Co-worker Effect 1
Running head: CO-WORKER EFFECT ON NEW NURSE SOCIALIZATION
Thesis Nurs. 1996 A275c
c. 2
Agostini, Michele Maas
Co-worker effect on new
nurse socialization /
1996.

Co-Worker Effect on
New Nurse Socialization
Michele Maas Agostini

Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements
for the Masters of Communication Studies
Edinboro University of Pennsylvania

Approved by:

Kathleen Golden, Ph.D.
Thesis Committee Chairperson

Terry Warburton, Ph.D.
Thesis Committee Member
Chair, Dept, of Speech & Communication Studies

Jolynnl Agostini, M.S., MB.A., R.N.
Thesis Committee Member
i

Co-worker Effect 2
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The author wishes to express sincere appreciation to her thesis chairperson and
graduate advisor, Dr. Kathleen Golden, for her professional and personal guidance over

the past two and a half years. A special thanks to Dr. Terry Warburton, for having an
immense amount of patience and providing invaluable assistance with interpreting

statistics. Finally, an expression of gratitude to Professor Jolynn Agostini for providing

the nurse's perspective necessary for accomplishing this study and for her personal
support throughout this master's program.

Co-worker Effect 3

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Co-worker Effect 4

PAGE

ABSTRACT

5

BASIS OF STUDY

7

LITERATURE REVIEW

10

METHOD

29

RESULTS & ANALYSIS

32

LIMITATIONS \ FURTHER RESEARCH
& CONCLUSIONS

44

APPENDIX 1

48

APPENDIX 2

52

APPENDIX 3

55

REFERENCES

67

Co-worker Effect 5

ABSTRACT

Co-worker Effect 6

Socialization is a difficult process in most professions. The movement from

outsider to insider can be made more or less stressful depending on co-workers. Nursing
is a particular field that tends to make it difficult for newcomers to "fit in" (Meissner,
1986). Therefore, the question arises, do co-workers affect the socialization process of

new nurses in the hospital setting with respect to task performance, social support,

sponsorship, and coaching factors? In this study three hospitals were utilized in the Erie,
PA area. The criteria for this study specified nurses who have been in the hospital setting

between 3 months and 2 years. A total of 29 surveys were entered into the study. A self

administered survey was employed and developed from material found in the literature
review and was modeled after the Mentoring and Communication Support Scale (Hell et.
al., 1989). The survey consisted of 24 quantitative questions, 3 qualitative questions, and

an optional space for name and phone number. Respondents were grouped based on a
mean split, with Group 1 above the mean, and Group 2 below the mean. Each group

was analyzed using a t-test comparing them to each of the 4 dimensions and to each
individual question. The analysis found a significant probability (p<=.005) in 3 of the 4

dimensions (task, sponsorship and coaching). The qualitative answers supported this
finding. In addition, mentoring was found to be an important element in those nurses

who were more highly socialized.

Co-worker Effect 7

BASIS OF STUDY

Co-worker Effect 8
THE PROBLEM

One of the most stressful times for anyone is starting a new job. Not only are
there new tasks and skills to be learned, but new employees must also assimilate a new
culture. This process of socialization is essential for organizational success. Past

research has shown three main sources that help in the socialization process: the
organization, the supervisor, and co-workers (Roy, 1952; VanMaanen, 1975; Feldman,

1977, Wanous, 1980; Jablin 1982). Though the organization and supervisor play a vital
role, it is the co-worker who is consistently shown to be the most relevant and helpful in

socializing a newcomer (Feldman & Brett,1983; Louis,1983). A co-worker can provide;a
newcomer with task information and assist in decoding messages, which help the

newcomer master the environment and test their ability level. If, however, the co-worker
does not fulfill this necessary role, the socialization of the newcomer may be hindered.
This hindrance may occur either intentionally or unintentionally. No research found

addressed the issue of socialization hindrance by co-workers, yet the fact that it may exist

has been suggested (Roy, 1952, Feldman, 1977). Therefore, further research is necessary

in this area.
This thesis will examine how co-workers affect the socialization of new nurses.
Specifically, this study will be looking for the emergence of socialization hindrance; if it

exists, and where it exists. Four specific areas of socialization will be considered: task

development, social support, sponsorship, and coaching. These four areas take into
account the numerous factors of socialization (Hill et al, 1989)

The nursing field was chosen for two reasons. Initial interest was sparked after
reading Jane Meissner's article "Nurses: Are We Eating Our Young?” (Meissner, 1986),
which dealt with the difficulties new nurses have when entering a hospital setting.

Further discussion with numerous nurses reinforced the difficulties new nurses have
assimilating into the hospital culture. Therefore, the nursing field seemed to be a key
environment to start looking for the signs of socialization hindrance.

Co-worker Effect 9

Through the literature review and discussions with academic advisors, the

following research question was developed: Do co-workers affect the socialization
process of new nurses in the hospital setting with respect to task performance, social

support, sponsorship, and coaching factors? The question takes into account the
possibility of both positive and negative responses.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study is to research the degree that co-workers affect the
socialization of new nurses. Four factors will be examined in relation to socialization:

task development, social support, sponsorship, and coaching. The relevance of this study
is in its potential to provide information for helping managers develop an environment
where socialization of new nurses can progress unhindered. The less hindrance that

occurs, the easier it will be for the new nurse to begin to "fit in" at the hospital and the
more productive she/he will be.
Through initial review of this thesis by both academic advisors and hospital

committees reviewing my requests to conduct research at the hospital, the following key
terms need to be defined. CO-WORKERS are nurses with whom the new nurse works;
peers. The SOCIALIZATION PROCESS is a method by which a newcomer learns the

tasks, roles, values, and norms necessary to progress from an outsider to an insider of an

organization (Caplaw, 1964; Brimm, 1966; Schein, 1968; VanMaanen, 1975; Feldman,
1976). NEW NURSES are nurses who have been working in the hospital setting

between three months and two years. TASK DEVELOPMENT refers to gaining the
necessary information to do a task (Hill, Bahniuk, Dobos, & Rouner, 1989). SOCIAL
SUPPORT is the sharing of personal concerns and confidences (Hill et.al., 1989).

SPONSORSHIP is the endorsement an individual, to act as a patron (Hill et.al., 1989).

Finally, COACHING is the process of teaching the norms, goals, culture, and informal
rules of the organization (Hill et.al., 1989).

Co-worker Effect 10

LITERATURE REVIEW

Co-worker Effect 11

DEFINITION OF SOCIALIZATION
Socialization has been studied throughout the twentieth century. Caplaw (1964)

began looking at the process that would prepare newcomers to function in an

organization. He focused on the development of new self-images, new values, and new
accomplishments that an individual must leam in order to assimilate. In 1966, Brimm’s

theory of adult socialization lead organizational theorists to begin viewing organizational
socialization in stages. Schein (1968) called socialization the "price of membership."

Van Maanen (1975) described organizational socialization as a process where an
individual learns the values and norms required to be a functioning member in an
organization. Finally, Feldman (1976) looked more specifically at work skills and

abilities that must be mastered to become a full fledged member of the organization. The

definitions of socialization may be slightly different but they all focus on the movement
from outsider to insider of an organization. Organizational socialization has been studied
in three different ways: stages of socialization, content of socialization, and cognitive

process of socialization. However, it is important to first look at O.G. Brimm's idea of

adult socialization and how it relates to organizational socialization.

ADULT SOCIALIZATION

Brimm (1966) described adult socialization as the way in which an individual

learns the appropriate behavior needed to fit into a group through interactions with

others. He holds that there are normative beliefs about the roles an individual should

play in order to fit into a specific group. His theory is based on a self-other system. The
system is made up of three relationships: I-me, they-me, and I-them. The I-me
relationship is the core relationship that is learned early in life. It is an individual’s self­

image. The other two relationships give an individual an external view of themselves.

According to Brimm, there are three things a person must do to satisfy a role. He/she

must know what is expected of him/her. He/she must be able to meet the requirements,

Co-worker Effect 12

and he/she must be motivated to work hard. If these three requirements are met, he/she

will succeed.
The move from childhood to adulthood is based on predetermined stages. As one
moves into adulthood there is a shift in the importance of values toward a concern for

overt behavior. This change usually calls for a synthesis of old material instead of a need
to learn new material. There is an increase in specificity when filling roles or positions

of status. There are less I-me relationships. ’’Metaprescriptions” or set patterns are
developed to meet conflicting demands. Finally there is a shift from idealism to realism.
Success of an individual depends on how well he masters the preceding stage.

Schein (1968) and Van Maanen (1975 ) both used Brimm's work in developing
their ideas of organizational socialization. Schein (1968) discussed that we recreate our­

selves to perform the roles that we take on. However, he also pointed out that there
exists a basic self that is virtually impossible to change. Therefore, an individual can not
fulfill every role he/she desires. Van Maanen (1975 ) criticized Brimm's self-other

system. He pointed out that there is no way it can be validated because it exists within

the self. There is only a presumption that each relationship exists. Regardless of their
criticisms, Brimm's general idea of adult socialization had a large impact on future

research of organizational socialization.

STAGES OF ORGANIZATIONAL SOCIALIZATION
Stage One - Anticipatory
Anticipatory socialization refers to socialization that occurs prior to entering an

organization. It focuses on how an individual arrived to where they are now, and how

prepared they are to begin a specific job. Van Maanen (1975 ) points out the importance
of social interactions an individual has with his/her family and peers, along with cultural

influences that will help him/her decide what career path to follow. Jablin (1982) also

found organizational literature such as advertisements and training brochures to influence

Co-worker Effect 13

decision making in the later stages of anticipatory socialization. Van Maanen (1975)
identified three stages an individual goes through when choosing a career. The first two
occur between the ages of 6-16, depending on the individual, and are based purely on

fantasy. The third stage begins around the age of 17 or 18 when an individual moves
toward a more realistic choice. However, considering the changes in the work force over

the past twenty years, along with the increased need for higher education, this third stage
has probably shifted toward a higher age.

Kassing (1995) examined the socialization of emotional communication in each

of the stages. During the anticipatory stage, children learn the type of emotional
communication that is appropriate from listening to parents discuss relationships at work.
Nobel (1985) also stated that children how to communicate in different work situations

learn from watching television and media . These pre-determined rules of behavior

inform when, where and how to express different emotions in different occupations
(Kassing, 1995).

