Download Newcomer Socialization-Expectations of Generations X

Newcomer Socialization: Expectations of Generations X and Y for Individualization
Roselynn S. Dow, Ph.D
SUNY Empire State College
New York, USA
Email: [email protected]
Stream: Scholarly Practitioner
1
Abstract
This presents the results of interviews of new faculty hires from generations X and Y
about their socialization to the organization, speed of acquiring information needed to
perform successfully, and perceived opportunity for professional development. A case
study first year experiences of ten newly hired tenure track faculty in a public institution
finds that shared work values, frequent and personal feedback from mentors, and
opportunity for advancement is critical for job satisfaction and retention of members of
these generations. Human resource implications include understanding how life
experiences contribute to generational differences which should be identified and
incorporated into socialization planning. Limitations are small sample and application to
non-academic workplace.
Keywords: Generation X and Y, socialization, mentoring, feedback
2
Introduction
This paper describes a case study of the success of socialization of new hires to an
institution of higher education and level of success of adaptation to organizational
culture. The new hires were interviewed at the end of their first year of employment. The
new hires, all full- time tenure track faculty, had been members of a cohort subject to a
non-individualized socialization program involving an initial four day meeting and four
subsequent face-to-face and online sessions that continued the socialization process.
The new hires were all either members of Generation X (described as those born
1965-1980) or Y (described as those being born 1980-2000 ) who had been hired to
teach in either undergraduate or graduate programs at a public institution of higher
education. While all underwent identical (non-program and non-discipline focused)
socialization, they also received more specific socialization in their special areas at other
times. At the end of the first year, they were asked to share their observations of the
formal socialization process by engaging in interviews during which they would be able
to evaluate the utility of the process for their own professional development.
The research considers their responses from several perspectives: the attitudes of
different generations towards work values and organizational culture; their differing
perceptions of how socialization should occur; person-organization fit, and the
application of mentoring theory to socialization of professionals. The implications of this
research for HR suggest that socialization processes, including training and mentoring
opportunity, particularly for professionals, should adjust for generational differences,
should involve some individualized socialization and should offer opportunity for mentor
relationships.
3
Socialization is defined by Schein (1968) as the process which helps newcomers
share in the organization’s values, beliefs and practices by establishing goals, modeling
desired behavior and by clearly outlining responsibilities for newcomers. During the
period of socialization for newly hired college professors, the organization does not fully
benefit from the investment it makes in them until they have acquired enough experience
and the knowledge necessary to be efficient and successful professors and mentors to
their students. When new professors are fully socialized, they must be retained so that the
institution continues to reap the benefits of its investment in recruitment and selection
and in its socialization program. Professors who have successfully progressed through a
socialization program will eventually expect to be promoted, receive higher salaries, and
share in other positive feedback and rewards such as tenure. When they successfully
progress through a socialization program, they will also experience a sense of job
satisfaction which is a strong motivator to stay with the institution. Thus, when the
socialization program is successful, both the institution and its new faculty are likely to
benefit.
This process of socialization is multi-layered: learning organizational structure,
recognizing and adapting to culture, and sharing values, attitudes and behaviors. The
faculty must also be motivated to learn and should have access to mentors who provide
assistance in the learning process.
The socialization of new employees is a process that incorporates understanding
of organizational structure, culture, motivation and learning, values and expectations, and
opportunity for mentoring. Other areas that also impact socialization processes are
human resource management policies that deal with recruitment and selection and
4
training. The organization invests time, money, and effort into socializing new faculty
and they must wait several years before they earn a return on that investment because
new faculty are not ready to apply their expertise until they have completed training in
the specific practices of the college. In some cases, it becomes evident that either the
new professor or the college is not satisfied with the relationship, a decision must be
made to sever the relationship rather than prolong a bad fit. Regardless of which party
makes the decision first, the college’s investment has not provided the return that was
expected, especially if the faculty member leaves. The young faculty member who was
not satisfied in his job also experiences loss: disappointment, diminished self-esteem,
anger, and anxiety about finding new employment. Thus, organizations must carefully
plan their socialization practices to minimize attrition and to maximize the investment in
recruitment, selection, and training for both the organization and for the new professors.
Low attrition rates serve to enhance the reputation of the organization and attract wellqualified applicants in the future.
Background of the Study
The study involved faculty newly hired by a four-year college that expects not
only subject area expertise and robust research interests from its faculty, but also
introduces them to, and expects them to master, a progressive approach to education that
is highly invested in the practice of mentoring students. When interviewed for a position
at this college, the prospective faculty member learns that s/he is expected to teach in a
variety of delivery modes that may include one-on-one individualized studies, classroom
groups, and blended or online courses. For most, those expectations are normal and ones
5
with which they have had some experience, at least while in graduate school, and perhaps
in post-graduate employment.
