 1 S te p 2 S te p 3 D ir ec t e ff ec ts P er ce iv ed s up er vi so r s up po rt (P S S ) 0. 09 0. 1 0. 08 0. 33 ** 0. 30 ** 0. 29 ** 0. 20 * 0. 12 0. 11 O ve ra ll ju st ic e 0. 05 0. 01 0. 08 0. 19 ** 0. 20 ** 0. 22 ** 0. 39 ** 0. 39 ** 0. 42 ** P ro ac tiv e pe rs on al ity 0. 30 ** 0. 27 * 0. 44 ** 0. 11 0. 18 0. 24 0. 04 0. 14 0. 2 R 2 0. 12 9* * 0. 29 7* * 0. 26 3* * Δ R 2 − − − Tw o- w ay in te ra ct io ns P S S x o ve ra ll ju st ic e -0 .0 1 -0 .0 3 0. 1 0. 09 0. 25 * 0. 24 * P S S x p ro ac tiv e pe rs on al ity -0 .0 2 0. 17 0. 07 0. 13 0. 03 0. 09 O ve ra ll ju st ic e x pr oa ct iv e pe rs on al ity 0. 04 0. 05 -0 .2 6 -0 .2 6 -0 .2 5 -0 .2 4 R 2 0. 13 0* * 0. 31 2* * 0. 29 3* * Δ R 2 1 15 0. 03 0* Th re e- w ay in te ra ct io n P S S x o ve ra ll ju st ic e x pr oa ct iv e pe rs on al ity 0. 65 ** 0. 21 0. 23 R 2 0. 18 3* * 0. 31 4* * 0. 29 5* * Δ R 2 0. 05 3* * 3 2 N = 1 04 . T he c oe ffi ci en ts a re n on -s ta nd ar di se d. * p < .0 5  ; * * p < .0 1.    N = 1 04 . T he c oe ffi ci en ts a re n on -s ta nd ar di se d. * p < .0 5  ; * * p < .0 1.    N = 1 04 . T he c oe ffi ci en ts a re n on -s ta nd ar di se d. * p < .0 5  ; * * p < .0 1.    N = 1 04 . T he c oe ffi ci en ts a re n on -s ta nd ar di se d. * p < .0 5  ; * * p < .0 1.    N = 1 04 . T he c oe ffi ci en ts a re n on -s ta nd ar di se d. * p < .0 5  ; * * p < .0 1.    N = 1 04 . T he c oe ffi ci en ts a re n on -s ta nd ar di se d. * p < .0 5  ; * * p < .0 1.    N = 1 04 . T he c oe ffi ci en ts a re n on -s ta nd ar di se d. * p < .0 5  ; * * p < .0 1.    N = 1 04 . T he c oe ffi ci en ts a re n on -s ta nd ar di se d. * p < .0 5  ; * * p < .0 1.    N = 1 04 . T he c oe ffi ci en ts a re n on -s ta nd ar di se d. * p < .0 5  ; * * p < .0 1.    N = 1 04 . T he c oe ffi ci en ts a re n on -s ta nd ar di se d. * p < .0 5  ; * * p < .0 1.    M@n@gement, vol. 17(5): 317-345! Assaad El Akremi et al. 332 2. For job satisfaction, the results of three-way interactions tests remain stable and non- significant with or without the inclusion of e d u c a t i o n a l l e v e l a s a c o n t r o l v a r i a b l e (educational level was the only control variable t h a t w a s s i g n i fi c a n t l y c o r r e l a t e d t o j o b satisfaction, see Table 1).  3. Readers should be cautious when interpreting this additional part of variance because of the relatively small sample size and risks of collinearity between the components of two-way and three-way interactions (Godart et al., 2014). We note though that the VIF tests indicate the absence of any multicollinearity problem in our analyses (VIF < 2). We thank the Editor for drawing our attention to this issue. Figure 4. Moderating effect of overall justice on the relationship between perceived supervisor support and job satisfaction ! Hypothesis 5 posits that the moderating effects of organizational socialization tactics between perceived supervisor support on one hand and task mastery, role clarity and job satisfaction on the other are stronger for new recruits with a high level of proactive personality. The results of the test of three-way interaction (Table 2, Step 3) show that this interaction is significant only for task mastery (β = 0.99, p < 0.01; ΔR2 = 0.095)2. These results are supported by non- standardised boundaries of the bootstrap confidence interval [CI = 0.42, 1.56] where there is no zero, which confirms the significance of the three-way interaction (Hayes, 2013). It is important to specify that in analysing three-way interaction effects, the significance of direct effects and lower-order interaction effects (i.e. two-way interactions) are not a necessary condition, thus only the significance of the term of three-way interaction should be considered (Aiken & West, 1991). To interpret this interaction effect, we followed Dawson and Richter’s (2006) approach and represented the triple interaction graphically. This procedure has recently been used in numerous studies (Andrevski, Brass, & Ferrier, 2013; Reinholt, Pedersen, & Foss, 2011; Godart, Maddux, Shipilov, & Galinsky, 2014; Perry et al., 2013; Zhang & Peterson, 2011). Figure 5 shows that for a high level of perceived supervisor support (PSS), task mastery is higher in the case of strong institutionalisation of socialization tactics and for new recruits with a high level of proactive personality. The additional part of variance explained by the three-way interaction (ΔR2) is equal to 0.095. This value is relatively high, but remains comparable to that of other studies dealing with three- way interactions (Reinholt et al, 2011; Den Hartog & Belschak, 2012)3. The level of task mastery appears to be weakest for combinations where proactive personality or institutionalisation of tactics is weak. Hypothesis 5 is thus partially supported. ! Hypothesis 6 posits the existence of three-way interaction between perceived supervisor support, overall justice perceptions and proactive personality on task mastery, role clarity and job satisfaction. The results presented in Table 3 (Step 3) show that this three-way interaction is only significant for task mastery (β = 0.65, p < 0.01; ΔR2 = 0.053). Non-standardised boundaries of the bootstrap confidence interval [CI = 0.13, 1.17] have no zero and thus confirm the significance of the three-way interaction (Hayes, 2013). Furthermore, the part of additional variance explained by the three-way interaction (ΔR2) is equal to 0.053. This value is comparable to that of other studies dealing with three-way interactions (Reinholt et al., 2011; Zhang & Peterson, 2011). Antecedents of Socialization of the new recruits! M@n@gement, vol. 17(5): 317-345 333 Figure 5. The three-way interaction effect between perceived supervisor support (PSS), socialization tactics and proactive personality ! Figure 6 presents this interaction graphically and shows that task mastery is higher when perceived supervisor support is strong, when overall justice perceptions are strong and when new recruits have a strong proactive personality. The other combinations are less significant or even irrelevant concerning the impact on task mastery. Hypothesis 6 is partially supported. Figure 6. The three-way interaction between perceived supervisor support (PSS), overall justice and proactive personality DISCUSSION ! This study set out to examine the effects of perceived supervisor support (PSS) on newcomers’ task mastery, role clarity and job satisfaction as well as the degree to which these effects are moderated by organizational and individual factors (respectively organizational socialization tactics, overall justice and M@n@gement, vol. 17(5): 317-345! Assaad El Akremi et al. 334 proactive personality). In the section that follows, we discuss our main results, expanding on its theoretical and managerial contributions. We conclude by presenting the study’s main limits and proposing avenues for future research. THEORETICAL CONTRIBUTIONS ! We think that this study contributes three important elements to research on socialization. Our first result suggests that perceived supervisor support has a positive influence on new recruits’ role clarity and job satisfaction. This result confirms the key role attributed to supervisors in the socialization process (Bauer et al., 2007; Slaughter & Zickar, 2006), and contribute to the recent wave of research aiming to identify how far supervisors contribute actively to new recruits’ adjustment. Our study is thus in line with those of Bauer and Green (1998), Jokisaari and Nurmi (2009) and Kammeyer-Mueller and colleagues (2013) in suggesting that by lending their support to newcomers very early on, supervisors can help them to understand their new roles, reduce the uncertainty of the organizational context and develop job satisfaction. In the socialization process, supervisors do not only have a passive role consisting of responding to newcomers’ request for information. It is probable that from the very first day that newcomers enter the organization, supervisors have an active role consisting of supporting informing, encouraging, reassuring and guiding the new recruits in ! their quest to understand their new working environment. However, even if their role is an important one, supervisors are not the only source of socialization. The most important contribution of this research is to offer, to our knowledge, one of the first empirical tests suggesting that successful socialization depends on synergies between relational, organizational and individual factors. In fact, our results show that the positive impact of perceived supervisor support on certain indicators of socialization is amplified, firstly by the implementation of institutionalised organizational tactics (for role clarity and job satisfaction), and secondly by the guarantee of a high level of overall justice (as far satisfaction is concerned). This means in particular that if new recruits are to fully integrate the prerogatives, objectives and priorities relative to their new role, there must be harmony and coherence between the formal socialization programme defined by the firm and the everyday support recruits receive from their supervisor. Furthermore, our results suggest that the most proactive new recruits benefit more from these synergies between supervisory support, socialization tactics and overall justice by mastering their tasks to a higher level. It is also interesting to note that it is only at the stage of three-way interactions that our model predicts task mastery. This could mean that the capacity of new recruits to do their new job well is the result of a conjunction between their own efforts, those of the manager, and those of the organization. ! By highlighting the importance of interactions between new recruits and their relational and organizational context, this set of results contributes to interactionist research on socialization (Griffin et al., 2000; Harris et al., 2013; Reichers, 1987). In this stream, socialization appears as a multi-determined and complex process (Perrot & Campy, 2009), whose success depends on a certain “alchemy” among the various levels of influence. Our research also contributes to the nascent debate on the nature of the interactions among the different antecedents of socialization in that it indicates, like Harris and colleagues (2013) that the paths leading to new employees’ integration complete and reinforce each other rather than replacing each other (Liden et al., 2004). ! Finally a third contribution of our research relates to the role of perceived organizational justice in the socialization process. Our results suggest that when new recruits think that their firm treats employees fairly, they react to the support offered by their supervisors with greater satisfaction, and also with increased mastery of their tasks for the most proactive among them. This result contributes Antecedents of Socialization of the new recruits! M@n@gement, vol. 17(5): 317-345 335 to the literature on socialization by showing, for the first time, that overall justice could constitute an organizational factor that contributes to the integration of newcomers by creating a climate of security and trust (Barclay & Kiefer, 2013; Harris et al., 2013) that makes them more receptive to the socializing effects of perceived supervisor support. We thus contribute to research on organizational justice by testing the precepts of uncertainty management theory (Lind & Van den Bos, 2002) in a new context, that of socialization. Our results thus corroborate the heuristic role of justice in