Feldman (1981) discussed four process variables that exist in the anticipatory
stage: realism about the job; realism about the organization; congruence of skills and
abilities; and congruence of needs and values. These four variables are based on prior

learning and expectations. They are formed during the interview process. A problem
often exists because job applicants generally have unrealistic expectations about a job

they are considering. (Jablin, 1984; Wanous, 1980). Most organizations have a tendency
to stress only positive features of a job. They make the work look prestigious and

exciting. According to Jablin (1984), the more unrealistic an interview, the more likely
an newcomer’s expectations will not be met, and the higher chance of turnover. Wanous
(1977) developed the "Realistic Job Preview" (RJP) to help decrease instances of
turnover. It stresses the importance of realistic job interviews that discuss both positive

and possible negative consequences of a job. By giving a more realistic view, recruits
will be better able to cope with the new job. However, Dugoni & Ilgen (1981) found no

Co-worker Effect 14

correlation between RJP to job satisfaction, coping, and openness/honesty. However, this
was only one study based on 119 subjects. More research still needs to be done in this
area.

Jablin (1984) stated that the interviewing process should be a sharing process.
Both parties should be honest with one another so unrealistic expectations will not be

created. This is a vital part of organizational socialization. Discrepancies in
expectations of either side can lead to surprises (Louis, 1980) that can make life more
difficult for the newcomer in the next stage - entry.

Stage 2 - Entiy/Encounter
Van Maanen (1975) simply described the entry stage of assimilating to a job as
"breaking in." Jablin (1982) described encounter as integration into the reality of the

organization or the "role making process". The individual is now a member of the
organization and must deal with the true nature of the organization. (Feldman, 1981).

Buchanan (1974) called this first year basic training and initiation and described it at

"getting established and accepted by the organization" (p. 535).
Unfortunately, this stage is all too often synonymous with the term coined
"reality shock." The degree of shock depends on the extent to which anticipatory
socialization was either met or unmet. If there is a problem with an unmet expectation, a

destructive phase must first occur (Van Maanen, 1975). A newcomer must be detached

from his/her former expectations. This is often a very difficult time for a newcomer,
especially if his/her 3nticipatory socialization was extremely unrealistic. Symptoms of

stress are likely to occur on a behavioral, psychological, or physiological state (Nelson,
1987). Stress can lead to socialization failure (Nelson, 1987).

Moving past the initial destructive phase, Van Maanen (1975) listed four relevant
factors that influence socialization of newcomers in the entry phase: environmental,

organizational, relevant group, and task. Environmental factors include three areas of

influence: cultural, economic, and political. Cultural values are the appropriate social

Co-worker Effect 15

behaviors that are expected from an employee. Economic conditions encompass job
opportunities and current pay levels which give a frame of reference for a newcomer to

evaluate his/her current position. Finally, political factors refer to the degree ofjob

switching that is occurring. This factor will determine the amount of loyalty that exists
in the organization.
Organizational factors relate to an organization's ability to influence behavior,
values, and attitudes of its employees. This control depends on how much influence the

organization has on rewards and punishments of newcomers. Jablin (1982) stated that

organizational socialization efforts are both deliberate and unintentional. Etzioni (1961)
distinguished between three types of organizations, each emphasizing a different type of

employee compliance. A normative organization demands a high level of commitment to

the mission of the organization. This organization is most likely to use formal
socialization on newcomers. An example would be a university that uses a mentorship

program for new professors. A utilitarian organization uses socialization only to control
overt behaviors of members. It gives information to employees only about the specific

role they are to perform. Young nurses often search for rules that are not specified until
they are broken. Finally, a coercive organization uses punishment centered socialization

and is mainly concerned with obedience of members. Guards at a prison may tend to not
help inmates fit in at all. Their concern is with following the rules.

Jablin (1982) expanded on the idea of organizational influence to include the role
of the personnel department. This type of socialization is filled with handbooks, a vital

part of entry, along with company rules, insurance policies, employee services and the
like Jablin (1982) viewed communication in this area to be uni-directional.

Organizations are concerned with sending information to the employee about rules,
guidelines, and behaviors, with little concern about how the employee feels.

Wanous (1980) listed five types of socialization that an organization uses for

newcomers: training ofjob skills; education of certain policies and procedures;

Co-worker Effect 16

apprenticeship to get one-on-one attention; debasement experiences to free newcomers

from their old beliefs so they can develop a new corporate image; and co-option and

seduction to keep them in the organization. These are the most common ways
newcomers will "learn the ropes."
Relevant group factors are important because all members of an organization are
also members of smaller groups. The power of a work group's influence over a new

employee is based on three factors: size of the group, homogeneity of the group, and
communicative isolation (Roy, 1952). According to Roy (1952) the smaller the group,

the more influential and homogeneous. Research suggests that a major coping strategy of

newcomers is seeking information from peers (Feldman & Brett, 1983). Louis (1983)
found that co-worker support was the strongest correlate with higher job satisfaction.
This informal channel of communication may also be a more powerful form of learning

forms of emotional communication (Raefeli & Sutton, 1987). Roy (1952) also pointed

out that many older employees will not share vital information with newcomers until
he/she is considered trustworthy by his relevant groups. Feldman (1977) saw
socialization being affected by what co-workers avoided talking about. Work groups

may strategically avoid communication about certain things (Feldman, 1977). This can
lead to problems for newcomers learning the requirements of the job as well as adjusting
to the culture.

Mentoring, "the situation where a more knowledgeable person is paired with a

neophyte to increase the latters awareness of certain matters," (Dunn & Moody, 1995) is
a support behavior linked to a greater chance of organizational success (Hill et al). A
continuum ranging from mentor to peer-pal related to communication support has been
introduced by Shapiro, Hasltine & Rowe (1978). Mentor is an intense parental-like
relationship; sponsor is a powerful patron; guide is a less powerful person who explains

the system; peer-pal is a co-worker at the same level who wants to help the newcomer.
Kram & Isabella (1985) furthered this continuum to include information peer, collegial

Co-worker Effect 17
peer and special peer. An information peer reveals information about the job. Collegial

peers offer social support and cultural assimilation. Finally, a special peer refers to an
intimate relationship of self-disclosure and expression. Research has shown that the

peer-pal relationship may be as valuable in organizational success as mentoring (Kram &
Isabella, 1985). Shapiro et al (1978) found that collegial support had a more valuable
impact on adjusting to the new organization than unidirectional mentoring. This area is

still in need of further research.
Task factors are those that deal with the duties that must be performed by the

newcomer. Shein (1968) attributes high turnover rates to first assignments that were too
hard or too easy. Either one seemed to disconfirm a newcomer's view of themselves.
Hackman and Lawler (1971) listed five task dimensions that were associated with
employee satisfaction: skill variety is the amount of different skills needed to perform

the job; task identity refers to an employee completing an entire process; task
significance looks at how the job impacts other individuals both inside and outside of the
organization; feedback or the degree of information focuses on how well an employee is

performing; and autonomy is the freedom and independence to carry out a task. The

more these five areas exist in a job the more satisfied an employee tends to be.
Jablin (1982) expanded on Van Maanen's four relevant factors to include one

more area of influence: the supervisor. Jablin (1982) found that this relationship can

have long term consequences on the newcomers future with the organization. Many
newcomers are unsatisfied with their first boss due to unmet expectation and a lack of

sensitivity during a tiying time (Katz, 1985). During the encounter stage, communication
between newcomer and supervisor is directive and deals primarily with job

responsibilities.

Jablin (1982) identified four important functions of the encounter stage, all
crucial to newcomer socialization. First, information is supplied through the discovery of
informal networks and unwritten rules. Job performance is strengthened through

Co-worker Effect 18

imitating work behavior of peers. Role clarification is important to ascertain what is
expected. Interpersonal relationships develop and the newcomer learns group norms and
culture. Second, the stress from work and the uncertainties of a new work environment

are beginning to be relieved through a system of emotional support (Feldman, 1981).

During encounter a newcomer must first learn how to handle outside conflicts, such as
how much time to spend at work vs. home. Newcomers must learn to deal with the

demands of their own group along with the demands of other groups in the organization.

Third, a normative function allows newcomers to understand work related outcomes.
Finally, a newcomer must learn how to successfully accomplish the required tasks.

The entry stage of socialization is a vital part of a newcomer's learning process
about the organization. How the newcomer is treated by the organization, supervisor,

and peers will determine his level of satisfaction. These individuals and groups
determine the amount of information that is shared with the newcomer and, often the

success potential at the new job. If newcomers are fortunate enough to work in an open
organization that is filled with supportive measures, or are able to stick it out in a closed

organization until peers and supervisors trust them, they will eventually move on to the
final stage, continuance.

Stage 3 - Continuance/Metamorphosis

Finally, a newcomer has fulfilled the rites of passage and is granted membership
within an organization (Van Maanen, 1975). No longer a newcomer, the employee is
finally rewarded with a sense of belonging to the group. Van Maanen (1975) described
this stage as a metamorphosis because the newcomer now has the needed skills and

behaviors to fill a vital role in the organization. The member has internalized the

necessary rules that govern everyday life at work (Jablin, 1982). "Change and

acquisition" is Feldman's term for this final stage (Feldman, 1981). Change refers to the
new tasks and behaviors the employee has mastered and acquisition to his/her role in the

organization.

Co-worker Effect 19

In this final stage, the organizational communication emphasizes commitment

and identification to the organization (Jablin, 1984). The organizational self-image is

reinforced to lead to commitment to the organization (Buchanan, 1974). Graen et al
(1977) found that managers take on one of two roles. They either become a leader or a
supervisor to the employee. A leader uses open communication that is filled with trust,
concern and confidence. A supervisor's communication is closed and flows one way,

downward to the employee. Graen et al (1977) found that newcomers were more

successful at their job when dealing with a leader. They also found that in a
supervisor/employee relationship there was more resistance, unresponsiveness and less
exchanges of ideas which lead to high degrees of dissatisfaction.

The newcomer becomes less dependent on co-workers in this stage (Jablin, 1984).

Finally, newcomers feel more open to share their own ideas with co-workers and
management (Jablin, 1984). Graen (1973) often viewed an increase in conflicts in this
stage because old timers began to feel threatened by newcomers sharing of novel ideas.

