Getting newcomers engaged: the role of socialization tactics
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this study is to examine the relationship between socialization tactics and newcomer engagement and the mediating role of person‐job (PJ) and person‐organization (PO) fit perceptions, emotions, and self‐efficacy. Design/methodology/approach A survey was completed by 140 co‐op university students at the end of their work term. Findings Institutionalized socialization tactics were positively related to PJ and PO fit perceptions, emotions and self‐efficacy, but not newcomer engagement. Socialization tactics were indirectly related to newcomer engagement through PJ fit perceptions, emotions, and self‐efficacy. Research limitations/implications Socialization tactics might be too broad and general to predict newcomer engagement. Future research should measure more specific socialization practices and job resources. Practical implications Organizations that want to engage new hires should use social socialization tactics to create positive emotions, develop higher PJ fit perceptions, and strengthen newcomers' self‐efficacy beliefs. Social implications Organizations can contribute to the well being of individuals and society by designing socialization programs that will engage new hires. Originality/value This is the first study to examine relationships between socialization tactics and newcomer engagement and to study engagement as a socialization outcome.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it