The college recruitment literature, as well as interview conversations, mentions
the mentoring role all faculty engage in, so prospective hires are aware this practice is a
normal part of the faculty responsibility; however, many are hired who have had little or
no experience with mentoring. While they might be familiar with the role of a faculty
advisor, a person who ensures that a student is registering for an approved course leading
to completion of specific degree requirements, and may have themselves been mentored
by their graduate school faculty advisor or dissertation committee chair, they usually
have not been a mentor except in a limited, short term capacity.
After these people are hired, they participate in an initial group orientation of four
days that includes general information about college mission, core values, structure,
personnel, programs, and student advisement activities. Orientation is subsequently
supplemented with four workshops spaced between October and April that focus on
presenting the training specifically addressing teaching and mentoring. After participating
in these meetings, the new hires realize that success in teaching requires excellent time
management skills because of the variety of delivery modes and studies they must offer.
They also begin to ask questions about how to master mentoring. At least one of the
orientation workshops is devoted to helping them acquire a broad understanding of the
mentoring concept and some exposure to best practices designed to help them work with
students successfully.
In addition to providing information on the college’s administrative policies and
practices, the orientation provides opportunity to formally meet with established faculty
6
members from across the college who help the new faculty become acquainted with the
college culture. This entire socialization experience extends over a period of six months.
The new hires are also partnered with experienced faculty in their own departments who
become advisors, or buddies, and who have agreed to mentor the new hires.
Problem
In their first year of employment, the new faculty members face several
challenges: finding an efficient way to manage teaching and mentoring loads, finding
time to continue their research interests, and adapting to the culture of a college founded
on principles and values which are sustained by the senior faculty. The senior faculty,
mostly Baby Boomers (described as those born from 1945-1964,) are the keepers of the
original culture and are in charge of designing and implementing the socialization process
for new faculty. New faculty are face a great deal of adjustment and learning in the first
year; expectations are high that they adjust quickly and function efficiently in developing
their teaching skills, producing scholarship, acquiring mentoring skills and effectively
applying those skills to their interactions with students. Finally, they must adjust to an
organizational culture developed and protected by a faculty that is older, tenured, and
steeped in college culture.
This case study examines the evaluations of newly hired faculty from Generations
X and Y about the college socialization program and its goals of introducing them
successfully to its teaching models, research expectations, and organizational culture.
7
Literature Review
Generational Differences in Work Values
Generational differences in the workplace (namely Generation Y, Generation X
and the Baby Boomer Generation) are significant to the planning of recruitment and
socialization, levels of shared work values (standards by which workers decide what
attitudes and behaviors are acceptable and congruent with the organizational culture)
between newcomers and incumbents, good person-organization fit, and individualized
needs of newly hired for mentoring and professional development. The results of well
informed socialization programs and shared work values is increased job satisfaction,
engagement, and intention to stay. These are presented through the examination of a
socialization program for newly hired college professors
In today’s workplace it is not unusual for at least three different generations to be
working side by side. While Baby Boomers (birth dates from 1945-1964) increasingly
defer retirement because of financial reasons or because they simply enjoy being
productive, they are joined by younger workers (Generation X born 1965-1980 and
Generation Y born 1981-2000) who expect to move upward in their organizations and
take over the jobs Baby Boomers now hold. Other than the dates of birth, generations are
also identified by the events and influences that they experienced in their formative years
(Crumpacker and Crumpacker, 2007). Baby Boomers grew up after WWII, enjoyed
prosperity, higher levels of education than previous generations, experienced civil rights
marches, greater awareness of women’s rights, divorce, explosion of television
communication, Woodstock and Watergate, and the contentious Viet Nam War (Becton,
8
Walker and Jones-Farmer,2014). The work values they hold include desire for
consensus, hard work, loyalty to their organization, and an expectation that they would
stay with their organization for most of their work life. Generation X, a much smaller
generation, and the first latchkey kids since both their parents were working, experienced
economic downtown, upheaval in domestic and foreign politics such as the fall of the
Soviet Union, and booms in technology. Their educations include graduate degrees and
they are known to be self-reliant, individualistic, eager to move-up quickly, and lacking
in loyalty to the organization (Smola & Sutton, 2002). Generation Y, the Millenials, have
had cell phones, computers and the Internet all their lives; they experienced corporate
ethics scandals such as Enron,; regularly engage in multitasking, expect to be involved in
continuous education, come into the workplace in debt with student loans, have a strong
desire to move up the career ladder quickly, and are willing to work hard as long as they
can maintain a work-life balance which upholds their commitment to family and personal
happiness.
Shared work values among X and Y generations include wanting status and
money and desiring greater leisure time. They do not expect to make their friends at
work, unlike Baby Boomers, but communicate with friends and family via technology
and social media instead (Twenge et al, 2010).