Ideas and messages from co-workers have less meaning and affect on the newcomer at
this stage (Jablin, 1984).

Feldman (1981) once again looked at what newcomers achieved at this stage of

change and acquisition. Newcomers finally understand the tasks to be completed and can

allocate appropriate time for all tasks. They have mastered the tasks they are to perform
and are receiving positive feedback. Newcomers feel that they are liked and trusted by
their peers and have adjusted to the culture of the organization.

Integrated Approach - Feldman
Daniel Feldman (1981) developed an integrated model using the stages of
socialization to describe how the three stages work together and rely on one another for

success of a newcomer. He stated that there were three distinct views of socialization:
acquisition of appropriate role behaviors, development of work skills and abilities, and

adjustment to work groups norms and values. The progress in all these areas depend

Co-worker Effect 20

upon three attitudinal variables (general satisfaction, internal work motivation, and job

development) and three behavioral variables (cany out assignments dependably,
remaining within the organization, and performing creatively and cooperatively).

Socialization as Acquisition ofAppropriate Role Behaviors

There are three types of role behaviors that must be successfully learned during

the encounter stage for a newcomer to have success during the change and acquisition
stage. Role definition is the first requirement. A newcomer must fully understand the

role he/she plays in the organization. Being well suited for the job will also increase the

chance of enjoyment on the job. If a newcomer succeeds, he/she is more likely to be
given more challenging tasks in the future. Management of intergroup conflict and

management of outside life conflicts are the second and third behaviors respectively and
were discussed in the previous section.

Socialization as the Development of Work Skills and Abilities
There is a minimum level ofjob skills that are required for any job. It is up to the
interviewer to find a good match for an open position. Many organizations use invalid

selection devices that lead to an inappropriate match. Outside influences such as,
economics and the size of the current job market affect choices. Developing a strong
initiation to task at the encounter stage will lead to task mastery at the change and
acquisition stage. Early performance appraisals and supervisor feedback are two other

methods during encounter that can help lead to task mastery in the final stage of

socialization.

Socialization as Acquisition ofGroup Norms and Values
Groups often take on a supportive role for a newcomer in an organization. During

encounter a congruence of needs and values will be correlated with initiation to the

Co-worker Effect 21
group. However, until co-workers feel they can trust a newcomer, they will not share

vital information ofjob performance. Once co-workers do trust the newcomer they can
help him/her sift through information to help the newcomer make decisions based on the

norm. The co-workers can also give credibility to sources of information.

Behavioral and Affective Outcomes

If the three types of socialization are successful, the following six behavioral and
affective outcomes will occur. A newcomer will be able to carry out a role assignment
dependably and will continue to learn and be rewarded for correct behaviors. A

newcomer will remain in the organization and will use innovation and spontaneous
cooperation at work. There will not be overconformity to the organization which hinders

growth (Schein, 1968). The presence of general satisfaction will positively correlate to

resolution of role demands and task mastery (Feldman, 1976). Internal work motivation
which relates to task mastery and satisfaction, will be high (Lawler and Hall, 1970).

Finally, job involvement is present and is positively correlated to task mastery and
adjustment to group norms.

Feldman comprehensively tied all the elements of the stages of socialization

together, and was the first to chart out the links that exists between types of socialization
and outcomes on the newcomers.

CONTENT OF SOCIALIZATION
A more recent view of socialization has focused on the content of the

socialization process. This view looks at what is being learned during the entire process.

Van Maanen and Schein (1979) used the term "people processing" to describe this focus
on socialization because here is where the newcomer learns to become a member of the

organization. However, recent theorists have contributed in much more detail to content
socialization.

Co-worker Effect 22
For example, Chao et al (1994) pinpointed six areas where learning must occur

for socialization success: performance proficiency, people, politics, language,
organizational goals and values, and history. Performance proficiency deals with

learning the tasks needed to perform the job well. People refers to newcomers
developing relationships that are successful and satisfying. Politics is a knowledge of the

formal and informal networks and power structures that exist in the organization.
Language refers to using the techmeal language as well as the jargon and slang used.
Organizational goals and values are the rules that maintain the integrity of the

organization. Finally, history is the traditions and myths that teach the newcomer about

the organization's foundation.
Chao et al (1994) went on to look at these six features as they relate to three

groups of college alumni: those who have not changed their job, those who have changed
their job in the same organization, and those who have changed their job to another
organization over a two year period. More specifically, these researchers looked at the

learning process that occurred relative to these six variables. The results showed that
learning occurred relative to all six variables in every group. The group with no job
change had continued knowledge growth in all six areas over time. The job changers in

the same organization showed a decrease in knowledge in performance, language, and
history due to the change in job. However, there was no change in people or politics.

The job changers in a new organization showed significant decrease in knowledge in all
areas except goals and values. The decrease was due to resocialization that had to occur
with the change. It was suggested that lack of change in goals was due to the employee
making the change voluntarily to an organization that most likely held the same goals and
values as the employee. Chao and his colleague's work demonstrated that all variables

except goals and values must be relearned when starting a new job at a new organization.
Also, three of the variables must be re-leamed even when starting a new job in the same

company.

Co-worker Effect 23
Duda (1992) presented another view of socialization content, focusing on a

managerial view of what is needed. He identified three factors that must be learned to

help newcomers succeed: corporate culture, management style, and workflow orientation
and bonding. Learning and adjusting to the culture of the company is essential to new

employee socialization. Management style refers to the use of a tool such as a scale to
look at the similarities and differences between the work and learning style of the new

employee and hiring executive. The results would let both parties have a greater
awareness of possible conflicts and ways to maximize strengths. His final category,
workflow orientation and bonding, focuses on information and relationships. It is

important for the new worker to know how information travels through the organization.
It is also critical to develop strong relationships with team members so as to guarantee

correct information is being passed.
Finally, Morrison (1993) defined four essential tasks that make up the

socialization process. Task mastery is similar to Chao's performance proficiency, while
social integration like Chao's people variable, refers to the neophyte developing working
and personal relationships with co-workers. Similar to Duda's theory, Morrison also

identifies acculturation, or learning the corporate culture as an essential task. His

description of role clarification, however, is unique in that it refers to new employee s

understanding of where they fit into the corporate organizational chart. Morrison used
these four tasks to study how newcomers are affected by proactive newcomers.

NEWCOMER'S COGNITIVE PROCESS OF SOCIALIZATION
(HOW A NEWCOMER MAKES SENSE OF THE PROCESS).

The third view of socialization looks at the cognitive process it has on

newcomers.. This view stresses how employees make sense of and cope with their new
work environments. A newcomer seeks social support to help clarify uncertainty and

searches for predictability and control (Feldman & Brett, 1983). The focus shifts here to

Co-worker Effect 24

the newcomers point of view. Stohl (1986) states that "to understand the process of
organizational socialization, we must talk to those who are involved in the ongoing
practice ( p. 248). The new employee is seen as taking a proactive role instead of just

fitting into preset stages.

Morrison (1993) executed a longitudinal study on the effects of information
seeking on newcomers. Her study group consisted of 240 new accounting recruits from
five large firms. She sent out questionnaires at three intervals: two weeks, three months,

and six months after orientation. The questions referred to amounts of information the

newcomer sought. She received 205 responses and found that information seeking
behavior had a significant impact on the socialization process. At six months

information seeking affected task mastery, role clarity, and social integration. Task

mastery was highly positively correlated to seeking technical questions and performance
feedback. Role clarity was related to the frequency with which the newcomer sought
normative information. Information seeking was found to have little effect on

acculturation. One unexpected finding was that task mastery had a negative correlation

to the frequency of which technical questions were asked of peers. Morrison (1993)

speculated that the newcomer was questioning their ability at the time information was
sought and therefore perceived themselves negatively. Morrison concluded that

information seeking does have a positive effect on socialization. However, she reminds

us not to forget that there are other motives such as personality and political factors that
also influence newcomer socialization.
Louis’ article, "Surprise and Sensemaking: What Newcomers Experience in
Entering Unfamiliar Organizational Settings", looked at individual's coping mechanisms

(Louis 1980). The author presented a model consisting of change, contrast, and surprise
that represents ways in which a newcomer copes at entry. Change refers to the

differences that exist between an old job and the new job that a newcomer must deal with
each day. Contrast is a personal experience that refers to the differences in old ways

Co-worker Effect 25

versus new that help to define the new situation. Examples would be differences in dress
and office space. When performing a new role, the newcomer may be reminded of
experiences from their old job. This conscious awareness of difference, Louis calls
contrast. Finally, surprise is the difference between what a newcomer expected and

reality. It is the emotional reactions to change and contrast. These can be either negative
or positive.

There are five different forms of surprise:
*The first occurs when expectations about the new job are not met.
*The second may be present during encounter when self-expectations are not met.
*The third is felt when unconscious expectations are not met or anticipated.

*The fourth form of surprise occurs when there are difficulties in accurately

predicting what is going to happen or how it will happen.
*Finally, surprise can occur when there are cultural assumptions that are based on
the old organization that don't work with the new organization.
Louis states that change, contrast and surprise are everyday experiences for a newcomer
that must be taken seriously by the organization. She goes on to explain how newcomers
can make sense out of these surprises.

Louis begins her discussion of sense making by pointing out that in everyday
situations, we act in programmed ways. It is only when we are threatened, such as when

a surprise occurs, that we need to figure out a new way to react and cope. Louis (1978)
developed a model for coping with surprise. Sense-making is a continuum of events

occurring over a period of time. It begins with expectations of the future. Then, an event
occurs that was not expected to occur. We need an explanation for this surprise. We

interpret why the surprise occurred and give it meaning. Finally, we update our
expectation.

