Rephrase

Order Description Please rephrase all the paragraph on the attached file by your own word. As we are not allowed to copy and past and all the paragraphs are copy & past. Chapter 2: Literature Review Theories and empirical studies on newcomer socialization have made illumin" rel="nofollow">inatin" rel="nofollow">ing progress over the last two decades. In this chapter, I review advances in" rel="nofollow">in the field of newcomer socialization and social networks that serve as the theoretical basis for this study. Newcomer Socialization a. Conceptualization of Newcomer Socialization Organizational socialization and newcomer adjustment have been the main" rel="nofollow">in topics in" rel="nofollow">in studies of newcomer socialization. Organization socialization is the process by which new in" rel="nofollow">individuals in" rel="nofollow">in the organization learns new attitudes, behavior, and knowledge in" rel="nofollow">in order to assume different roles in" rel="nofollow">in an organization (Van Maanen & Schein" rel="nofollow">in, 1977). As he refers it the process by which newcomer is taught and “learns the ropes" of a particular organizational role. SOCIALIZATION TACTICS Organizational socialization plays an important role in" rel="nofollow">in newcomer adjustment and transmission of the organizational culture (Ashforth et al., 2007). In addition to role change and person change, socialization can affect a variety of constructs that reflect newcomer adjustment. Adjustment is one organization socialization outcome and it conceptualized as the distal outcome of socialization, which contrasts with the primary changes . To help organizations socialize newcomers and to help newcomers self-socialize more effectively, we must better understand how organizational tactics and newcomer proactivity contribute to effective adjustment(Fang, R., Duffy, M. K., & Shaw, J. D. (2011) (Hatmaker, Deneen M 2015) defin" rel="nofollow">ine types of adjustment affected by newcomer networks: (1) knowledge-based adjustment, in" rel="nofollow">in which newcomers gain" rel="nofollow">in the in" rel="nofollow">information and skills needed to become productive organizational members; (2) social adjustment, in" rel="nofollow">in which newcomers accrue social capital and attain" rel="nofollow">in a sense of belongin" rel="nofollow">ing and person–organization fit.(Hatmaker, Deneen M 2015) Empirical research has also highlighted the importance role of in" rel="nofollow">insiders, especially peers and supervisors, for helpin" rel="nofollow">ing newcomers to acquire in" rel="nofollow">information and "learn the ropes" (Morrison, 1993; Ostroff & Kozlow- ski, 1992). In this study, I use newcomer socialization as an umbrella term in" rel="nofollow">includin" rel="nofollow">ing both newcomer adjustment and organizational socialization. b. Brief Review on Newcomer Socialization Previous studies on newcomer socialization have explored a wide range of antecedents that facilitate newcomer adjustment to new roles and organizations. First, organizational socialization studies have focused main" rel="nofollow">inly on organizational socialization tactics: “the ways in" rel="nofollow">in which the experiences of in" rel="nofollow">individuals in" rel="nofollow">in transition from one role to another are structured for them by others in" rel="nofollow">in the organization” (Van Maanen & Schein" rel="nofollow">in, 1977). Socialization researchers have attempted to categorize organizational socialization tactics. Table 1 ( add the Table form OS Model File) provides an overview of organizational socialization tactics dimensions by Van Maanen and Schein" rel="nofollow">in (1977) and Jones (1986). Van Maanen and Schein" rel="nofollow">in (1979) defin" rel="nofollow">ined organizational socialization tactics along six dimensions: organizational socialization tactics in" rel="nofollow">into context (1) collective vs. in" rel="nofollow">individual, (2) formal vs. in" rel="nofollow">informal, content (3) sequential vs. random, (4) fixed vs. variable, and social tactics (5) serial vs. disjunctive, and (6) in" rel="nofollow">investiture vs. divestiture. Later, Jones (1986) conceptualized socialization tactics along a sin" rel="nofollow">ingle contin" rel="nofollow">inuum with in" rel="nofollow">institutionalized socialization (collective, formal, sequential, fixed, serial, and in" rel="nofollow">investiture tactics) on one end and in" rel="nofollow">individualized socialization (in" rel="nofollow">individual, in" rel="nofollow">informal, random, variable, disjunctive, and divesture tactics) on the other. Briefly, under in" rel="nofollow">institutionalized socialization, newcomers have access to structured forms of modelin" rel="nofollow">ing and social support; they undergo common learnin" rel="nofollow">ing experiences as part of a cohort, with clearly defin" rel="nofollow">ined, sequenced, and timed train" rel="nofollow">inin" rel="nofollow">ing and orientation activities. Under in" rel="nofollow">individualized socialization, newcomers are exposed to learnin" rel="nofollow">ing experiences in" rel="nofollow">individually, in" rel="nofollow">informally, and sporadically; they defin" rel="nofollow">ine situations on their own without help and feedback from experienced in" rel="nofollow">insiders (Ashforth & Saks, 1996; Bauer et al., 2007; Jones, 1986;). Accordin" rel="nofollow">ing to (Wanberg, C. (Ed.), 2012), The structured events of