Socialization
The key to successful socialization and resultant acceptable return on investment
is found in shared work values. In cases where congruence exists between a new
employee’s personal values and those of the organizational culture, the result is higher
9
commitment to desired performance and increased length of stay in the organization
(Chatman and Barsade, 1995).
Socialization studies in the 1990’s centered on four basic theories; Van Maanen
and Schein’ six dimensions, social cognitive theory and self-efficacy theory (proposing
that behavior, cognitive and personal factors, and environmental events interact and
influence each other), sense-making theory (that newcomers attempt to make sense of the
surprises they encounter during socialization) and uncertainty reduction theory
(uncertainty decreases and satisfaction increases as information and feedback are offered
from role models through observation of the newcomer.)
Van Maanen (1978) proposed six paired dimensions of socialization based on
three assumptions: people in transition experience tension, persons crossing boundaries
need clues on how to make sense of the situation, and the stability and productivity of the
organization depend on the way new people perform. The paired dimensions addressed
in this case study are collective socialization vs. individual, and formal vs. informal.
Formal, traditional socialization segregates the newcomers from the rest of the
organization during training and is more successful than the informal method in preparing
a person for a specific role because clues are given to help define the role. Informal
processes can be put in place after the formal socialization is complete and may allow the
person to choose the socialization agent based on need and the agent’s status. Since
younger workers prefer to have individualized training and want to advance quickly, the
traditional socialization process does not appeal to them.
Saks and Ashforth (1997) described socialization goals from the perspective of
management: the acquisition of information, reduction of anxiety, role clarity and fit,
10
stronger culture, higher morale, cohesion, and stability for the organization and lower
stress, lower absenteeism and turnover, higher job satisfaction, organizational
commitment, organizational citizenship behavior and performance for the individual.
Both Van Maanen and Schien’s and Saks and Ashforth’s theories are useful in analyzing
socialization processes, but are limited by the one-sidedness of their approaches which
fail to consider the newcomer’s expectations and goals.
Jones (1986) found, based on his study of MBA students that self-efficacy and
response to what he called “institutionalized” socialization tactics, that this would result
in a role orientation that was custodial, referring to a disposition to be committed to and
tprotect the organization. Jones believed that individualized tactics (individual, informal,
random, variable, disjunctive, and divestiture) were more likely to result in a role
orientation that was innovative.
Looking at self-efficacy, defined by Bandura (1977) as when a person
“successfully executes the behavior required to produce the outcome,” Jones found that
people with high self efficacy will be more likely to define situations themselves and take
an innovative role, as opposed to those with low self efficacy who will be more likely to
fall into custodial roles. A person with high self-efficacy experiences reduces anxiety and
agitation because he knows how to use control systems formulated through past
experiences (Bandura, 2003). Bandura also noted that organizations must also be
proactive in order to survive in a rapidly changing world of globalization. Thus, younger
workers, in response both to the turbulent events they have experienced and the modern
economy, learn they should be proactive to ensure success in the workplace. Louis (1980)
looked at socialization from the newcomer’s perspective, focusing on the expectations the
11
newcomer anticipates before entering the organization or “encounter” stage and shock or
surprise when anticipated expectations are unmet. Schein (1964) called these “upending
experiences”. During that stage of sense-making which is usually the first six to ten
months of employment, the newcomer learns his or her new role by acquiring a
knowledge base, becoming aware of organizational strategy and understanding its
mission. The newcomer is required to change to fit the new setting by appreciating a new
culture and learning the right behaviors to avoid being fired.
Socialization Behaviors and Traits
The newcomer, motivated by the need to reduce uncertainty, must engage in
proactive behavior : information seeking, including asking direct and indirect questions,
seeking feedback from others, testing limits, observing and in surveillance (Saks and
Ashforth, 1997; Simpson, 1967)). Ostroff and Kozlowski (1993), looked at how
newcomers with a proactive disposition used the process of information seeking with coworkers, supervisors and mentors to reduce uncertainty about their new jobs and elicited
feedback to help make sense about how they were perceived to be performing in their
roles. A newcomer tries to understand if and how the work (task) is meaningful and
valuable to the organization (Wrzesniewski, Dutton and Debebe, 2003). Kim, Cable and
Kim (2005) and Gruman, Saks, and Zweig (2006) also found that proactivity and positive
framing, or a positive outlook, towards one’s job and organization results in the highest
person-organization fit, organizational commitment, and intent to remain with the
organization.
Attraction theory states that human beings select their own organizations in
accordance with the attributes they perceive exist. The second part of the Attraction-
12
Selection-Attrition model, selection, refers to the selection process the organization has in
place to hire people who share the firm’s attributes (Schneider et al.1995). The individual
selects a work environment because it is compatible with his or her self-image and rejects
environments that are not compatible (Owens and Schoenfeldt, 1979). When a person
finds he or she does not fit into an environment, the process of attraction-selectionattrition will cause the individual to leave that environment (Wanous, 1980).