Louis mentions different inputs that a newcomer can use to help make sense of
surprises. He may rely on other's interpretations of the dilemma or use past experiences

Co-worker Effect 26
of a similar situation. His predisposition or personal characteristics may also help in

making sense. Finally, a newcomer will use his own past experiences to try and find a
coping mechanism.
Practices that use sense-making mechanisms will provide the newcomer with

relevant information. An organization can not and should not try to stop surprises from

happening but should facilitate sense making mechanisms. Instead of leaving the new
recruit to fend for himself/herself, an organization can provide support. It is important

that relevant information be shared with newcomers. An organization can help facilitate
links between newcomers and his/her peers. Buddy systems can be developed and

supported to help newcomers interpret information. These are just a few of the ways to
help in the sense-making process.
Reicher (1987) looked at how the degree of interaction between newcomers and

insiders influenced that rate of success at the encounter stage. He found that tasks such
as role identity and sense-making were accomplished more quickly if a newcomer

engaged in symbolic interactionism, the process by which newcomers establish self
identities and learn organizational realism. It also can refer to role negotiation and

adjustment to the work group (Feldman, 1976). Reicher points out that a newcomer uses
symbolic interactionism to help make sense of the new situation. An organization may

be able to increase success rates of socialization by increases in interaction between
newcomers and peers. Examples to facilitate increased interaction are increasing formal

orientation, encouraging buddy systems, periodic performance reviews and informal
social activities.
Brown (1985) takes a slightly different twist on the way newcomers make sense
of their new situation. She took a look at the effect of storytelling on socialization.

Brown interviewed 75 employees of four nursing homes and discovered 363 stories used
to socialize. Either role related information or cultural information was revealed in each

story. Three types of story forms existed: aggregate, specific and specific with morals.

Co-worker Effect 27

The aggr gate form was a general statement referring to others. A specific story gave a
specific time and place. Finally, a specific story with a moral was a story with a general

moral assertion included in it. Storytelling was not found to be used as often in the early

stages of socialization mainly due to lack of access to stories and lack of experience. In
entry and encounter members rely on specific stories that relate to a sequence of events.

During role management, specific stories with morals that referred to the entire
organization were common. During stabilization, general narratives about organizational
culture were most often told. A majority of stories at each stage placed more stress on

task than on relationship expectations.

The stories were used not only to help socialization of newcomers but also serve a
maintenance function. They stress a commitment to organizational values and how these
values are related to everyday events. Brown (1985) summed up that "stories serve as a
means for members to express their knowledge, understanding, and commitment to the
organization." (p. 38).
One last view on sense-making comes from Stohl's work on memorable messages.

(Stohl, 1986). Stohl interviewed 42 employees of a small midwestem company to see
how many were able to recall a specific message that had a lasting impression on work

levels and helped them to assimilate into the culture. Two characteristics of memorable
messages are that an individual must retain the message for a long period of time and he

perceives the message to have had a lasting impression on his/her life. Stohl found that
memorable messages had five characteristics.

♦First, they were short and orally told;
* Second, they were told on a personal level at a difficult time in the person's life;
♦Third, they gave specific rules of conduct;

♦Fourth, the content was conservative on social issues and provided maintenance
of the social system;

♦Fifth, the message sender was viewed as older and wiser.

Co-worker Effect 28
Over forty percent of Stohl’s sample were able to recall a memorable message.

Messages helped in socializing by explaining organizational values, expected behaviors,
and information to fit the new role. A few examples given were "work smarter, not

harder and we are one big family here." (p.245). Messages provide an informal and

affective means to facilitate newcomer socialization.
The current literature on organizational socialization takes a comprehensive look

at stages of organizational socialization, content that is learned, and cognitive processes
that newcomers experience. There are many entities within the work place that influence

socialization of the newcomer: the human relations department, supervisors, and co­

workers. Research has pointed to the importance of co-workers support increase the

degree ofjob satisfaction (Feldman & Brett, 1983; Louis, 1983). However, there is also
some mention of older employee's lack of information sharing with newcomers until trust

is formed (Roy, 1952; Feldman, 1977; Graen, 1973). There has been virtually no
research to determine the degree to which co-workers affect the socialization process of

the newcomer. This information would be invaluable to further help in the transition
from an outsider in the organization to an insider.

Co-worker Effect 29

METHOD

Co-worker Effect 30
POPULATION
The population studied were nurses who have been in the hospital setting between
three months and two years. Three months was chosen as the minimum to avoid
including nurses going through "reality shock," which is hIgh anxiety due to unmet

expectations. Research states that this phenomena usually dissipates after the first couple

months of employment (VanMaanen, 1975). Two years was chosen at the high end
because employees tend to either be fully socialized and entering their third year or they
have left the organization (Buchanan, 1974). A total of 79 surveys were distributed and

38 were returned. Three did not fit the criteria and six others did not completely fill out
the survey; therefore, only 29 were entered into the study, resulting in a response rate of

37%. Of these participants, 26 (89.66%) were female and 3 (10.34%) were male. There
were 1 (3.45%) GNs (graduate nurse who has not yet taken the RN licensing exam), 1

(3.45%) LPN, and 27 (93.10%) RNs. Twenty one (72.41%) reported this to be their first

job.

APPARATUS

Data were collected through a self-administered survey (appendix 1). The

instrument was developed from material found in the literature review and was modeled
after the Mentoring and Communication Support Scale (Hill et al, 1989). The first set of

questions were demographic. The researcher was looking for links between the subjects
age, degree level, length of time at current job, first or subsequent job and total numerical
score on the survey. The second set of questions use a Likert scale to collect quantitative

data. Questions 1-7 dealt with task issues; 8-13 with social; 14-19 with sponsorship; 2024 with coaching. These four areas were chosen from research found in the literature

review. Random questions were negatively worded to insure a degree of reliability. The

third set of questions are open ended and leave room for personal responses. These
questions are looking for in-depth examples that reinforce data collected. Twenty five

Co-worker Effect 31

(86.21%) participants answered these questions but only 21 (72.41%) had m-dePth
answers ( more than a yes or no answer). The survey also asked for names and phone
numbers of subjects who would be willing to discuss the survey with the researcher.
Nine (31.03%) subjects listed their phone number. However, none of these were called

due to the fact that their answers did not warrant further discussion. They did not provide
any additional qualitative comments, and nothing out of the ordinary about answers to

specific questions. The researcher's phone number was also listed in case participants
felt more comfortable calling; however, no one called.
A questionnaire was chosen because it allowed the administrator to draw
conclusions about the subjects' attitudes and beliefs. It was self-administered due to time

constraints.

PROCEDURE
Initially four hospitals were contacted: Hamot Medical Center, Metro Health
Center, Millcreek Community Hospital, and Meadville Medical Center. The first three

listed agreed to participate. At Hamot Medical Center the study went through a nursing

research committee to be approved. The directors of nursing were the contacts at all
three hospitals. A list of eligible participants was made available through these contacts.
The researcher provided each hospital with the appropriate number of surveys, which
were distributed either through intra-office mail or personally from the director of

nursing. Each subject received the survey along with a stamped envelope addressed to

the researcher. The subjects were asked to complete and mail the survey within one
week of receipt. Reminders were sent out toward the end of the week. The survey did

not require the subject to place their name on it. They could, however, have chosen to as
discussed above. Complete anonymity of individuals was honored. Consent was implied

upon return of the survey.

Co-worker Effect 32

RESULTS & ANALYSIS

Co-worker Effect 33

Triangulation was used to analyze the data. The use of both quantitative and

qualitative data gave the researcher a thorough picture of what was occurring in this
study group. The use of triangulation also provided additional validity and reliability to

the study (Jick, 1979).

QUANTITATIVE ANALYSTS
Of the 120 possible points, the maximum score on the instrument was 102, the
minimum score was 60. The mean score was 82 with a standard deviation of 11.184. A

mean split was used to break the total scores into two groups: Group 1 = mean <=81,

Group 2 = mean >=83. This split allowed the researcher to look at one group that was
less socialized (Group 1) in comparison to a group that was more highly socialized
(Group 2). The four dimensions were analyzed using a t-test comparing each dimension

to the two total groups. Next, each question was analyzed using the same method. The
following probabilities and mean scores were found. See Appendix 2 for graphs.

Table 1. Mean Scores and Probabilities
Question

Probability Mean Group 1 Mean Group 2

Task
Social
Sponsor
Coach

0.01
0.094
___ 0
0

___ 25
19.857
15.286
12

28.53
21.533
22.2
18.933

#1
#2
#3
#4__
#5
#6
#7
#8
#9_
#10
#11
#12

0.039
0.214
0.227
0.01
0.695
0.008
0.25
0.545
0.123
0.829
0.493
0.014

3.857
3.643
3.929
2.929
3.786
3.286
3.571
3.929
___ 3
2.786
3.714

4.333
4.2
4.2
3.8
3.867
4.133
___ 4
4.067
3.467
2.867
3.467
4.01

3.143

Co-worker Effect 34

Question

Probability Mean Group 1
Mean Group 2

#13
#14
#15
#16
#17
#18
#19
#20
#21
#22
#23
#24

0.114
0.03
0.001
0.005
0.078
___ 0
___ 0
0.024
___ 0
0.001
___ 0
0

3.286
3.357

2.5
1.929
2,214
2.929
2.357
2.857
2.429
2.786
2.429
1.5

3.667
4.133
3.733
3.267
___ 3
4,2
3.867
3.733
___ 4
___ 4
4.133
3.067

Looking at socialization within these three hospitals, the survey found a

significant probability (p<= 05) of difference between the more highly (Group 2) and less
highly (Group 1) socialized groups in three of the four dimensions. This significance

makes sense because fifteen of the twenty-four items had significant probabilities. The
researcher decided to first look at the nine questions whose probability was not

significant and had means that were either both high or both low. Then, questions with
significant probabilities and mean scores that were at least one full point apart were
analyzed.

If a question rendered no significant difference between Group 1 and Group2 and
both scores were high in the Likert Scale, it may be suggested that the subjects were well
socialized in these areas. Six questions fell into this area. These questions (numbers

2,3,5,7,8,and 11) are listed below. Questions 2, 5, and 7 were negatively worded,

therefore their answers were reversed during analysis
2. I am not comfortable asking (a) co-worker(s) questions that relate to my job at
the hospital.

3. I share opinions and ideas with (a )co-worker(s) about the ways tasks are
completed at the hospital.

5. (A) co-worker(s) frequently uses terms with which I am not familiar.

Co-worker Effect 35

7. On occasion, I have been unfairly criticized for not performing a task well
w en, in act, was not given the necessary information/training to do so.
8. When (a) co-worker(s) tells work related jokes and humorous stories, I
understand the meaning of them.