situations of uncertainty. MANAGERIAL IMPLICATIONS ! With regard to the vital importance of the socialization process for firms’ performance and long-term future (Liden et al., 2004), practitioners are continually seeking new ways of improving new recruits’ integration. Our study provides a few possibilities. Firstly, our results indicate that managers should pay particular attention to the way they treat newcomers and to the support they provide; and this from the very first days of employment. One possible opening is to train supervisors in constructive interpersonal communication techniques (soft and rational communication tactics) based on persuasion, listening and empathy (Falbe & Yukle, 1992; Jokisaari & Nurmi, 2009), as well as giving them training in the principles of interactional justice (Skarlicki & Latham, 2005). Such training would enable them to be aware of the effects of their behaviours on new recruits’ integration and would improve their capacity to give newcomers the necessary support and information. Another possibility would be to include support for new recruits in managers’ performance evaluation criteria (using a 360° evaluation system, for example) in order to institutionalise the importance of this type of behaviour within the firm (Harris et al., 2013). If active contributions to socializing new employees have until now been considered as discretionary behaviours beyond the scope of the manager’s formal role, some recent research calls for these behaviours to be integrated into formal requirements (e.g., Kammeyer- Mueller et al., 2013). ! Our results also suggest that successful socialization depends on synergies among the efforts of supervisors, the organization and the new recruits themselves. In particular, firms could amplify the socializing effects of managers’ support by setting up institutional socialization tactics and a high level of overall justice. These synergies could also be accentuated by explicitly involving managers in organizational socialization policies (Sluss & Thompson, 2012). This would make the signals from these two sources of socialization more coherent and complementary. LIMITS AND AVENUES FOR FUTURE RESEARCH ! The results of this research should be interpreted in the light of a number of limits that open avenues for future research. Firstly, the generalisation of our results is limited by the relatively small size of our sample (N = 104) and the fact that our study is restricted to the French banking sector. It would be useful to replicate the study in other sectors and other cultural contexts. It would also be interesting to test whether the heuristic role of justice during the socialization period is not dependent on the level of uncertainty perceived by new recruits (Rodell & Colquitt, 2009). In fact, it seems reasonable to suppose that the stronger new recruits’ feelings of uncertainty, the more they would tend to mobilise their perceptions of overall justice as a decision making heuristic to guide their judgments attitudes and behaviours. ! A second limit concerns our methodology. Our data were collected from the same respondents thus generating a risk of common method variance (Podsakoff et al., 2012). However, this is a longitudinal study and the two measuring times M@n@gement, vol. 17(5): 317-345! Assaad El Akremi et al. 336 were separated by a period of 3 months in order to reduce this bias. Moreover the analyses reveal the effects of two-way and three-way interactions that would have been difficult to detect in the presence of common method variance (Evans, 1985). ! The reach of our results could also be limited by the timing of the empirical design. In fact, on the basis of recent theoretical and empirical arguments (e.g., Allen & Shanock, 2013; Kammeyer-Mueller et al., 2013), we chose to measure new recruits’ perceptions of supervisor support, overall justice and socialization tactics very soon after their entry into the firm. These initial perceptions could partly reflect anticipation resulting from pre-hiring interactions between the recruit and the firm (for example, during recruitment), and not only reflect the actual experience of the company during the early days of socialization. Ideally, future research should measure new recruits’ anticipations, their perceptions soon after joining and several times during the first year of work in order to understand the effects of initial perceptions as well as the evolution of those perceptions. A final limit concerns the indicators of socialization examined in this study. In order to maintain the statistical power of our analyses, we chose to only include task mastery, role clarity and job satisfaction as dependent variables in our model. Although these indicators do reflect the learning process and affective state of new recruits, they do not capture other important facets of socialization such as social integration and acculturation (Chao et al., 1994). The theoretical reasoning developed here leads us to expect that the traditional indicators of socialization will be positively impacted by the reinforcement effects between perceived supervisor support, institutionalisation of organizational tactics, overall justice and new recruits’ level of proactivity. On the contrary, it could be different when trying to forecast how far new recruits will engage in creative and innovative behaviours such as role innovation, behaviours that are generally favoured by individualised socialization tactics. Future research examining how the relational, organizational and individual pathways interact to determine these other indicators would greatly contribute to our understanding of the necessary conditions for successful socialization. ! As discussed above, these results point to a synergy between