Interactionist Theories
Interactionist theory, the theory of person-organization fit, suggests that
socialization cannot be one dimensional and non-adaptable. Diener, Larsen and Emmons
(1964) found that interactionism is compatible with trait theory because of how
personality factors determine the choice people make about organizational affiliation.
Personality also is related to how people respond after joining the organization. While the
organization will initially attract the people whose attributes most closely align with those
of the organization’s founder, over time, this can lead to a homogeneous culture which
limits the behavior of the organization and does not provide flexibility in responding to a
changing external environment. Consequently, without the ability to make appropriate
responses, an organization may not be able to survive. Different types of people must
enter the organization for it to be responsive and avoid failure. The individual’s
personality interacts with the organizational climate and effects the newcomer’s
perception of job satisfaction and of his or her performance (Downey, Hellriegel and
Slocum, 1975). The degree of congruence a newcomer experiences with the
organizational climate will determine whether the individual believes a match, or good
13
fit, exists, or whether his or her personality characteristics would be a better match
elsewhere.
Pervin (1968) looked at the organization as a system which would experience less stress
and higher performance when the individual’s personality matches with the needs of the
environment. Greater stress would occur in cases of a lack of fit. Prior learning and past
outcomes become a permanent part of the individual’s response history and will affect
the way he or she makes sense of the new context. Feedback from supervisors and peers
is important for helping the newcomer to appropriately interpret new context; the absence
of feedback, which might occur if supervisors are unaware of confusion or anxiety among
newcomers, forces the newcomer to rely on historical behaviors. Giving feedback and
rewards will allow the organization to provide the newcomer with a clear message about
appropriate behavior and performance should begin to learn who are the important
players in the organization and develop relationships with them.
Mentors and Reverse Mentors
Relationship building is an ongoing process which must be a priority at all stages
of newcomer’s career. One of those critical relationships should be with a mentor who
can help reduce ambiguity and stress by giving the newcomer feedback about career
timelines and desired assignments. Establishing relationships with others, particularly
with a mentor, is one form of proactivity in which the newcomer should be engaged
(Griffin, Colella and Goparaju, 2000). Values congruence, having a mentor, and
socializing with mentors are supportive of job satisfaction and intention to stay
(Chatman, 1991; Enz,1998).
14
The mentor, however, provides very specific and critical roles in the life of a
newcomer. Kram (1983) noted that the mentoring relationship changes over time and is
modified by the stage ( initiation, cultivation, separation, and redefinition) of career of the
person mentored. Basing their work on Kram’s findngs, Ostroff and Kozlowski (1993)
described the mentor role as instrumental in guiding the newcomer through those
domains of task, role, and group, especially in an impersonal way in the early stages of
the relationship. They found that newcomers who were mentored were more quickly
sensitized to power and politics; the more intense the mentoring relationship, the greater
the degree of the newcomer’s learning and self-confidence.
The forced nature of having an assigned mentor may serve a proscribed initiation
goal; however, it may also decrease the mentor’s motivation to help beyond the
proscribed program. Informal mentorships, where mentors select protégées with whom
they identify and develop more authentic relationships, are more likely to provide
psychosocial guidance and result in higher levels of career success and satisfaction
(Chao, Walz, and Gardner, 1992). When the protege receives psychosocial support as
well as career-related support from the mentor, the likely result is a perception that his or
her interests are being protected. Batt and Katz (2004) found that mentoring should go
further than task related feedback to include evaluation of the protégé’s overall
groups and acquire a supportive mentor who will recognize the newcomer’s lack of
political understanding and opportunity for networking. Benishek et al. (2004), looking
at existing models of mentoring from a multicultural feminist perspective, argued that,
since individuals have a desire to be mentored by those who are similar to them, it is
more difficult for women, women of color, ethnically diverse people, and different social
15
classes to find mentors from similar backgrounds. If they do find a suitably similar
mentor, it is likely that the mentor may be less effective in mentoring because he or she
has less status and power in the organization than White male counterparts. Traditional
mentoring is paternalistic and not responsive to the needs of marginalized sectors,
particularly to those who choose a non-linear career path. An approach to mentoring that
recognizes values and explores differences supports successful professional development
of marginalized persons.
A recent development in the workplace is reverse mentoring, where a junior
employee mentors the senior worker in areas where a younger worker is the expert such
as technological skills, which has been practiced mostly by global high-tech companies
(Chen, 2013). Chen concluded that Generation X and Yer’s were valued for ability to
find information, access media, are innovative, and could collaborate with peers in a team
setting. Reverse mentoring, while an efficient way to communicate certain skills, also
highlights younger workers’ reluctance to trust or respect older workers who are not as
skilled.