11. My co-workers and I complain to one another about work matters.
Questions 2,3,5,and 7 are all task dimension questions. A majority of the task

questions, four out of seven, received high answers (mean Group 11 mean Group 2 =
3.643/4.2, 3.929/4.2, 3.786/3.867, 3.571/4.0 respectively). In the nursing field, task is

one area of vital importance. Often, a nurse's job entails life saving measures or at the

minimum, not causing patients any harm. Therefore, this finding is reassuring. If
socialization is hindered, most likely the task dimension is not. However, it may also be

the case that due to the nature of the job, much emphasis is placed on task orientation,

leading to high scores for both groups with regards to task dimension questions.
Questions 8 and 11 fall into the social dimension and have respective means

(Group 2 / Group 1) of 3.929/4.067 and 3.714/3.467. Question 8 refers to understanding
a work related joke and was asked to find out how well an employee was fitting in at
work socially. Joke telling and understanding is often not seen until an employee is
considered an insider. That is why it is surprising to see such a high mean (3.929) for

Group 1. This may be caused by the way the questions were worded or the way it was
interpreted. Interestingly, question 11 has a reversed mean. Group 2 has a lower mean
score than Group 1 However, the fact that the difference is small and both answers are

high, makes it insignificant. Both groups reported that they often complain about work

matters with co-workers. With cuts in staffing and continual changes occurring at
hospitals, nurses may relieve stress by complaining.

Group 1 and Group 2 both reported non-significant scores that were both low

(mean Group 2 / Group 1 = 2.786/2.867 ) for question number ten (scores were reversed),
"I don't always feel like I can trust my co-workers with confidential information."

Co-worker Effect 36
Regardless of the degree of socialization, most subjects felt that, confidential information

was not always shared with co-workers. This finding may be influenced by the

limitations on entrance into the study. Only employees working in their current job
between three months and two years were included in the study. Two years may not be
enough time for any employee, no matter how well or poorly socialized, to divulge

confidential information.
Limiting the fifteen questions to those whose significant difference in mean were

equal to or greater than one full point, eight questions were considered:
15. (A )co-worker(s) on the unit frequently devotes extra time and consideration
to me.
16. (A) co-worker(s) has shown a parental-like interest in me and my career.

18. (A )co-worker(s) has taken the time to "show me the ropes" around the
hospital.
19. (A) co-worker(s) has informed me about ways to network at the hospital.
21. I have had (a )co-worker(s) teach me how to interpret management agendas,
behaviors, and actions.
22. (A) co-worker(s) has helped me learn how to work with other departments in
the hospital.
23. (A) co-worker(s) has advised me on the best ways to work with doctors on
the unit.
24. (A) co-worker(s) has taught me strategies for influencing staff meetings.
Questions 15, 16, 18, and 19 all fall into the sponsorship dimension. This

dimension deals with a newcomer having a patron, someone who helps them not only

with task but social elements of socialization. Questions fifteen and sixteen deal
specifically with the mentor spending quality time with the newcomer, while eighteen
and nineteen deal with special time being devoted to show them how to get around the

hospital. These eight questions deal most directly with having a mentor. The significant
differences between Group 1 and Group 2, relative to these eight questions support the

Co-worker Effect 37

importance of the mentor relationship. Having a mentor, someone to trust and confide

in, can help ease the shift from outsider to insider.

Q

s 21, 22, 23, and 24 deal with the coaching dimension of socialization.

In this dimension, a significant difference is also seen between Group 1 and Group 2.

These questions ask if a co-worker has helped to teach them the norms, goals, culture and
informal rules of the hospital. For questions twenty-one and twenty-three, Group 2 had
average scores above 4.00 and Group 1 below 2.5. For question twenty-four, Group 2

had an average of 3.067, but Group 1 only had a 1.5. These differences are the largest of
any of the twenty four questions in the survey. This large difference between the two

groups leads to the conclusion that coaching is an important factor in overall
socialization. Those who received better socialization overall, also scored significantly
higher in the area, while the opposite holds true for those less socialized.

QUALITATIVE STATISTICS

The full transcripts from the third part of the survey are found in appendix 3. Each
subject was given a number for recording purposes and placed into either Group 1 or

Group2 based on their mean score. These numbers proceed each response.

However,

discussing each one extends the limits of this study. Therefore, only certain answers will

be discussed in this section that help to explain the themes that run through the

responses. Each response will be referred to by the subject number. Those subjects in

Group 1 will be analyzed first followed by Group 2.
Group 1 (mean scores <= 81) consists of subjects who were less socialized in this
study group. Their qualitative answers reflected two general themes: the lack of trust

between members and the use of seniority as a weapon.

Seasoned employees will often not share information with new employees until

they are considered trustworthy (Roy, 1952), However, in Group 1. this lack of trust has
lead new nurses to feel like outsiders and to feel incompetent at their jobs. Subject .2

Co-worker Effect 38
replied to question #2 (Often when an employee is new, certain rites and rituals must be

passed before the newcomer is considered an insider. Did you have to go through any of
these rites and rituals?) by stating, 'Openly treated as an outsider until a certain amount

of trust is maintained, then if you are 'liked' by your peers, you are treated as 'one of the
group. If you are not liked,' you are not accepted as a peer, and it is well known that you
are not welcome in that group and only tolerated." She went on to state "...if you do not

enjoy the work environment and feel comfortable in the environment, it is reflected in
your performance." She hits on a key element. Due to socialization hindrance, not being

accepted by co-workers, her work suffers.

Subject #14 tells a synopsis of a chaotic night when she had made a mistake
which was immediately reported and spread around the nursing staff. She ends by saying

that "It is difficult enough to try and master a new job without having to worry whether or

not your are up to standards. When I am at home, I think about all of this and often dread
going to work." These two nurses describe a lack of trust and understanding between

themselves and the seasoned nurses. This lack of trust may ultimately lead to difficulties
in performing tasks or leaving the hospital.

Information is power; to give away information is to give away power. Seasoned
nurses have more information and by sharing, they give away what makes them valuable.
The second general theme that emerged in Group 1 was a sense of seniority being used as

a weapon. Not only would seasoned employees not divulge information about their

knowledge of the hospital, newcomers felt threatened by them. Therefore, they use their

seniority (their knowledge) as a weapon against the young or new nurse. Subject #5
discusses the "sacred cows" that exist at every institution. He states that "This group of
nurses have become almost counterproductive - using their seniority as a weapon or tool

to evoke a general feeling of insufficiency for the new nurse." This nurse has felt the
difficulties of working with seasoned nurses who feel threatened by the new nurse. The

Co-worker Effect 39
problem rises when, similar to Subject #2, this feeling of insufficiency leads to
questioning ability and a mistake is made.

Subject #9 states that "Co-workers seemed reluctant to divulge info as if they

would not be as valuable if someone else knew what they knew." She goes on to explain
how she was not given proper instructions on a task and points out "I was set up for

failure! If anyone else succeeds, she (seasoned co-worker) feels she is less of a person."

She continues Thrown to the wolves! Orientation was brief and incomplete. Most RNs
were reluctant to help or give info prior to a certain situation. Sink or Swim!"

Subject #9 brings up two interesting points. First, she states a possible reason

why socialization hindrance may occur. With cuts in staffing occurring in nursing due to

the changes in health care, a job is more valuable then ever. Younger nurses are more
energetic, ambitious, and most importantly, cost less for the hospital to keep on staff.

However, seasoned nurses may be more efficient because they know short cuts. By not
divulging this information, they feel they maintain a competitive edge over the new

nurse. The second point is the importance of an orientation process. Jablin (1982)
discussed the importance of organizational influence on the employee through orientation

programs. A strong orientation process can initially help a new employee begin to fit in.
This new nurse was not given the help that should have been available to her through the

organization. However, this area expands the scope of this study and needs to be
researched further.
A final response must also be mentioned due to the power and emotion that it

evokes. Subject #29 responded to Question #3 (Have the behaviors of (a) co-worker(s)
affected you while at the hospital or away from the hospital?), "Yes, I have had a nursing

assistant tell me on 2 different occasions that she was contemplating suicide over how
she was treated and evaluated by the staff." Unfortunately, the subject didn't respond to

the question any further. It would be valuable to know why this nursing assistant felt this
strongly about how he/she was treated. What was done to make him/her reach this pomt

Co-worker Effect 40
of contemplating suicide? These are strong words, especially when the subject lead the
researcher to believe that the reason was directly related to the job. This subject did not

provide a phone number to reach her at, so it was impossible to gain further insight.

Group 1 s responses give this study a richer sense of the true difficulties that are
existing among new nurses at the hospital setting. These responses are full of emotional

anger at the seasoned co-workers who have made fitting in at the hospital an almost

impossible task. These answers also reinforce the hindrance that is occurring in Groupl.
Group 2 (mean scores >=83) is composed of subjects who were more highly

socialized in this study group. The general theme in this group was the importance and

the utilization of the mentorship process.
Mentoring , "the situation where a more knowledgeable person is paired with a
neophyte to increase the latter's awareness of certain matters" (Dunn & Moody, 1995), is

a support behavior linked to greater chance of organizational success (Hill et al. 1989).

This process was utilized within Group 2. Role models were mentioned by specific name
and a general sense of bonding between co-workers was expressed. Subject #18

discusses passing her licensing boards and moving into an RN position. "My co-workers
had a party to celebrate and also warn me of the changes I would experience in changing

positions." She goes on to talk about choosing a preceptor and the fact that she had a
chance (through orientation) to see role models I would like (to be like) as I gain more
experience." The support Subject #18 had was more than just task oriented. She

received guidance on matters beyond day to day activities, which helped in her
socialization process.

Subject» 24 talks about the "exceptional bond" she felt between herself and coworkers. She states that she can depend on never feeling alone. She goes on to talk

about a nurse, Marcie, who has helped her with emergency stations that she was
nervous and unsure about She then mentions how Paula, her preceptor, has been a role

Co-worker Effect 41
model, and she considers her a "guardian angel." This subject has received personalized
attention that has helped her grow and develop in her current position at the hospital.

support often reciprocates itself. Subject #23 discussed the strong support
she feels from her co-worker. She states "When a co-worker is having a bad night -1

often do also because I cannot sit while a co-worker is extremely busy." By treating new
nurses with respect and support, the new nurse learns to treat other nurses the same way.