relational, organizational and individual paths to socialization. However, it is important to note that a detailed analysis of our three-way interaction results (see Figures 5 and 6) reveals complex patterns of interaction where the level of one or several variables is low: the hypothesis of substitution and compensation effects cannot be completely dismissed given the high number of possible combinations and the complexity of the three-way interactions. This complexity invites continued research into the nature of the interactions among the determinants of socialization. Two avenues in particular appear interesting: (1) to take account of other proximal (social integration, political knowledge about the organization, etc.) and distal (organizational commitment, intentions to stay, performance in the role and extra-role, etc.) indicators of socialization in order to examine whether the nature of these interactions (multiplicative vs. substitutive) depends on the specific characteristics of the socialization outcome studied; (2) to examine the role of each of these dimensions of organizational socialization tactics (Jones, 1986; Van Maanen & Schein, 1979) specifically and not via unidimensional conceptualisation. In fact, it is possible that some of these tactics amplify the socializing effects of perceived supervisor support (PSS) whereas others replace it. For example, the institutionalisation of tactics regarding the content of socialization (sequential and fixed) could give new recruits information that completes the information from the supervisor, whereas using social tactics (serial and investiture) that encourage informal interactions between new recruits and members of the organization, could constitute a substitute for contributions of PSS in terms of social integration and acculturation (Liden et al., 2004). Antecedents of Socialization of the new recruits! M@n@gement, vol. 17(5): 317-345 337 ! Finally, researchers could also focus on the roles of other socializing agents such as work colleagues and mentors (Bauer & Green, 1998; Kammeyer- Mueller et al., 2013). The mechanisms through which these actors influence new recruits’ adjustment and the nature of the interactions between these mechanisms and the antecedents examined in our study remain largely unexplored. In general, we hope that future research will continue to explore the interactions among the organizational, relational and individual levels of socialization. The complexity of the socialization process calls for analytical frameworks that integrate existing knowledge on the determinants of new recruits’ learning and integration (Ashforth et al., 2007). With this article, we hope to have contributed to this promising research stream. REFERENCES Aguinis H. & Gottfredson R.K. (2010). Best-practice recommendations for estimating interaction effects using moderated multiple regression. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 32(8), 776-786. Aiken L.S. & West S.G. (1991). Multiple regression: testing and interpreting interactions, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Allen, D.G., & Shanock, L.R. (2013). Perceived organizational support and embeddedness as key mechanisms connecting socialization tactics to commitment and turnover among new employees. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34(3), 350-369. Ambrose M L., & Schminke, M. (2009). The role of overall justice judgments in organizational justice research: A test of mediation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(2), 491-500. Anderson, N. (1981). Foundations of Information Integration Theory. New York, NY: Academic Press. Andrevski, G., Brass, D.J., & Ferrier, W.J. (2013). Alliance portfolio configurations and competitive action frequency. Journal of Management, forthcoming. Aryee, S., Walumbwa, F.O., Mondejar, R. and Chu, C.W. L. (2013), Accounting for the Influence of Overall Justice on Job Performance: Integrating Self-Determination a n d S o c i a l E x c h a n g e T h e o r i e s . J o u r n a l o f Management Studies, forthcoming. Ashford, S.J. (1986). Feedback seeking in individual adaptation: A resource perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 29(3), 465‐487. Ashford, S.J., & Black, J.S. (1996). Proactivity during organizational entry: The role of desire for control. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81(2), 199-214. Ashforth, B.E., & Saks, A.M. (1996). Socialization tactics: Longitudinal effects on newcomer adjustment. Academy of Management Journal, 39(1), 149–178. Ashforth, B.E., Sluss, D.M., & Saks, A.M. (2007). Socialization tactics, proactive behavior, and newcomer learning: Integrating socialization models. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 70(3), 447-462. Bandalos, D.L. (2002). The effects of item parceling on goodness-of-fit and parameter estimate bias in structural equation modeling. Structural Equation Modeling, 9(1), 78–102. Barclay, L., & Kiefer, T. (2014). Approach or avoid? Exploring overall justice and the differential effects of p o s i t i v e a n d n e g a t i v e e m o t i o n s . J o u r n a l o f Management, 40(7), 1857-1898. Bateman, T.S., & Crant, J.M. (1993). The proactive component of organizational behavior: A measure and correlates. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 14(2), 103-118. Bauer, T.N., & Erdogan, B. (2010). Organizational socialization: The effective on boarding of new employees. In S. Zedeck, H. Aguinis, W. Cascio, M. Gelfand, K. Leong, S. Parker, & J. Zhou (Eds.), Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Volume III (pp. 51-64). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Bauer, T.N., & Green, S.G. (1998). Testing the combined effects of newcomer information seeking and manager behavior on socialization. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(1), 72-83. Bauer, T.N., Bodner, T., Erdogan, B., Truxillo, D., & Tucker, J. (2007). Newcomer adjustment during organizational socialization: A meta-analytic review of antecedents, o u t c o m e s , a n d m e t h o d s . J o u r n a l o f A p p l i e d Psychology, 92(3), 707-721. Becker, T. E. (2005). Potential problems in the statistical control of variables in organizational research: A q u a l i t a t i v e a n a l y s i s w i t h r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s . Organizational Research Methods, 8(3), 274-289. Berger, C. R. (1979). Beyond initial interaction: Uncertainty, understanding, and the development of interpersonal relationships. In H. Giles & R. N. St. Clair (Eds.), Language and social psychology (pp. 122–144). Baltimore, MD: University Park Press. Bobocel, D. R. (2013). Coping with unfair events constructively or destructively: The roles of overall justice and self-other orientation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98(5), 720-731. Brislin, R.W. (1986). The wording and translation of research instruments. In W.J. Lonner & J.W. Berry (Eds.), Field methods in cross-cultural research (pp. 137–164). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Cable, D.M., & Parsons, C.K. (2001). Socialization tactics and person-organization fit. Personnel Psychology, 54(1), 1–23. Cammann, C., Fichman, M., Jenkins, G.D., Jenkins, G. D., Jr., & Klesh, J. R. (1983). Assessing the attitudes and perceptions of organizational members. In S.E. Seashore, E.E. Lawler III, P.H. Mirvis & C. Cammann (Eds.), Assessing organizational change: A guide to methods, measures, and practices (pp. 71–138). New York, NY: Wiley. M@n@gement, vol. 17(5): 317-345! Assaad El Akremi et al. 338 Carlson, K.D., & Wu, J. (2012). The illusion of statistical control: Control variable practice in management research. Organization Research Methods, 15(3), 413-435. Chan, D., & Schmitt, N. (2000). Interindividual differences in intraindividual changes in proactivity during organizational entry: A latent growth modeling approach to understanding newcomer adaptation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(2), 190- 210. Chao, G.T., O’Leary-Kelly, A.M., Wolf, S., Klein, H.J. & Gardner, P. (1994). Organizational socialization: Its content and consequences. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79(5), 730-743. Claes, R., Beheydt, C., & Lemmens, B. (2005). Unidimensionality of abbreviated proactive personality scales across cultures. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 54(4), 476-489. Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S.G., & Aiken, L.S. (2003). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Colquitt, J.A., Scott, B.A., Rodell, J.B., Long, D.M., Zapata, C.P., Conlon, D.E., & Wesson, M.J.. (2013). Justice at the Millennium, a decade later: A meta-analytic test of social exchange and affect-based perspectives. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98(2), 199-236. Cooper-Thomas, H.D., & Anderson, N. (2002). Newcomer adjustment: The relationship between organizational socialization tactics, information acquisition and attitudes. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 75(4), 423-437. Cropanzano R., Byrne Z.S., Bobocel D.R., & Rupp D.E. (2001). Moral virtues, fairness heuristics, social entities, and other denizens of organizational justice. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 58(2), 164-209. Dawson, J.F. (2014). Moderation in management research: What, why, when and how, Journal of Business and Psychology, 29(1), 1-19. Dawson, J. F., & Richter, A. W. (2006). Probing three-way interactions in moderated multiple regression: Development and application of a slope difference test, Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(4), 917-926. Den Hartog, D., & Belschak, F.D. (2012). When does transformational leadership enhance employee proactive behavior? The role of autonomy and role breadth self-efficacy. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(1), 194-202. Dulac, T., Coyle-Shapiro, J. Henderson, D.J. & Wayne, S.J. (2008). Not all responses to breach are the same: t h e i n t e r c o n n e c t i o n o f s o c i a l e x c h a n g e a n d psychological contract processes in organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 51(6), 1079-1098. Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchison, S., & Sowa, D. (1986). Perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(3), 500-507. Eisenberger, R., Stinglhamber, F., Vandenberghe, C., Sucharski, I. L., & Rhoades, L. (2002). Perceived supervisor support: Contributions to perceived organizational support and employee retention. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(3), 565-573. Evans M. (1985). A Monte Carlo study of the effects of correlated method variance in moderated multiple regression analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 36(3), 305-323. Falbe, C.M., & Yukl, G. (1992). Consequences for managers of using single influence tactics and combinations of tactics. Academy of Management Journal, 35(3), 638-652. Falcione, R.L., & Wilson, C.E. (1988). Socialization processes in organizations. In G. M. Goldhaber & G. A. B a r n e t t ( E d s . ) , H a n d b o o k o f o r g a n i z a t i o n a l communication (pp. 151-169). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Fuller, J.B., & Marler, L.E. (2009). Change driven by nature: A meta-analytic review of the proactive personality literature. