Making organizations more effective through organizational socialization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to consider the potential effects of organizational socialization on organizational-level outcomes and to demonstrate that organizational socialization is an important human resource (HR) practice that should be included in research on strategic human resource management (SHRM) and should be part of a high-performance work system (HPWS). Design/methodology/approach – This paper reviews the research on SHRM and applies SHRM theory and the ability-motivation-opportunity model to explain how organizational socialization can influence organizational outcomes. The implications of psychological resource theories for newcomer adjustment and socialization are described and socialization resources theory is used to explain how organizational socialization can influence different indicators of newcomer adjustment. Findings – An integration of SHRM theory and organizational socialization research indicates that organizational socialization can influence organizational outcomes (operational and financial) through newcomer adjustment (human capital, motivation, social capital, and psychological capital variables) and traditional socialization/HR outcomes such as job satisfaction, organizational commitment, job performance and reduced turnover. Practical implications – In this paper the authors describe the socialization resources that organizations can use to facilitate newcomer adjustment to achieve newcomer and organizational outcomes. Originality/value – This is one of the first papers to integrate the organizational socialization literature with SHRM theory and to explain how organizational socialization can influence organizational outcomes.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".