Learning by example, through mentorship, is working in this group of nurses.

Also, subjects in Group 2 mentioned going out to dinner with co-workers and
attending funerals for patients with co-workers. There was no mention of either of these
activities in Group 1. Both of these would fall into the sponsorship category which

includes the mentoring process. Also the results within Group 2 show co-workers

affecting the new nurse in a positive way.

TRIANGULATION

Triangulation allows the researcher to analyze data from two different

perspectives and provides a more valid picture of what is occurring in a specific study
group (Jick, 1979). Statistics provide objective data that allow for general analysis of a

large pool of data. The qualitative responses give a richer understanding of the specifics
found in the statistical analysis. In this study, the qualitative data supported what was
found in the statistical analysis. Significant differences between Group 1 and Group 2
were found in the sponsorship and coaching dimensions in the statistical analysis.

Sponsorship refers to endorsing an individual or acting as a patron. Coaching refers to
teaching the norms, goals, culture, and informal rules of an organization. These
differences are also apparent in the qualitative responses provided.

Group 1 responses described a lack of trust between co-workers and the use of

seniority as a weapon. Each of these represent deficiencies in both the sponsorship and
coaching dimension. Though both of these themes lead to difficulties in all four

Co-worker Effect 42

dimensions, the problem for new nurses originated by not having a patron and not being
taught the way things are done at the hospital. This may and did indirect^ lead to a

problem in being able to complete a task. One of the limitations of this study is that all

four dimensions are related and fluctuate together. Therefore, it is difficult to treat them
as completely separate variables. Statistically, Group 1 showed significantly lower

scores in sponsorship and mentoring.

Group 2 responses provided information describing a sense of mentorship
existing between new nurses and their co-workers. This was not present in Group 1.

Mentorship is a form of the sponsorship dimension, acting as a patron. This more highly
socialized group responded with specific names of individuals who helped them "learn

the ropes" at the hospital. Group 2's responses showed significantly higher scores in
sponsorship and mentoring.
This consistency between the quantitative and qualitative data provides validity

for the research. A majority of task related questions were found to be high for both

groups and were seldom mentioned in the written responses. The only question found to

be low for both groups was a social question related to confidential information. As
discussed previously, a possible reason for a negative response in both groups is the
protocol set for entrance into the study. This may have not provided enough time to

share confidential information with co-workers. There was also no substantial references
made to this form of communication in the written responses.

Finding consistent patterns emerging in both data, supports two conclusions from

the data. First, new nurses are learning the tasks necessaiy to perform their jobs.

However, those in Group 1 mentioned content for their perfonnance due to socialization
hindrance. This may ultimately lead to problems with further task development.
Secondly, there is a difference between more and less soeiaUzed nurses in the coaching
and sponsorship dimensions. Those in Group I were not provided with th. necessary

tools provided in the sponsorship and coaching dimensions. Therefore, hindrance

Co-worker Effect 43
occurred in these areas. The idea of mentorship with one co-worker or many was a
valuable tool in helping new nurses fit in at the hospital. The more highly socialized
nurses were provided with this tool.

Co-worker Effect 44

LIMITATIONS \ FURTHER RESEARCH
<& CONCLUSIONS

Co-worker Effect 45

limitations
Although thirty eight surveys were returned (37% response rate) only twenty nine
fit the required criteria. This small amount of subjects makes it difficult to make

generalized remarks about the nursing field. Another limitation with the survey was the

ambiguous responses that were often provided in the third section. While narrow,
specific questions would have minimized this problem, they may have limited the

responses to the extent that important opinions were omitted. Clarification would have

been useful to fully understand the idea the subject was trying to state. Unfortunately,
none of these respondents provided the researcher with a phone number, nor did they

attempt to reach the researcher. Finally, this study only looks at one work setting and one
profession. Drawing conclusions from the results to other settings and workers may be

limited without further research.

FURTHER RESEARCH
This study focused on the affect seasoned co-workers had on a new nurse. During

analysis, it became apparent that the orientation process, an organizational effect, was a
significant element of learning for the new nurse. While this study focused on the effect
of co-workers, further research on the organizational effect, including the orientation

process would be beneficial.
This study also focused on four dimensions which are all broad elements of

socialization, so they tend to fluctuate together when a change occurs. Further research
with more definite measures of specific elements of socialization is needed. Likewise,

retrospective data in this research was obtained through a survey design. Experimental

research evaluating different approaches to socialization and types of orientation
strategies would provide helpful insight to managers seeking to create an environment
which promotes new employee socialization

Co-worker Effect 46
torship proved to be a valuable tool in socializing new nurses in this study. It
would also be valuable to look at the differences between formal and informal

mentorship programs and how they can be tailored to the hospital setting. Formal
programs may run into financial and time constraints (Dunn & Moody, 1995). It is also
possible that a new nurse may be paired with a seasoned nurse with whom they can not

communicate on the task or social level. If this occurs, there are two possibilities. The
new nurse s socialization process may be hindered. Or, if the atmosphere at the hospital

is one of support, it is hopeful that the new nurse will be adopted by a seasoned nurse

who will help to show her/him how to move to an insider. Not all employees are meant to
be mentors (Dunn & Moody, 1995).
However, semi-formal programs, though less structured, are also an option (Dunn
& Moody, 1995). These programs allow the newcomer to choose their own mentor.

This freedom may or may not be beneficial. Less paperwork and follow-up is required,
which can be viewed as positive due to time constraints or negative because newcomers

may fall through the cracks.

Regardless, formal or semi-formal mentorship programs have proved to be
helpful in other professional organizations (Dunn & Moody, 1995; Hill et al, 1989).
While many healthcare agencies have a mentorship program for new nurses, further

research would be beneficial to help agencies determine the most efficient and effective
kind of program.

CONCLUSIONS
This study links the use of mentorship to higher levels of socialization in the
hospital nursing setting. This findings eomtorates past research findings on the

importance of mentorship in socialization at the university setting (Hi.l et.l, 19S9) The

concepts of socialization and mentorship are rooted in —icaii.n phenomena.

Different levels and functions of —cation are utilized hy ah organ.zatmns.

Co-worker Effect 47

Therefore, this study has a heuristic function in that it calls to the communication field,
which crosses all organizations, to look further at the effects of mentorship in the

socialization process.

This study also extends the body of communication knowledge in the area of

socialization. It further supports the importance of the co-worker during this transitional

period but also found organizational effects to be relevant to the newcomer.
Organizations must understand the importance the co-worker has on the assimilation of

newcomers. The co-worker has the power to affect the newcomer in both positive and
negative ways. The organization has a responsibility to the newcomer, to promote a
smooth transition into the workplace. By supporting and implementing mentorship

programs, the organization promotes open channels of communication and possibly
higher levels of production. This study supports the importance of the co-worker within

the organization. However, it also reveals the need to look at organizational involvement
in the co-worker/newcomer dynamic.

Co-worker Effect 48

APPENDIX 1

Co-worker Effect 49
defiifrtionSWer 1116 f°110Wing three *luest’ons than move on to the instructions and

1. Check which applies:
Male
Female
2. Age
3. Check which applies
LPN
RN
4. Please indicate the length of time you have been employed in your current position at
the hospital.
__________
5. Is this your first job as a practicing nurse?
If no, in what type of setting(s) have
you worked previously?

Instructions Part 1: I would like to focus on your work environment in general. For the
following situations, please indicate what degree of frequency you have engaged in the
following activities. Circle the number which best describes your feelings.
5= Always
4= Frequently
3= Once in awhile
2= Seldom
1= Never

Co-worker - a person with whom you work, a peer

1. I receive the necessary information from a co-worker(s) to do my job.
1
2
3
4
5

2. I am not comfortable asking a co-worker(s) questions that relate to my job at the
hospital.
5
4
3
2
1
3. I share opinions and ideas with a co-worker(s) about the ways tasks are completed at
the hospital.
1

2

3

4

5

ive feedback about my job performance from a co-worker(s).
4. I receive constructive
345
1
2

5. A co-worker(s) frequently uses terms with which I am not familiar.
4
5
1
2
3

6 I was fully trained about this hospital's patient care protocols by a co-worker(s).
1
2
3
4.3

Co-worker Effect 50

toJZSS"
Unfairlymformation/training
;EritiCiZed f°r nOt perf0rmin
wel1 whe"’in
’
gi n the necessary
to do so S a
1

2

3

4

5

8. When a co-worker(s) tells work related jokes and humorous stories, I understand the
meaning ot them.
1
2
3
4
5
9. My co-workers and I often discuss our personal lives.
1
234

5

10. I don t always feel like I can trust my co-workers with confidential information.
1
2
3
4
5
11. My co-workers and I complain to one another about work matters
1
2
3
4
5

12. I consider my co-workers my friends.
1
2
3

4

5

13. A co-worker can allude to a previously told joke or humorous story, and we (co­
workers and I) will laugh at it.
5
4
1
2
3
14. There is a co-worker(s) on the unit that I admire.
12
3
4

5

15. A co-worker(s) on the unit frequently devotes extra time and consideration to me.
1
2
3
4
5
16. A co-worker(s) has shown a parental-like interest in me and my career.
5
17. I receive special work-related attention from a co-worker(s).

18 A co-worker(s) has taken the time to "show me the ropes" around the hospital.
1
2
3
4
5

19. A co-worker(s) has informed me about ways to network at the hospital.
4
5
1
2
3

20. I have had a co-Worker(s) teach me about hospital politics.
1
2
3
4

Co-worker Effect 51
behavioJ and actio^^^

1

2

3

me h°W * *nterpret manaSement agendas>
4

5

22. A co worker(s) has helped me learn how to work with other departments in the
hospital.
1
2
3
4
5
23. A co-worker(s) has advised me on the best ways to work with doctors on the unit.
1
2
3
4
5

24. A co-worker(s) has taught me strategies for influencing staff meetings.
1
2
3
4
5

Instructions Part 2: Please answer the following questions clearly and concisely. I am
looking for specific examples and stories, not generalizations. If you need more room
feel free to write on an extra piece of paper.
1. Have you ever felt at any point during your current employment at the hospital that
your ability to learn your job has been hindered by a co-worker(s)? Give examples.

