The Impact of Buddying on Psychological Capital and Work Engagement: An Empirical Study of Socialization in the Professional Services Sector
Abstract
This article reports on a study investigating the impact of new employees' satisfaction with buddying on work engagement and explores the role of psychological capital in mediating this relationship. The study took place within a professional services organization wherein data were collected from 78 graduate newcomers in receipt of buddying. Satisfaction with buddying was found to have a positive relationship to both work engagement and psychological capital. The satisfaction with the buddy/work engagement relationship was fully mediated by psychological capital, providing support for Saks & Gruman's (2011) socialization resources theory. The results underscore the valuable role buddying can play as part of organizational socialization from a positive organizational behavior perspective. The research contributes to the growing evidence that positively oriented human resource practices can develop personal resources of newcomers within organizations. Recommendations are made for how the organization can improve and build upon this resource, thus developing the psychological capital of newcomers. © 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Introduction
The first few months in a new job can be a critical determinant of an employee's long-term success within an organization (Schermerhorn, 1993). Van Maanen and Schein (1979, p. 211) described effective organizational socialization as “the process by which an individual acquires the social knowledge and skills necessary to assume an organizational role.” Socialization can enable the organization to foster positive and context-appropriate attitudes toward work and the work environment, and help newcomers to come “to appreciate the values, abilities, expected behaviors, and social knowledge essential for assuming an organizational role” (Louis, 1980, pp. 229–230). The “on-boarding” process (Bauer & Elder, 2006) can be at once exciting and daunting, and for the organization sets the framework for the future organizational career of the new recruit.
The socialization process to date has been seen as a function primarily of learning—acquiring and assimilating knowledge and information that typify group and organizational membership. The organization provides information and knowledge that the newcomer uses to understand what is expected of them. This reduces their uncertainty (uncertainty reduction theory; Falcione & Wilson, 1988; Miller & Jablin, 1991) and enables the newcomer to adjust to the organizational context. Thus, learning mediates the relationship between socialization processes and adjustment (Allen, McManus, & Russell, 1999; Ashforth, Sluss, & Harrison 2007; Cooper-Thomas & Anderson, 2002).
Recently, however, Saks and Gruman (2011) have reexamined the concept of organizational socialization through the lens of positive organizational behavior. Rather than adopting a cognitive-learning approach based in uncertainty reduction, Saks and Gruman instead posit that organizational socialization develops newcomers' psychological capital (Luthans, Youssef, & Avolio, 2007), which becomes a job resource, enhancing the individual's abilities to achieve work goals. This concept is derived from the Job Demands–Resources model as outlined by Demerouti and colleagues (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007; Demerouti, Bakker, Nachreiner, & Schaufeli, 2001). Job resources have been shown to predict positive work outcomes such as work engagement, extra role performance, and commitment. In line with this argument, therefore, Saks and Gruman propose a socialization resources theory (SRT), whereby socialization resources develop psychological capital, leading to positive socialization outcomes. This article presents a test of this model, using the socialization technique of buddying in a large professional services organization.
First, we expand upon the role and significance of organizational socialization in contemporary organizations. From there, we move on to explore buddying as a socialization technique. Finally, we propose and test the SRT model, examining the impact of buddying as a socialization mechanism on the development of psychological capital (Luthans, Youssef, & Avolio, 2007) and work engagement (Schaufeli, Salanova, Gonzalez-Romá, & Bakker, 2002) from a positive psychological perspective.
In line with Saks and Gruman's work, we hypothesize that buddying affects work engagement through its impact on the individual's psychological capital, which serves as a job resource. We test whether psychological capital mediates the socialization–engagement relationship, as an SRT model would predict. Absence of such mediation would provide stronger support for the uncertainty reduction approach prominent in the literature to date.