Research Questions
This paper presents findings of a case study designed to assess how effectively
new faculty from Generations X and Y become socialized to responsibilities for teaching,
research, and mentoring after approximately six months of intermittent orientation and
mentoring from experienced faculty. The questions which guided the study were:
Would participation in all orientation meetings help new faculty members learn their job
faster; if new faculty member did not find the information included in the orientation
clear and useful, what would the faculty member prefer to have in an orientation
16
program; do the work values of faculty members from Generations X and Y differ from
the work values that constitute the organizational culture developed by the incumbent
faculty membership?
It was an expectation, or hypothesis, that (1) if faculty member participated in all or most
of the orientation workshops, s/he would adapt more quickly and have a greater sense of
comfort than a faculty member who did not participate in many of the workshops; (2) that
perceived clarity in the orientation materials and presentations (i.e. familiarity with
college policies and practices) would result in a heightened sense of belonging to the new
organization and; (3) new faculty would be able to determine how the orientation
program helped them identify the shared work values and culture of their new
organization and (4) the work values of the new faculty and incumbent faculty would be
similar despite age differences.
Significance to Human Resource Development
Understanding the values and attitudes of employees is a powerful tool for
developing strategies and training in socialization that improve organizational
commitment. Organizations also seek to increase job satisfaction, intention to stay, and
retention of loyal employees; therefore, it is important to know what your new employees
value at work, how they learn about the values and attitudes that constitute your
organizational culture, and how generational differences in work values manifest
themselves in the workplace.
Research Design
Newly hired faculty members at a public four-year college began their first
academic year by attending a four-day orientation program which served as the beginning
17
of their socialization program. Of the group of twenty-two new hires, ten were members
of either Generation X or Generation Y and they became the sample for this case study.
After four additional orientation workshops had been presented over a period of six
months and the formal orientation program had ended, these ten faculty members were
asked to consent to being interviewed about their perceptions of the efficacy of their
orientation, their observations of how well they were adapting to their teaching and
mentoring responsibilities as a result of orientation, the level of success they had
experienced with assimilating into the college culture and values, including mentoring
practice.
Each semi-structured interview was preceded by a written request for each
participant to provide, via email, the dates of the socialization workshops they attended, a
list of the people (other than the group presenting the orientation workshops) from whom
they had received any other orientations, advice, or assistance in learning the ropes such
as a dean, associate dean, department chair, or faculty peers, and the number of times
they had solicited assistance from each source during the first year of employment.
Three interviews were conducted in a neutral setting such as a coffee shop or
library because those faculty members did not feel comfortable meeting in a college
office. They said they felt as though their supervisor (either a department chair or
program chair) might not approve of their discussing their experiences with the
researcher. Even though a formal request to conduct interviews had been submitted and
permission had been granted by the college IRB committee for this project, some
participants preferred to meet off campus. Seven other interviews were conducted in the
college offices of each remaining faculty member. Regardless of setting, each interview
18
lasted at least one hour to one and a half hours. Two days prior to the actual interview,
each participant was asked via email to spend time in personal reflection about his/her
first year experiences in the college in preparation for the interview. This time was
necessary because of the complexity of their work and the number of topics to cover.
Responses were ultimately examined for reference to: satisfaction or dissatisfaction with
orientation content, pace of orientation, with buddy mentor(s), with fit with the college
and with shared values, and with opportunity to advance career through mentoring.
Interview Questions:
1.When you were hired, were you informed of planned orientation or training
opportunities?
2.Who or what was the source of notification of the planned orientation?
3. Were you told that attendance was mandatory?
4.You said that you attended orientation workshops on _____(topic/date).How complete
was that information, looking back, and how did it contribute to your successful
performance or management of_____.
5.What information or training was missing, in your opinion, that would have made your
first year easier?
6.Other than those formal orientation workshops, what further training have you been
given that has helped you acclimate to the new environment? Discuss who provided the
training and how you were introduced to this person.
7.Have you actively sought out others to help you learn the ropes here? Who, How
often?
19
8.Were you formally assigned a buddy mentor? By whom? How often have you
communicated with this person and what topic(s) were the focus of the conversation(s)?
What has been the value of this relationship?
9. Have you acquired a mentor on your own? How did you meet? What has been the
value of this relationship?
10.What are the values you have perceived that employees most admired and encourage
at this college? Which ones do you share?
11.Do you think this place is a good fit for you? Explain why or why not?
12.What skills, practices, attitudes or values do you possess that you think would be
valuable to share with your colleagues?
13.What other resources or orientation activities would you have liked to receive that
would have helped you move forward in your career?
14.Open-for interviewee to discuss anything not covered.
Results
Interview responses revealed several common categories: satisfaction or lack of
satisfaction with orientation content and format and timing of the orientation workshops
in relation to the academic year; satisfaction or lack of satisfaction with buddy mentor
system; new faculty perception of their degree of fit with the college work values; and
opportunity to advance one’s career.