2. Often when an employee is new, certain rites and rituals must be passed before the
newcomer is considered an insider. Did you have to go through any of these rites or
rituals? What were they?
3. Have the behaviors of (a) co-worker(s) affected you while at the hospital or away
from the hospital? When and in what ways?

I am very interested in specific stories that relate to ways in which you learned what you
needed to know to do your job and to fit in at the hospital. If possible, would like to do a
brief (10-15 minute) telephone interview to talk with you one-on-one. Complete
confidentiality will be assured. If you are interested please write down your first name,
phone number, and a good time to reach you in the space below. Please feel free to call
me anytime to discuss any of the above questions (Michele, 835-3804).

Co-worker Effect 52

APPENDIX 2

Co-worker Effect 53

Figure 1. Task Dimension

5r

4I
3

2
1
'CM

'Q 2

'Q 3

'Q 4

□ 'Group 1

'Q 6

'Q5

'Q 7

O 'Group 2

Figure 2. Social Dimension

5
4

3
2

1
0^'Q8

'Q 9

'Q 10

o 'Group 1

■Q 11

’Q 12

O 'Group 2

’Q 13

Co-worker Effect 54

Figures. Sponsor Dimension

54[
3
2

1
0
'Q 14

'Q 15

'Q 16

’Q 18

'Q 17

□ 'Group 1

’Q 19

H 'Group 2

Figure 4. Coach Dimension

5<
4
3 Z
2
1
0^
'Q 20

’Q 21

'Q 22

□ 'Group 1

'Q 23

S 'Group 2

'Q 24

Co-worker Effect 55

APPENDIX 3

Co-worker Effect 56

The following includes

re!ponses om the thw

of tte

asked for persona! answers. All questions were „r answered by all respondents, so only
those responses given are listed. The responses were transcribed verbatim from the

original survey. Each answer was plated in either Group I or Group 2, corresponding to
the quantitative data. (Group 1 mean <-SI, Group 2 men >-S2). Each response is
proceeded by the subject number and question number.

GROUP 1
Subject #2

Question#! ( Have you ever felt at any point during your employment at the
hospital that your ability to learn your job has been hindered by (a )co-worker(s)?)

Having rumors circulate the hospital and feeling like everyone is "talking about you" and
your job performance and character, then, you do not feel like the professional that you

are and that you are not capable of completing tasks appropriately. This even has gone
into personal lives outside of the hospital.

Question#! (Often when an employee is new, certain rites and rituals must be passed
before the newcomer is considered an insider. Did you have to go through any of
these rites or rituals? What were they?)

Openly treated as an outsider until a certain amount of trust is maintained, then if you are
"liked" by your peers, you are treated as "one of the group". If you are "not liked", you

are not accepted as a peer, and it is well known that you are not welcome in that group
and only tolerated.
Question#? (Have the behaviors of (a) cmworherfs) affected you whiie a. the

hospital or away from the hospital? When and In what ways?)

Co-worker Effect 57
See #1... Working in the hospital setting is like a "time bomb waiting to go off'. Each

day presents a different challenge. You never know what "mood" a few co-workers will

be in to begin your day or evening - is it going to be a good day or a bad day - when

everyone is walking on eggshells. There are too many important tasks involved with
patients to worry about what co-workers may think. But, if you do not enjoy the work
environment and feel comfortable in the environment, it is reflected in your performance.

My goals as a nurse are to give my clients the best possible care I can, as I have been
taught to do. I just wish that co-workers can be more receptive to other peers needs and

treat each other with the respect we all richly deserve.

Subject #3

1. People complaining too much about change. Many of the workers take on an attitude
that they are out to get others instead of constructive criticism-which leads to less of a

team attitude.

2. No, I don't necessarily feel a part of the group, or insider.

Subject #5

3. Yes, there are sacred cows in every institution. These people are here for several
reasons. 1.) Advanced abilities or skills or more often... 2.) just nurses who have lost the

vision of continually bettering themselves to enhance the profession. This group of

nurses have become almost counterproductive - using their seniority as a weapon or tool
to evoke a general feeling of insufficiency for the new nurse. These are nurses who are
praying that the hospital will remain open long enough for them to retire because they

wouldn't be able to function in another facility. (Big fish in a small pond syndrome.)

Co-worker Effect 58
Subject #7

3.1 feel it is very difficult to get along with the 7-3 staff. Sometimes I wonder why
certain people have taken on the role of nurse ( caring, compassionate, understanding
person) when they can not display the same qualities toward their co-workers.

Subject #9

1. Co-workers seemed reluctant to divulge info as if they would not be as valuable if

someone else knew what they knew. Instead of teaching about pre-op testing, the Unit
Coordinator just did it - she did not allow me to follow and watch or guide me through it.
However, in her absence, I was responsible for pre-ops. On her return she criticized how

it was done. I was thrown into a situation without proper training. I was set up for

failure! If anyone else succeeds, she feels she is less of a person.
3. Yes. Criticism in front of patients or peers is very degrading and demoralizing. Of

course, eventually you feel incompetent at work and at home.

Subject #9 - Response to researcher’s final paragraph that asked for specific stories

that relate to ways in which the subject learned what they needed to know to do
their job and fit in at the hospital.
Thrown to the wolves! Orientation was brief and incomplete. Most RNs were reluctant

to help or give info prior to a certain situation. Sink or Swim - Fortunately, I kept my
head above the water.

Subject #12

1. No
2. No. peopie here we.. very nice and My. o«e„ fofood.eing foenMs .0

beforeI was aWe to infood.ee myself. Man, people
need arose.
3. No

then assistance before foe

Co-worker Effect 59
Subject #13
1. No

2. I was a newcomer, but I never noticed any "rites or rituals". I fit right in without

problems.
3. Sometimes I work with nurses (a few) who like the easy route. They pick the easy
patients and push their work off on me. This irritates me, but I have never said anything.

I just do the best job I can.

Subject #14

3. While on orientation, I had a really chaotic night and some mistakes were made (I
didn't have time to turn down someone's heparin) and the next day a PCA came up and

told me that he heard about it from the other nurses. This has made me feel paranoid
about my job performance, and I often worry if I am doing the right think or not. I have
also heard nurses discuss other nurses behind their backs after they have been nice to
their face, and it makes me wonder what do they say about me when I'm not around. It is
difficult enough to try and master a new job without having to worry whether or not you

are up to standards. When I am at home, I think about all of this and I often dread going
to work.

Subject #19
1. On the unit I currently work on, I have a good working relationship with my co­
workers and we work well together. Occasionally, I am "pulled " to another unit, i.e.

telemetry floor, and feel isolated regarding my patient's cardiac status. The certified RN
documentation on my patient's charts i.e. telemetry strip and does not communicate to me

what that status is.

Co-worker Effect 60

2. I must say that I have always felt comfortable and welcome since my starting at the
hospital. I do know of other new nurses who had a hard time "fitting in". I think a lot of

it is personality clashes. I have been fortunate.

3. Occasionally, we all get our "moments" when we're stressed and things are a little
crazy and that affects the floor and myself.

Subject #21

1.1 had a bad experience with an individual (personality clash), sic That when I would
ask for information about patients medication, procedures and care, she would refuse to

give the information to me. She would tell me to read the chart or find out on my own.
Needless to say, she was reprimanded.

3. When I first started nursing in 1992 I worked on med/surg floor with a person who was
just finishing nursing school. She had worked at this hospital for quite a while as an

LPN, so she felt she was my boss. When I was placed in a position as head nurse, this

individual resented me because she had been there longer. When I would give her
instructions or assignments she would become very verbal, refuse to do certain duties and
when I would offer help she would refuse.

Subject #25

1. Not co-workers - management activity and understaffing, [sic] Creating overload of

work for one nurse to handle.
2. No
3. None

Subject #26

1-3. No

Co-worker Effect 61

Subject #28
not think of any incident where another co-worker, in my opinion, attempted to

hinder my ability to learn at the hospital. If I felt I needed to know or learn something

and the nurse in question didnt know the answer, I found someone who could answer my
questions.

2. There seems to be an unspoken theme that until you, as an RN, have been in a # of

code blues, hung blood products, started a # of IVs, made a # of nursing assignments
where physicians act upon your assessment, and been armpit deep in shit - then only have

you graduated from newcomer to insider.

3. I am a man working in a woman's world. This unto itself, is quite an education. At
times, a shift seems like I'm married to 4 or 5 women without the marital benefits. We
all complain that the nurses need a union, however, most are not willing to band together
to organize one. Also, I've learned that women nurses I've worked with carry grudges for

a longer period of time rather than confront each other and resolve the issue. To me, this
is like a slow death - stripped naked and tied to an anthill. For me, I speak my mind. I

don't intend to hurt feelings. Maybe I do. Nevertheless, all will know where I stand,
what I like and dislike, agree or disagree with whatever the issue. I try not to carry any of

my work home with me. Most of the time this is possible. Sometimes not though.

Subject #29
1. No

2. No
3. Yes, I have had a nursing assistant tell me on 2 different occasions that she was

.plating suicide over how she treated and evaluated by staff.
contem
I sincerely feel that most hospitals are operating in a very gray area as to the training that
new RNs receive and the length of time before they are left in charge of the floor. My
o™ personal Wing Is that • nurse should have ar least 1 year experience before being

Co-worker Effect 62
left in charge. I feel that not only are patients in jeopardy at times because of RN's lack

of experience but also the RNs and co-workers under them are at risk of loss of licensee.

As staffing reductions hit harder and harder on nursing staff, this can only get worse.

GROUP 2

Subject #4 1-3. No

Subject #6

l.No
2. The only thing I found out that I must do as a new nurse to be considered an equal was
stand up for myself and my actions to nurses who have been working at the hospital for
years.

3. No

Subject #8

1-3. No

Subject #10

2. My particular job in critical care required 3 months orientation with a nurse from the
unit. Once my orientation was over, I just felt that the nurses always kept an eye on me

until they felt secure with my work as a nurse.

3 . If a fellow employee wee nnh.ppy or "bumed oof from their job, it really reflected in

their work. Poor work and moral towards patients and peers. 1 wish to not act like that
in my job.

Co-worker Effect 63

Subject #11

2. Yes. I have been at the same hospital for 10 years. My current position us

supervision. The ICU nurses that I used to work with were constantly testing me in my
new position. My staffing decisions to pull or float an ICU nurse out were questioned
We need that person for safe staffing" [sic] Once I let everyone know I was serious and
not backing down, I gradually earned their respect.