Organizational Socialization and Work Engagement
Organizational socialization has been defined as the process by which newcomers to an organization make the transformation from outsiders to participating members (Bauer, Bodner, Erdogan, Truxillo, & Tucker, 2007; Feldman, 1976). This newcomer adjustment process has become increasingly frequent as organizational tenure has declined and, at least until the beginning of the global financial crisis in 2008, the proportion of “new hires” has increased. In the United States, for example, Rollag, Parise, and Cross (2005) identified that 25 percent of all workers have been with their company for less than a year, and statistics from the Department of Labor indicate a median tenure for individuals between the ages of 25 and 34 as only 3.1 years (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2010). In the United Kingdom in 2010, 45 percent of employees had been working in the same firm for 5 years or less (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD], 2011).
While mobility has been a dominant theme in labor market research since the early 1980s, it comes at a cost both to the individual and the employer. Employers incur costs directly through recruitment, and indirectly through the costs of suboptimal performance, until new hires come fully onboard. In the United Kingdom, for example, the Chartered Institute for Personnel and Development (CIPD, 2011) estimated direct recruitment costs as, on average, £7,500 for senior managerial posts and nearly £2,500 for other roles.
In terms of the costs of increased mobility to individuals, new starters invest heavily in socialization processes through their attempts at sense making within the organization (Louis, 1980). Socialization into new organizations also implies cognitive, affective, and behavioral demands of employees in the creation of an appropriate organizational (social) identity (Ashforth & Mael, 1989; Tajfel & Turner, 1979) in order to maintain positive self-esteem and well-being (Grieve & Hogg, 1999; Haslam, Jetten, Postmes, & Haslam, 2009; Van Dick, Wagner, Stellmacher, & Christ, 2004). As the majority of turnover occurs among new employees (Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service [ACAS], 2010), identifying effective socialization practices should be a priority for both the organization and the employee, the former experiencing reduced turnover costs and the latter a more rapid adjustment to the new workplace and a better sense of well-being and self-esteem.
In recent years, the positive psychology movement has refocused attention on human strengths and positive psychological capacities (Aspinwall & Staudinger, 2003; Luthans, 2002; Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000). Taking a positive organizational behavior (POB) agenda, effective socialization would strive to value individuals' strengths and recognize their active role in developing positive capacities in both themselves and the organization. Socialization that results in engaged employees, rather than merely knowledgeable ones, may better reflect the needs of contemporary organizations as well as benefitting the individuals themselves. Here, we focus on work engagement as a positive outcome of effective socialization, work engagement having been shown to be predictive of employee well-being (Schaufeli, Bakker, & Van Rhenen, 2009) and organizational performance (Harter, Schmidt, & Hayes, 2002; Luthans, Avolio, Walumbwa, & Li, 2005; Schaufeli, Bakker, & Salanova, 2006).
Work engagement signifies a sense of psychological presence when performing an organizational role. It is a concept closely linked to what Csikszentmihalyi (1991) refers to as “flow”—a sensation of acting with total involvement and a lack of consciousness about the “self.” Engagement is, however, construed as a more permanent state of being than an affective experience associated with a particular activity or event. Engaged workers perform better due to the positive emotions, good health, and ability to mobilize resources associated with this cognitive state (Bakker & Demerouti, 2008; Bakker, Van Emmerik, & Euwema, 2006; Salanova, Agut, & Peiró, 2005). Some of the most compelling evidence for the organizational performance effects of work engagement is provided in diary studies carried out by Xanthopoulou and colleagues (Xanthopoulou, Bakker, Demerouti, & Schaufeli, 2007; Xanthopoulou, Bakker, Heuven, Demerouti, & Schaufeli, 2008), who demonstrated an association between higher levels of work engagement and higher objective financial returns.