In the category of satisfaction/lack of satisfaction with orientation content and
format respondents agreed (7 out of 10) that the orientation had been timed too late;
many of the new faculty had received notice of appointment by July and began taking on
some responsibilities as early as August, one month before the scheduled initial
20
orientation. Since they were attending an orientation that coincided with the start of
September classes, they felt this attendance was time taken away from their crucial first
days of contact with students and semester planning. Some criticisms were that “ …we
could have read much of this information in powerpoint online -on our own…,” “why
waste our time,” and “…too busy with start up of class….” Other suggestions were that
the information provided was not what they were looking for at that time; for example:
“…did not provide program specific information…” or that the orientation “…should
have a focus and let us have a concrete takeaway…” All respondents noted that the
amount of information presented was difficult to process, saying “…it was draining,
information overload…” or “…doesn’t make my job easier…” or the suggestion “…they
should give out the information when you need it, not all at once.” Other criticisms for
content indicated new faculty wanted more opportunity to meet older, noteworthy
scholars or leaders among the faculty so they could begin developing a network and learn
what it takes to be successful in the organization. All new faculty agreed that the
orientation failed to place any priority on student success, giving value to students, or
about how to create challenging and exciting activities for students.
Responding to questions about their formally assigned mentors and informally
acquired mentors, new faculty acknowledged that they needed definitive answers to their
questions instead of the long, thoughtful responses they often received which offered
many different potential ways to approach a problem. One mentor had advised “…take
your time learning how to adapt here; listen and learn.” Two new faculty said they
weren’t sure they could trust the mentors they had been assigned; other trust issues were
mentioned by four other new faculty such as not respecting the mentor because of
21
perceived differences in values and biases; one said that her mentor was petty and
unhelpful. All new faculty said that they wanted a mentor who “…should coach you so
you can get ahead…” or “…could help build your social links…” Five of the new
mentors indicated that they bypassed working with their assigned mentors and “…found
other people who could help me.”
When analyzing perceived person-organization fit, positive threads were evident:
acknowledgement that the college was interesting or “ …a unique place..” and that
“…I’m respected for my work.” One new faculty stated, “ I have freedom to use my
talents to create new courses and student experiences.” Another said she was encouraged
by peers to develop community contacts and to attend and present at conferences.
Although new mentors criticized the orientation because it did not provide enough focus
on student service and student achievement, the new mentors universally expressed
strong desire to use technology, current pedagogy, and frequent contact with students to
provide value to students. However, they cited reasons that they believed hindered those
efforts on the students’ behalf and also hindered their desire to continue with professional
growth. Responses were “…I came from a research school, but there is no time for that
here.,.” or “I have to spend lots of time in meetings.” and “..I am bogged down with nonteaching activities.” Five faculty noted that they didn’t understand why there wasn’t a
robust professional development program in place that would help them strike a good
balance between teaching, mentoring, and scholarship. They concluded that older faculty
spent too much time “…talking about teaching and mentoring…” and that they are
“…not up on latest technology.” One faculty described a two -hour committee meeting
that was solely concerned with answering one senior faculty member’s question about
22
“… should she allow her student to incorporate a powerpoint in her final thesis
presentation.”
Responses to questioning about how they planned to advance in their careers at
the college, faculty all responded that lack of time was a hindrance. Although
encouraged to present their research at conferences and to pursue innovative teaching,
faculty said they were not sure how to balance all their duties. One comment, echoed in
the section on their mentors, was that “…it is important to develop a network with older
faculty who have been successful at publishing.” This was also noted in their observation
of what was lacking in the content of orientation workshops.
Discussion
Responses from all the participants revealed that they observed differences
between their own work values and those of older faculty in respect to loyalty to the
organization and intention to stay; they had experienced frustration with a socialization
program that did not meet their individual needs; they believed that they shared with
older faculty common attitudes towards the value of their work; and they desired a better
work-life balance.
Holding true to the identified generational differences cited in this paper,
Generation X and Y new faculty expressed need to have socialization customized to their
own needs for information and timing. They did not want to spend time in a large group
for a formal socialization, although they did agree that it was useful to meet the rest of
their cohort and older members of the college. However, they wanted only to meet
influential or important older members so they could develop their networks and learn
useful tips for advancing in the organization.
23
The two generations complained about having to complete orientation at a slow
pace and at the beginning of the academic year when they were very busy. They would
prefer to have these orientation services available to them when they thought they needed
the information, and preferably via electronic media. Their responses exemplify the
acknowledged generational facility with technology, ability to multi-task, and need to
move quickly through their fundamental professional development.