3. Yes. When backstabbing occurs. One time the assignment made was poorly done and

a nurse was to care for a T.B. patient, but she had not been fit tested yet. She told the
charge nurse and called me because the assignment was not changed. I received three

calls re: the assignment and three times told the floor to change the assignment. I made

rounds and the change never happened. 11/2 [sic] hours into the shift no one had cared
for the patient. I had someone go in to provide care and repeated to change the

assignment. 2 hours later the problem existed. I again talked to the charge nurse. 1 [sic]
hour later without change I got angry and told her how unacceptable this behavior was

and to take care of it. I wrote up the incident. The charge nurse said to the DON she
wished I had discussed it with her before writing it up! I steamed for a few days.

Subject # 15

1 The RN who oriented me when I was hired had a very casual attitude toward patient

care and policies and procedures. Many of the questions that I asked her were written off
as "whatever" or "that’s good enough". My knowledge of pacemakers and pacers is
limited. Other critical care nurses on my unit appear to be equally limited, or unwilling
to aid in helping me understand.

2. None have been observed.
3. Many of the nurses on our unit are very caring and spend a great deal of time with
patient's families. This has influenced me in a positive way. Many of us get involved in

Co-worker Effect 64
the personal and family aspect of the patient's social needs. Other co-workers and I have

attended the funeral home of fond patient's memorials.

Subject #17
1. No

2. Invited to go out after work with co-workers
3. No

Subject #18
1. I can t really pinpoint 1 specific example but different times I notice that different co­
workers will give different answers to the same question. Ex: How to perform a certain

task.

2. I worked on the Step Down Unit 3 months as a patient care assistant. After passing
boards, my co-workers had a party to celebrate and also to warn me of the changes I

would experience in changing positions. I then began a 6 week orientation. I was
allowed to choose my preceptor and I was also allowed to pick 8 or 12 hour shifts. I had

several competencies in which I had to meet within my 6 week period. I had a chance to
observe patients in other hospital areas such as cath lab, OR, stress lab, ICUs - so I had an

idea of what patients were going through before and during their stay in the unit. After 6
weeks-1 was on my own and everyone helped out as needed. I asked alot of questions. I

can honestly say that it took 8-12 months to feel like I was part of the group .

3. The attitudes of co-workers that I work with affect me. By seeing different attitudes
and manners of certain nurses - I had a chance to see role models I would like to be like
as I gain more experience. I also get a chance to see who I can most rely on for help and
opinions.

Co-worker Effect 65
Subject #20
1. Never have experienced this aspect.

2. None experienced.
3. I work with one nurse who I feel is very rude. She is an excellent nurse, fast worker
and does an excellent job knowledge wise - but lacks "empathetic" attitude which I feel is

important. I leave the hospital feeling like I haven't worked fast enough and what

patients we shared care for feel I'm inadequate as a nurse and that they (patients) feel the
hospital has a bunch of un-caring nurses.

Subject #22

1. No, I don't feel my ability to learn has been hindered by my co-workers. My co­
workers have been very good with answering my questions and showing me things I've

never done before. Some more patients than others but all willing to lend a helping hand.
2. If I went through them, I wasn't aware of them.
3. No

Subject #23

1. Yes - being a new nurse and young employee it's always difficult to establish a rapport
with co-workers and to expect the same type of dedication from all nurses, however, I

have found in my experience that the truly dedicated, caring, helpful nurses far outway
the bad.

2. As far as rites and rituals -1 cannot identify a specific act, however, it takes a few
months for co-workers to "feel you out" as a professional and as a person. I'm to the

point now (4 months) that I feel much at home with my job and co-workers.

3. Yes -1 often take worries of myself, my patients, and co-workers home with me.
When a co-worker is having a bad night -1 often do also because I cannot sit while a co-

Co-worker Effect 66

worker is extremely busy. With the lack of staff at MCH you need to stick together as a
team regardless of the fact that we practice primary nursing.

Subject #24

1. I have felt an exceptional bond with many of the nurses I work with, wherever a
trauma or emergency may occur with one of my patients I can depend on not feeling

alone. That is of course with particular nurses (80% I work with) for example my first
code, of course I was nervous but there is this nurse Marcie, who really helped, she has

her ACLS and lives for this adrenaline rush, she helped me a great deal.

2. There was nothing in particular, but it was difficult at first as with any "new start".
Learning the doctors, there sic moods, how to deal with them, being friendly and not

deceitful by talking about others helps. As well as offering a hand to others when they
really need because most nurses on my floor will return the favor.

3. Yes, especially my preceptor Paula, she has been such a role model. Even today I feel
comfortable and confident she'll be there for me no matter what. She s my guardian
angel.

Subject #27
1-3. No

Co-worker Effect 67

REFERENCES

Co-worker Effect 68

Brimm, O.G. (1966). Socialization through

Af,„ a,ufd

i

T ~

- B™ * S'

I'’™ Sern
remJournal
;”dS ofSpeech Communication, 49, 27-42.
Buchanan, B. (1974). Building organizational commitment. The socialization of
managers in work organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 19, 533-546.

Caplaw, T. (1964). Principles of Organizations. New York: Hartcourt, Bruce, & World.

Chao, G„ Gardner, P., Klein, H., O'Leary-Kelly, A., & Wolf, S. (1994). Organizational
Socialization, its content and consequences. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 79,

Duda, H. (1992,February). The honeymoon is over in corporate America. HRMagazine,
pp. 66-74.

Dugoni, B.L. & Ilgen, D.R. (1987). Realistic job previews and the adjustments of new
employees. Academy ofManagement Review, 24,579-591.

Dunn, R., Moody, J. (1995, October). Mentoring in the academy: A survey of existing
programs. Paper presented at the meeting First Annual Conference on Applied
Communication, Edinboro, PA.
Etzioni, A. (1961). A Comparative Analysis of Complex Organizations. New York: Free
Press.

Evan, N. (1963). Peer group interaction and organizational socialization: A study of
employee turnover. American Sociology Review, 28, 436-440.

Feldman, D.C. (1976). A contingency theory of socialization. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 21, 433-452.

Feldman, D.C. (1981). The multiple socialization of newcomers. Academy of

Management Review, 6, 309-318.

„
r, o
u u c 110771 Job resignation as a function ofrole orientation and
Graen, G. & Ginsburgh, S. (
■
investigation of organizational assimilation,
leader acceptance: A longitudal mvestigauon
B
Organizational Behavior and Human Performanc , ,

Co-worker Effect 69
’ organization*'1973^ Role assimilation processes in a complex
organization. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 3, 395-420.
Hill, S. Bahmuk, M„ Dobos, J., & Rouner, D. (1989). Mentoring and other
communication support in the academic setting. Group & Organizational Studies,
Jablin, F.M. (1982). Organizational communication: an assimilation approach. In M.E.
Rolott & C.R. Buger (Eds.), Social Cognition and Communication (pp. 255-286).
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Jablin, F.M. (1984). Assimilating new members into organizations. In R.N. Bostrom
(Ed.), Communication Yearbook 8 (pp.594-626). Newbuiy Park, CA: Sage.
Jick, T.D. (1979). Moving qualitative and quantitative methods: Triangulation in action.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 24, 602-611.

Kassing, J. (1985). Learning how to feel: Examining the socialization of emotional
communication between organizational members. Paper presented at the meeting
of the Eastern Communication Association.

Katz, R. (1985). Organizational stress and early socialization experiences. In T. Beehr &
R. Bhagat (Eds.), Human Stress and Cognition in Organization: An Integrated
Perspective (pp. 117-139). New York: John Wiley.
Kram, K., Isabella, L. (1985). Mentoring alternatives: The role of peer relationships in
career development. Academy ofManagement Journal,
100-132.

Louis, M.R. (1980). Surprise and sensemaking: what newcomers experience in entering
unfamiliar organizational settings. Administrative Science Quarterly, 25, 226-251.
Meissner, J. (1986). Nurses: are we eating our young?. Nursing 1986,16,51-53.

Morrison, E. (1993). Longitudinal study of the effects of information seeking on
newcomer socialization. Journal ofApplied Communication, 78, 173-184.

Nelson, D. (1987). Organizational socialization: a stress perspective. Journal of
Occupational Behaviour, 8, 311-324.
Nelson, D. (1990). Adjusting » a new organisation: eying the transition Iron, outsiderto
Nelson, D. (1990). Adjusting to
insider. Prevention-in-Human-Services, 8, 61-86.

New York: Academic Press.

Co-worker Effect 70
POrt"' Y«k’: Mcft™' R <1”5> **•*• ” O>»—« New

Rejchers A. (1987). An interactionist perspective on newcomers socialization rates.
Academy oj Management Review, 12, 278-287.

Roy, D.C. (1952). Quota restriction and goldbricking in a machine shop. Journal of
Sociology, 57, 426-442.

Schein, E.H. (1968). Organizational socialization and the profession of management.
Industrial Management Review, 9,1-16
Schein, E. H. (1985). Organizational Culture and Leadership. San Fransisco: JosseyBass.
Shapiro, E., Haseltine, F., & Rowe, M. (1978). Moving up: Role models, mentors, and
the patron system. Sloan Management Review, 19, 51-58.

Stohl, C. (1986). The role of memorable messages in the process of organizational
socialization. Communication Quarterly, 34, 231-249.
VanMaanen, J. (1975). Socialization to work. In R. Dubin (Ed.), Handbook of work,
organization, and society (pp.67-120). Chicago: Rand McNally.
VanMaanen, J. (1977). Experiencing organizations: notes on the meaning of career and
socialization. In J. Manen (Ed.), Organizational Careers: Some New Perspectives
(pp. 15-45). New York: John Wiley.

VanMaanen, J. & Schein, E.H. (1979). Toward a theory of organizational socialization.
In Staw, B. (Ed.), Research in Organizational Behavior (pp. 79-98). Greenwich,
CT: Jal Press.

Wanous, J.P. (1977). Organizational entry: newcomers moving from outside to inside.
Psychological Bulletin, 84, 601-618.
J.P. (1980). Oego—— oodsooUM of
newcomers. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.