in" rel="nofollow">institutionalized socialization have five features, typically absent in" rel="nofollow">in unstructured events, which facilitate learnin" rel="nofollow">ing and adjustment. First, the developmental experiences are designed to be cumulative, such chat the learnin" rel="nofollow">ing, role clarity, cask mastery, and possibly social in" rel="nofollow">integration and role craftin" rel="nofollow">ing build in" rel="nofollow">in a logical progression. In contrast, more haphazard events essentially randomize lessons and make cumulative learnin" rel="nofollow">ing and adjustment more difficult. Indeed, newcomers are forced to respond in" rel="nofollow">in real time, whether they are prepared or not. Second, in" rel="nofollow">institutionalized socialization in" rel="nofollow">includes "in" rel="nofollow">instructors," such as occupational veterans and HR professionals, who not only provide constructive feedback but help newcomers make sense of their experiences in" rel="nofollow">in a manner consonant with organizational in" rel="nofollow">interests. Conversely, the opposite tactics- in" rel="nofollow">individual, in" rel="nofollow">informal, random, variable, and disjunctive-represent the absence of structure and therefore compel newcomers to learn on their own. Jones (1986) dubbed this approach in" rel="nofollow">individualized socialization. To illustrate more in" rel="nofollow">in each tactic (put startin" rel="nofollow">ing sentences for the below paragraph as it is explain" rel="nofollow">inin" rel="nofollow">ing each tactic), Five of the tactics-collective, formal, sequential, fixed, and serial-tend to covary (Ashforch, Saks, & Lee, 1997), providin" rel="nofollow">ing newcomers with relatively structured practices designed to shape the nature and sequence of experiences and the meanin" rel="nofollow">ing derived from those experiences. Indeed, because these tactics encourage newcomers to learn and enact "the organization way," (Wanberg, C. (Ed.), 2012) Jones (1986) also argued that the two ends of the six contin" rel="nofollow">inua will produce different role orientations. That is, he grouped the six socialization tactics at one end (in" rel="nofollow">individual, in" rel="nofollow">informal, variable, random, disjunctive, and divestiture) and identified them as in" rel="nofollow">individualized socialization tactics because they are more likely to produce in" rel="nofollow">innovative role orientations. In other words, in" rel="nofollow">institutionalized socialization tactics are relatively more systematic than are in" rel="nofollow">individualized socialization tactics. As two recent meta-analysis studies demonstrated (Bauer et al., 2007; Saks et al., 2007), organizational socialization tactics strongly predict newcomer adjustment. That is, newcomers who experience organizational socialization tactics are more likely to adjust successfully. In addition, among the three categories of organizational socialization tactics, context tactics were the weakest predictor. Although most empirical studies have demonstrated that in" rel="nofollow">institutionalized socialization tactics positively affect newcomer socialization, the effects of in" rel="nofollow">individualized tactics are still less clear (Fang et al., 2011). In addition Chao, O'Leary-Kelly, Wolf, Klein" rel="nofollow">in, and Gardner (1994) identified six content areas of organizational socialization. People were better socialized in" rel="nofollow">into their organizational roles when they learned about (a) performance proficiency, or learnin" rel="nofollow">ing to perform the job successfully; (b) Specific language related to organizational acronyms and jargon; (c) Relationships and how to get along with other organizational members; (d) Power structures and organizational politics; (e) Organizational goals and values, and (f) the history of their specific organizational units as well as general organizational history. Learnin" rel="nofollow">ing in" rel="nofollow">in these six content areas was related to socialization outcomes such as job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and career development Proximal and distal outcomes Each organizational socialization tactics play role on in" rel="nofollow">in result in" rel="nofollow">in specific proximal or distal outcome. Saks et al. (2007) showed that organizational socialization tactics are the strongest predictor for both proximal (role conflict, role ambiguity, and perceived fit) and distal outcomes (organizational commitment, job satisfaction, job performance, in" rel="nofollow">intentions to quit, and role orientation). A study done by Bauer, Morrison and Callister, 1998, it presented that socialization practices such as train" rel="nofollow">inin" rel="nofollow">ing programs, orientation programs, and mentorin" rel="nofollow">ing allow newcomers to have role clarity by acquire vital in" rel="nofollow">information about their tasks and roles in" rel="nofollow">in their new organization (Bauer, Morrison and Callister, 1998) Train" rel="nofollow">inin" rel="nofollow">ing programs help employees are able to achieve personal development by acquirin" rel="nofollow">ing new knowledge and skills. Train" rel="nofollow">inin" rel="nofollow">ing can also play a major role in" rel="nofollow">in reducin" rel="nofollow">ing stress through makin" rel="nofollow">ing one aware of the signs of stress, helpin" rel="nofollow">ing one to analyze the situation and develop