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 75(3), 329-345. Godart, F., Maddux, W., Shipilov, A. & Galinsky, A. (2014) Fashion with a Foreign Flair: Professional Experiences Abroad Facilitate the Creative Innovations of Organizations. Forthcoming. Academy of Management Journal, forthcoming. Griffin, A.E., Colella, A., & Goparaju, S. (2000). Newcomer a n d o r g a n i z a t i o n a l s o c i a l i z a t i o n t a c t i c s : A n i n t e r a c t i o n i s t p e r s p e c t i v e . H u m a n R e s o u r c e Management Review, 10, 453-474. Harman, H.H. (1976). Modern factor analysis. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Harris, T.B., Li, N., Boswell, W.R., Zhang, X., & Xie, Z. (2013). Getting what’s new from newcomers: Empowering leadership, creativity, and adjustment in the socialization context. Personnel Psychology, in press Hayes, A.F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York, NY: The Guilford Press. Jaccard J. & Turrisi R. (2003). Interaction effects in multiple regression. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Jokisaari, M., & Nurmi, J. (2009). Change in newcomers’ supervisor support and socialization outcomes after organizational entry. Academy of Management Journal, 52(3), 527-544. Jones, D.A., & Martens, M. L. (2009). The mediating role of overall fairness and the moderating role of trust certainty in justice-criteria relationships: The formation and use of fairness heuristics in the workplace. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30(8), 1025–1051. Jones, G.R. (1986). Socialization tactics, self efficacy, and newcomers’ adjustments to organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 29(2), 262-279. Kammeyer-Mueller, J.D., & Wanberg, C.R. (2003). Unwrapping the organizational entry process: Disentangling multiple antecedents and their pathways to adjustment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 779-794. Kammeyer-Mueller, J.D., Wanberg, C.R., Rubenstein, A.L., & Song, Z. (2013). Support, undermining, and newcomer socialization: Fitting in during the first 90 days. Academy of Management Journal, 56(4), 1104-1124. Kim, T., Cable, D.M., & Kim, S. (2005). Socialization tactics, employee proactivity, and person organization fit. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(2), 232-241. Lacaze, D. (2007). La gestion de l’intégration en entreprise de service  : L’apport du concept de socialisation organisationnelle. Management & Avenir, 14(4), 9-24. Antecedents of Socialization of the new recruits! M@n@gement, vol. 17(5): 317-345 339 Li, N., Harris, T.B., Boswell, W.R., & Xie, Z. (2011). The role of organizational insiders’ developmental feedback and proactive personality on newcomers’ performance: An interactionist perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(6), 1317-1327. Liden, R.C., Bauer, T.N., & Erdogan, B. (2004). The role of leader-member exchange in the forming and dynamic relationship between employee and employer: Implications for employee socialization, leaders and organizations. In J. Coyle-Shapiro, L. Shore, S. Taylor, & L. Tetrick (Eds.), The Employment Relationship: Examining Psychological and Contextual Perspectives (pp. 226-250). Oxford, Oxford University Press. Liden, R.C., Wayne, S.J., & Stilwell, D. (1993). A Longitudinal Study on the Early Development of Leader Member Exchanges. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(4), 662- 674. Lind, E.A. (2001). Fairness heuristic theory: Justice judgments as pivotal cognitions in organizational relations. In J. Greenberg & R. Cropanzano (Eds.), Advances in organizational justice (pp. 56-88). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Lind, E.A., & Van den Bos, K. (2002). When fairness works: Toward a general theory of uncertainty management. In B. Staw & R. Kramer (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior: An annual series of analytical essays and critical reviews (pp. 181-223). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Little, T.D., Cunningham, W.A., Shahar, G., & Widaman, K.F. (2002). To parcel or not to parcel: Exploring the question, weighing the merits. Structural Equation Modeling, 9(2), 151–173. Little, T.D., Rhemtulla, M., Gibson, K., & Schoemann, A.M. (2013). Why the items versus parcels controversy needn’t be one. Psychological Methods, 18(3), 285-300. Major, D.A., Kozlowski, S.W.J., Chao, G.T., & Gardner, P.D. (1995). A longitudinal investigation of newcomer expectations, early socialization outcomes, and the moderating effects of role development factors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80(3), 418-431. Major, D.A., Turner, J.E., & Fletcher, T.D. (2006). Linking proactive personality and the Big Five to motivation to learn and development activity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(4), 927-935. Miceli, M.P., Near, J.P., Rehg, M.T. & Van Scotter, J.R. (2012). Predicting employee reactions to perceived organizational wrongdoing: Demoralization, justice, proactive personality, and whistle-blowing. Human Relations, 65(8), 923-954. Miller, V.D., & Jablin, F.M. (1991). Information seeking during organizational entry: Influences, tactics, and a model of the process. Academy of Management Review, 16(1), 92-120. Miyazaki, A., Grewal, D. & Goodstein, R.C. (2005). The effect of multiple extrinsic cues on quality perceptions: A matter of consistency. Journal of Consumer Research, 32(1), 146-153. Morrison, E.W. (1993). Newcomer information seeking: Exploring types, modes, sources, and outcomes. Academy of Management Journal, 36(3), 557-589. Morrison, E.W. (2002). Newcomers’ relationships: The role of social network ties during socialization. Academy of Management Journal, 45(6), 1149-1160. Muthén, L.K. & Muthén, B.O. (2010). Mplus - Statistical analysis with latent variables user’s guide. Muthén & Muthén. Parker, S.K., & Collins, C.G. (2010). Taking stock: Integrating and differentiating multiple proactive behaviors. Journal of Management, 36(3), 