They also clearly agreed that the organization should value them and their
contributions. They would create new courses or programs and use technology to
enhance their work with students, but those accomplishments should be noted and
rewarded in the earlier stages of their careers instead of further along and closer to
promotions or tenure. They have little patience for the attitude of the older generation
Baby Boomers to learn slowly, bide your time, and develop friendships at work. They
are social media savvy, and quick to assess the levels of technological skills of coworkers. They are clearly proactive and unafraid; they will welcome new information, are
actively involved in professional development, research, and conferences; they expect to
innovate and to be rewarded for hard work. All respondents agreed that although they
sometimes had to put in long hours, they still wanted to have time for family and friends.
Many appreciated their mentors, but only if they had selected the mentor
themselves so that the chosen mentor could protect them and help them get ahead in the
college or get them noticed. Although they had collegial connections with formally
assigned mentors, they did not see them as being ultimately useful for their advancement.
In many cases, especially for new faculty in specialized graduate programs, they believed
they had the skills and expertise to take their program into new directions and bring the
24
older faculty “up to speed” on modern teaching styles and modes of delivery. They knew
they could become mentors to their faculty early on in their careers, indicating strong
self-esteem and confidence.
Implications for Human Resource Development
Older workers are quick to dismiss the members of Generation X and Y as being entitled,
lazy, and uncommitted. A better approach is to see them as they see themselves: ready to
work hard, wanting meaningful work, wanting to improve quickly, wanting challenge,
needing to balance stress with a healthy life, needing to pay off debt. Recruitment should
include tools and interviews designed to assess values of the prospective hire as well as
clearly present the work values particular to the organization; talk to the candidates about
these specifics before selection (Cennamao and Gardner,2008) and honestly describe the
job and the organizational culture.
Keep group socialization and training to a minimum; develop individualized socialization
plans that incorporate technology such as webinars, online tutorials, powerpoints, and
consult the younger worker to revise these continually; encourage blogs and internal
websites for sharing experiences and learning; ask the new people what they think they
need to become more affiliated and engaged with the organization to counter their
generational impatience and mobility (Westerman and Yamamura,2007); find ways to
have older, influential workers meet informally with younger workers such as lunches,
after hours get-togethers, or outdoor volunteer activities that appeal to the younger
generations. Train older mentors how to effectively interact with Generation X and Y
with networking or advancement opportunities.
25
To further assist in developing engaged, supervisors and mentors should give frequent,
personalized, and specific feedback; encourage two way communication about how to
flourish in the job; put new hires in charge of projects so they are challenged by what
they consider meaningful work; provide more autonomy and fewer orders (Lieber, 2010);
find ways for them to have some fun at work and allow them opportunity to suggest what
those are; continue to connect young and old with opportunity for reverse mentoring.
Finally, to respond to their need for better work-life balance, acknowledge there is stress
and anxiety for young workers feel stress and anxiety aboutlarge student loan debt and
perhaps family responsibilities by providing mental health care, day care, and flex time
schedules (Twenge,2008).
26
References
Bandura, A. (1977). Social Learning Theory. Upper Saddle River, N.J: Prentice Hall.
Bandura, A. & Locke, E. A. (2003). Negative Self-Efficacy and Goal Effects Revisited. Journal
of Applied Psychology. 88(1),87-99.
Batt, C. & Katz, H.N. (2004). Confronting students: Evaluation in the process of mentoring
student professional development. Clinical Law Review. 10,581-610.
Bauer, T. N., Bodner, T., Erdogan, B., Truxillo, D, M. & Tucker, J. (2007). Newcomer
Adjustment During Organizational Socialization: A Meta-Analytic Review of
Antecedents, Outcomes, and Methods. Journal of Applied Psychology. 92(3),707-721.
Becker, H. S. & Strauss, A. L. (1956). Careers, Personality and Adult Socialization. The
American Journal of Sociology. LXII(3),253-263.
Becton, J.B.,Walker, H.J.,& Jones-Farmer, A. 2014. Generational differences in workplace
behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology. 44.175-189.
Benishek, L., Bieschke, K., Park, J., & Slatery, S. (2004). A Multicultural Feminist Model of
Mentoring. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development. 32,428-442.
Chao, G. T., Walz, P. M., & Gardner, P. D. (1992). Formal and Informal Mentorships: A
Comparison on Mentoring Functions and Contrast with Nonmentored Counterparts.
Personnel Psychology. 45(3),619-636.
Chatman, J. A. (1991). Matching People and Organizations:Selection and Socialization in Public
Accounting Firms. Administrative Science Quarterly. 36,459-484.
Chatman, J. A. & Barsade, S. G. (1995). Personality, Organizational Culture, and Cooperation:
Evidence from a Business Simulation. Administrative Science Quarterly. 40,423-443.
Chen, Y. 2013. Effect of reverse mentoring on traditional mentoring functions. Leadership and
Management in Engineering. 13(3),199-208.