an active plan to min" rel="nofollow">inimize stressors, and through learnin" rel="nofollow">ing skills of active copin" rel="nofollow">ing and relaxation (Saks & Ashford, 1997). Additionally, train" rel="nofollow">inin" rel="nofollow">ing ensures that employees develop the appropriate knowledge and abilities to engage effectively hence organizational commitment (Wanberg, 2012). Job satisfaction is also one of the distal outcomes sin" rel="nofollow">ince newcomers are able to perform tasks and duties because they understand all requirements of their roles and tasks, leadin" rel="nofollow">ing to the achievement of personal and organizational goals (Bauer, Morrison and Callister, 1998). Role in" rel="nofollow">innovation learnin" rel="nofollow">ing is another socialization proximal outcome, where newcomers in" rel="nofollow">in an organization learn on how to engage in" rel="nofollow">in their roles usin" rel="nofollow">ing in" rel="nofollow">innovation (Saks & Ashforth, 1997). Moreover , Social cohesion bridges the in" rel="nofollow">individual through to organizational levels, and is focused on havin" rel="nofollow">ing shared pivotal attitudes, values, norms, and behaviors that support collegial relations and promote a common understandin" rel="nofollow">ing of organizational goals (Louis, 1980; Wanous, 1992). Social cohesion in" rel="nofollow">includes Saks and Ashforth’s (1997) distal outcomes of group cohesion and subculture, as well as organizational culture (Louis, 1980), and social in" rel="nofollow">integration (Morrison, 1993). It also in" rel="nofollow">includes person-organization fit (Chatman, 1991; Cooper-Thomas et al., 2004) and, more broadly, acknowledges the social learnin" rel="nofollow">ing effects of achievin" rel="nofollow">ing similar attitudes to coworkers. About proactivity Another Socialization studies show that newcomers who engage in" rel="nofollow">in proactive socialization tactics are more likely to show higher social in" rel="nofollow">integration, role clarity, job satisfaction, and learnin" rel="nofollow">ing (Ashford & Black, 1996). Although most attention has been paid to newcomer proactive behaviors, some researchers have explored effects of in" rel="nofollow">individual differences in" rel="nofollow">in newcomer socialization. For in" rel="nofollow">instance, Wanberg and Kammeyer-Mueller (2000) showed that newcomers who report bein" rel="nofollow">ing highly extraverted are more likely to seek feedback and build relationships. Those who are highly open to experience also tend to seek more feedback and show positive framin" rel="nofollow">ing behaviors. There is semin" rel="nofollow">inal work done by Ashford and Black (1996) suggested that newcomers engage in" rel="nofollow">in seven major types of proactive socialization tactics: in" rel="nofollow">information-seekin" rel="nofollow">ing, feedback seekin" rel="nofollow">ing, negotiation of job changes, positive framin" rel="nofollow">ing, general socializin" rel="nofollow">ing, buildin" rel="nofollow">ing a relationship with one’s boss, and networkin" rel="nofollow">ing. Insider: Openin" rel="nofollow">ing sentence Also we can’t Ignorant the important of experienced members ,peers and supervisors on newcomer adjustment Many empirical research has also highlighted the importance of in" rel="nofollow">insiders, especially peers and supervisors, for helpin" rel="nofollow">ing newcomers adjustment (acquire in" rel="nofollow">information) and "learn the ropes" (Louis, Posner, & Powell, 1983; Morrison, 1993; Ostroff & Kozlow- ski, 1992). Peers seem to serve as especially important socialization agents. Louis, Posner, and Powell (1983) explain" rel="nofollow">ined that among various newcomer socialization practices (e.g., orientation, train" rel="nofollow">inin" rel="nofollow">ing, or mentorin" rel="nofollow">ing), newcomers perceive their daily in" rel="nofollow">interaction with peers as most helpful for their successful socialization. Peers also provide social support (Allen et al., 1999; Nelson & Quick, 1991) and are important sources of normative and social in" rel="nofollow">information (Morrison, 1993b; Ostroff & Kozlowski, 1992). Regardin" rel="nofollow">ing technical and job-related in" rel="nofollow">information (e.g., role demands, performance feedback), however, newcomers are likely to rely on their supervisors (Morrison, 1993b). Insiders as a group also affect the newcomer socialization process. Accordin" rel="nofollow">ing to Lee, Y. T., Reiche, B. S., & Song, D. (2010), Personal trust of newcomer to the organization in" rel="nofollow">insider can facilitate psychological functions of supervisors/ mentors and peers in" rel="nofollow">in providin" rel="nofollow">ing acceptance and confirmation, emotional support and friendship. Such functions may help to create stronger affective bonds with the result that organizational newcomers become more willin" rel="nofollow">ing to ‘buy in" rel="nofollow">in’ the values of the organization to which they belong, which result in" rel="nofollow">in social in" rel="nofollow">integration and strong cohesion outcome. In summary, proactive newcomers, supportive organizations, and in" rel="nofollow">insiders are all main" rel="nofollow">in socialization agents for successful newcomer socialization. The socialization literature, however, has given little attention to in" rel="nofollow">insider roles despite their importance in" rel="nofollow">in newcomer socialization.