633-662. Parker, S.K., Bindl, U.K., & Strauss, K. (2010). Making things happen: A model of proactive motivation. Journal of Management, 36(4), 827-856. Perrot, S. & Campoy E. (2009). Développement d’une é c h e l l e d e m e s u r e d e l a s o c i a l i s a t i o n organisationnelle  : une approche croisée entre processus et contenu. Revue de Gestion des Ressources Humaines, 71, 23-42. Perrot, S. (2008). Evolution du niveau de socialisation organisationnelle selon l’ancienneté : Une analyse des premiers mois dans l’entreprise. M@n@gement, 11(3), 231-258. Perrot, S., Bauer, T.N., Abonneau, D., Campoy, E., Erdogan, B., & Liden, R. C. (2014). Organizational Socialization Tactics and Newcomer Adjustment: The Moderating Role of Perceived Organizational Support, Group & Organization Management, 39(3), 247-273. Perry, S.J., Lorinkova, N.M., Hunter, E.M., Hubbard, A., McMahon, J. T. (2013). When does virtuality really “work”? Examining the role of work-family and virtuality in social loafing, Journal of Management, forthcoming. Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., & Podsakoff, N.P. (2012). Sources of method bias in social science research and recommendations on how to control it. Annual Review of Psychology, 63(1), 539-569. Priesemuth, M., Arnaud, A., & Schminke, M. (2013). Bad behavior in groups: The impact of overall justice c l i m a t e a n d f u n c t i o n a l d e p e n d e n c e o n counterproductive work behavior in work units. Group & Organization Management, 38(2), 230-257. Reichers, A.E. (1987). An interactionist perspective on n e w c o m e r s o c i a l i z a t i o n r a t e s . A c a d e m y o f Management Review, 12(2), 278-287. Reinholt, M., Pedersen, T., & Foss, N. (2011). Why network centrality isn’t enough: The moderating roles of motivation and ability for knowledge sharing in employee networks. Academy of Management Journal, 54(6), 1277-1297. Rizzo, J.R., House, R.J., & Lirtzman, S.I. (1970). Role conflict and ambiguity in complex organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 15(2), 150-163. Rodell, J.B., & Colquitt, J.A. (2009). Looking ahead in times of uncertainty: The role of anticipatory injustice in an organizational change context. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(4), 989-1002. Saks, A. M., & Ashforth, B. (1997). Organizational socialization: Making sense of the past and present as a prologue for the future. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 51(2), 234-279. Saks, A.M., & Ashforth, B.E. (2000). The role of dispositions, entry stressors, and behavioral plasticity theory in predicting newcomers’ adjustment to work. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21(1), 43-62. Saks, A.M., Uggerslev, K.L., & Fassina, N.E. (2007). Socialization tactics and newcomer adjustment: A meta-analytic review and test of a model. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 70(3), 413-446. M@n@gement, vol. 17(5): 317-345! Assaad El Akremi et al. 340 Seibert, S.E., Kraimer, M.L. & Crant, J.M., (2001). What do proactive people do?A longitudinal model linking proactive personality and career success. Personnel Psychology, 54(4), 845-874. Skarlicki, D.P., & Latham, G.P. (2005). How can training be used to foster organizational justice? In J. Greenberg & J. Colquitt (Eds.), The handbook of organizational justice (pp. 499–522). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Slaughter, J.E., & Zickar, M.J. (2006). A new look at the role of insiders in newcomer socialization. Group and Organization Management, 31(2), 264-290. Sluss, D.M., & Thompson, B.S. (2012). Socializing the newcomer: the role of leader-member exchange. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 119(1), 114-125. Thompson, J.A. (2005). Proactive personality and job performance: A social capital perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(5), 1011-1017. Van Maanen, J., & Schein, E. H. (1979). Toward a theory of organizational socialization. In B. M. Staw (Ed.), Research in organizational behavior (pp. 209-264). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Vinokur, A.D., & van Ryn, M. (1993). Social support and undermining in close relationships: Their independent effects on the mental health of unemployed persons. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65(2), 350-359. Weiss, H.M. & Cropanzano, R. (1996). Affective Events Theory: A theoretical discussion of the structure, causes, and consequences of affective experiences at work. In B.M. Staw & L.L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior, 18, (pp.1-74). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Weiss, H. M. (1977). Subordinate imitation of supervisor behavior: The role of modeling in organizational socialization. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 19(1), 89-105. Zhang, Z. & Peterson, S.J. (2011). Advice networks in teams: the role of transformational leadership and members’ core self-evaluations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(5), 1004-1017. Antecedents of Socialization of the new recruits! M@n@gement, vol. 17(5): 317-345 341 APPENDIX A. MEASUREMENT SCALES USED IN THE STUDY Perceived Supervisor Support – PSS (Eisenberger et al., 1986, 2002) •My supervisor values my contributions to the organization’s well-being •My supervisor really cares about my well-being. •My supervisor would consider any complaint from me. •My supervisor is willing to extend itself in order to help me perform my job to the best of my ability. •My supervisor cares about my general satisfaction at work. •My supervisor takes pride in my accomplishments at work. •My supervisor fails to appreciate any extra effort from me. Organizational socialization tactics (Jones, 1986; Ashforth & Saks, 1996  ; Allen & Shanock, 2013) •The movement from role