Cennamo, L. & Gardner, D. 2008. Generational differences in work values, outcomes and
person-organization fit. Journal of Managerial Psychology. 23(8),891-906.
Crumpacker, M. & Crumpacker J. M. 2007. Succession planning and generational stereotypes:
Should HR consider age-based values and attitudes a relevant factor or a passing fad?
Public Personnel Management. 36(4),349-369.
Dierner, E., Larsen, R. J. & Emmons, R. A. (1984). Person X Situation Interactions: Choice of
situations and Congruence Response Models. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology. 47(3),580-592.
27
Downey, H. K., Hellriegel, D. & Slocum, Jr. J. W. (1975). Congruence Between Individual
Needs, Organizational Climate, Job Satisfaction and Performance.. Academy of
Management Journal. 18(1),149-155.
Dose, J. 1997. Work values: An integrative framework and illustrative application to
organizational socialization. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology.
70. 219-240.
Enz, C. E. (1988). The Role of Value Congruity in Intraorganizational Power. Administrative
Science Quarterly. 33(2),284-304.
Griffin, A. E. S., Colella, A. & Goparaju, S. (2000). Newcomer and Organizational Socialization
Tactics: An Interactionist Perspective. Human Resource Management Review. 10(4),453474.
Gruman, J. A., Saks, A. M. & Zweig, D. I. (2006). Organizational socialization tactics and
newcomer proactive behaviors: an integrative study. Journal of vocational Behavior.
69(1),90-104.
Jones, G. R. (1983). Psychological Orientation and the Process of Organizational Socialization:
An Interactionist Perspective. Academy of Management Review. 8(3),464-474.
Jones, G. R. (1988). Socialization Tactics, Self-Efficacy, and Newcomers’ Adjustments to
Organizations. Academy of Management Journal. 29 (2),262-279.
Kram, K. E. (1983). Phases of the Mentor Relationship. Academy of Management Journal. 26(4),
608-625.
Kim, T., Cable, D. M. & Kim, S. (2005). Socialization Tactics, Employee Proactivity, and
Person-Organization Fit. Journal
of Applied Psychology. 90 (2), 232-241.
Lieber, L.D. 2010. How HR can assist in managing the four generations in today’s workplace.
Wiley InterScience. www.interscience.wiley.com, 85-91.
Ostroff, C. & Kozlowski, S. W. J. (1993). The Role of Mentoring in the Information Gathering
Processes of Newcomers during Early Organizational Socialization. Journal of
Vocational Behavior. 42(2), 170-183
Owens, W. A. & Schoenfeldt, L. F. (1979). Toward a Classification of Persons. Journal of
Applied Psychology Monograph. 65(5),569-607.
Pervin, L. A. (1968). Performance and Satisfaction as a Function of Individual-Environment Fit.
Psychological Bulleting. 69(1),56-68.
28
Saks, A. M. & Ashforth, B. E. (1997). Organizational Socialization: Making Sense of the Past
and Present as a Prologue for the Future. Journal of Vocational Behavior. 51(2), 234-279.
Schein, E. H. (1964). How to Break in the College Graduate. Harvard Business Review. 42
(6),68-76.
Schein, E. H. (1968). Organizational Socialization and the Profession of Management. Industrial
Management Review. 9 (2),1-16.
Schneider, B., Goldstein, H. W. & Smith, D. B. (1995). The ASA Framework: An Update.
Personnel Psychology. 48(4), 747-773.
Schullery, N. M. 2013. Workplace engagement and generational differences in values. Business
Communication Quarterly. 76(2),252-265.
Smola, K.W. & Sutton, C. D. 2002. Generational differences: revisiting generational work
values for the new millennium. Journal of Organizational Behavior. 23. 363-382.
Twenge, J. M. & Campbell, S. M. 2008. Generational differences in psychological traits and
their impact on the workplace. Journal of Managerial Psychology. 23(8), 862877.
Twenge, J.M., Campbell, S. M., Hoffman B. J., & Lance, C.E. 2010. Generational differences
in work values: Leisure and extrinsic values increasing, social and intrinsic values
decreasing. Journal of Management. 36(5)1117-1142.
Van Maanen, J. (1978). People Processing: Strategies of Organizational Socialization.
Organizational Dynamics. 7(1)19-36.
Van Maanen, J. & Schein, E. H. (1979). Toward a Theory of Organizational Socialization.
Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Wanous, J. P. (1991). Organizational Entry-Recruitment, Selection, Orientation and
Socialization of Newcomers, 2nd ed. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing
Company.
Westerman, J. W. & Cyr, L.A. 2004. An integrative analysis of person-organization fit theories.
International Journal of Selection and Assessment. 12(3), 252-261.
Westerman, J. W & Yamamura, J. H. 2007. Generational preferences for work environment fir:
effects on employee outcomes. Career Development International.12(2), 150161.
29
30