to role and function to function to build up experience and a track record is very apparent in this organization. •The following statement describes the attitude of my organization toward newcomers: "We like you as you are; don't change," •I haven’t had to change my attitudes and values to be accepted in this organization. •Almost all of my colleagues have been supportive of me personally. •My colleagues have gone out of their way to help me adjust to this organization. •This organization put newcomers through a set of training experiences which are specifically designed to give them a thorough knowledge of job related skills. •Experienced organizational members see advising or training newcomers as one of their main job responsibilities in this organization. •I am gaining a clear understanding of my role in this organization from observing my senior colleagues. •I have been generally left alone to discover what my role should be in this organi- zation. •I have a good knowledge of the time it will take me to go through the various stages of the training process in this organization. •I can predict my future career path in this organization by observing other people's experiences. •The way in which my progress through this organization will follow a fixed timetable of events has been clearly communicated to me. Overall justice (Ambrose & Schminke, 2009) •For the most part, this organization treats its employees fairly. •Overall, I’m treated fairly by my organization. •In general, the treatment I receive around here is fair. •Most of the people who work here would say they are often treated fairly. •In general, I can count on this organization to be fair. Proactive Personality (Bateman & Crant, 1993) •I am always looking for better ways to do things. •I love being a champion for my ideas even against others’ opposition. •No matter what the odds, if I believe in something I will make it happen. . •I excel at identifying opportunities. •If I see something I don’t like, I fix it. •If I believe in an idea, no obstacle will prevent me from making it happen. Task mastery (Morrison, 1993, 2002) •I have mastered the required tasks of my job. •I am confident about the adequacy of my job skills and abilities. M@n@gement, vol. 17(5): 317-345! Assaad El Akremi et al. 342 •I rarely make mistakes when conducting my job assignments. •It seems to take me longer than planned to complete my job assignments. •I feel competent conducting my job assignments. •I have not fully developped the appropriate skills and abilities to successfully perform my job. •I have learned how to successfully perform my job in an efficient manner. Role clarity (Rizzo, House & Lirtzman, 1970 ; Ashford, 1986) •I know exactly what is expected of me. •It is clear to me exactly what I should do in order to perform my job better. •I know what my responsabilities are. •I get enough information about performance standards within my department. •I feel certain about how much authority I have been given to do my job. •There are clear planned goals and objectives for my job. •Explanation is clear of what has to be done. •I know if my work will be acceptable to my boss. Job satisfaction (Cammann et al., 1983) •All in all, I am satisfied with my job. •In general, I like working here. •In general, I don’t like my job. Antecedents of Socialization of the new recruits! M@n@gement, vol. 17(5): 317-345 343 Assâad El Akremi is an associate professor of Human Resource Management and Organizational Behavior at the University of Toulouse (France), where he is a researcher at the Management Research Center (CNRS – UMR 5303). He also is an invited professor at Louvain School of Management (Belgium). In addition to organizational behavior, his current research interests include corporate social responsibility, franchise chains, and research methods. His research was published in Strategic Management Journal, Journal of Management, Human Relations, Journal of Business Ethics, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Group and Organization Management, Recherche et Applications en Marketing, la Revue de Gestion des Ressources Humaines et la Revue Relations Industrielles. Mohamed Ikram Nasr is an Assistant Professor of Organizational Behavior at EMLYON Business School. He holds a doctorate in Management from the University of Toulouse 1 Capitole, France. Ikram’s research interests include organizational justice dynamics and reasoning. In particular, He draws on heuristics and interactionist perspectives to study perceived fairness effects on newcomers’ adjustment during socialization. His research was presented in the Academy of Management Annual Meeting and the Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, and published in academic reviews such as la Revue de Gestion des Ressources Humaines and la Revue Française de Gestion. Nathalie Richebé is a Professor of Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management at SKEMA Business School. She is also an Associate Researcher at CERGAM (IAE d’Aix-en-Provence). She holds a Doctorate in Management from the University Paris 10 and an HDR (Habilitation à Diriger des Recherches) from the University of Grenoble. Her research centers on social exchange, social regulation, skills management and organization theory. In the last five years, she published articles in M@n@gement, Human Resource Management Review, International Journal of Human Resource Management, Human Resource Management Journal, Journal of Management Inquiry and Revue Française de Sociologie (with an article selected in the English Special Issue). M@n@gement, vol. 17(5): 317-345! Assaad El Akremi et al. 344 © The author(s) www.management-aims.com Antecedents of Socialization of the new recruits! M@n@gement, vol. 17(5): 317-345 345