Schaufeli, Salanova, Gonzalez-Romá and Bakker (2002) offer an explanation of how engagement at work can lead to performance gains and enhanced well-being. They identified the underlying dimensions of work-related engagement to be vigor, dedication, and absorption. People experiencing vigor at work will show high levels of energy and mental resilience, a willingness to invest effort, and persistence in the face of difficulties. Those experiencing dedication will be strongly involved in their work and experience a sense of pride, enthusiasm, significance, and inspiration. Absorption is characterized by being fully concentrated and deeply engrossed in one's work. This interpretation of work engagement has received much attention throughout Western psychology, and is central to the model of job resources that shows how availability of resources such as social support, performance feedback, and autonomy are exclusive predictors of subsequent work engagement (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004). Socialization techniques that generate work-related engagement therefore can be expected to demonstrate a range of benefits, both individually and organizationally.
While a POB perspective suggests that engaged employees can unlock their personal capabilities and potential, it should not be forgotten that there is an alternative view on organizational socialization. Those coming from a labor process perspective within sociology, for example, talk of how organizations may use cultural inculcation techniques (such as socialization) as a form of normative control (Ray, 1986). Ray argues that such control seeks to exert the organizational order as a hegemonic and potentially exploitative system. Others have also questioned, for example, whether all organizational citizenship behaviors (OCBs; seen as a positive outcome of engagement) are truly voluntary or whether these may become “compulsory” (Vigoda-Gadot, 2007). Such compulsory OCBs may occur in part, because of the exertion of normative pressure from management (Coyle-Shapiro, Kessler, & Purcell, 2004). Such pressures may be transmitted during initial organizational entry when the “expected behaviors” of a particular role (Louis, 1980, pp. 229–230) are communicated during organizational socialization. Notwithstanding these valid criticisms, there remains potential for organizational socialization to provide mutual benefits to organizations and employees via work engagement, which may be achieved through a number of different tactics and resources.
Socialization Tactics and Buddying
The activities undertaken by organizations to socialize newcomers can be considered either in terms of the approach adopted or the techniques used. Van Maanen and Schein (1979) developed an influential typology of socialization tactics, dependent on the extent to which the techniques adopted could be construed as collective or individual; formal or informal; sequential or random (depending on whether discrete and identifiable steps to reach a particular role are identified by the organization); fixed or variable (as regards the time taken to complete socialization); serial (where strong organizational role models are used) or disjunctive (where no such role models exist); and investiture (where the suitability of an individual's existing characteristics are promoted) or divestiture (where “undesirable” characteristics of individuals are identified and changed). Institutionalized tactics (Jones, 1986), for example, represent a collective, formalized, sequential, fixed, and serial process, aimed primarily at uncertainty reduction through providing structured, fixed information to guide behavior. Such institutionalized tactics are particularly good at producing a “custodial” role orientation, where the organization's prevailing norms are identified with and accepted (Van Maanen & Schein, 1979). However, newcomers may have differing needs in terms of the uncertainty with which they can cope, the information they require, and whether they are expected to engage in active change and innovation (Van Maanen & Schein, 1979). Differing socialization tactics are therefore suitable for different roles.
In this article, we are focusing on one particular socialization tactic: buddying. Typically, buddy schemes provide newcomers with a contact within the organization with whom they can develop a professional but informal relationship (Williams, 2006). The buddy is of a similar level as the newcomer, typically just having a little more organizational experience than the newcomer. While the pairing is formally assigned, the development of that relationship may take many forms, and this unique relationship between peers is designed to provide support during the phase of newcomer adjustment (Bauer et al., 2007). In Van Maanen and Schein's typology, it would classify as an individual, more or less formal, random, variable, serial investiture tactic. It is conceptualized here as a job resource that facilitates organizational socialization (Feldman, 1976).
Buddy schemes are popular across occupational sectors and are advocated among HR practitioners (CIPD, 2009). However, there is little academic research available on the effects or effectiveness of buddying. Although mentioned briefly in descriptive terms (Evans, 2006), there is little evidence of what buddying schemes achieve or how they may achieve it. Their ongoing popularity may, therefore, arise more from their minimal cost than from any specific evidence base. From a POB perspective, however, it is important to examine the impact of buddying on effective socialization. Buddying emphasizes less the provision of information to the new starter (although this is likely to be a component of the relationship), being more a supportive socialization tactic that allows the individual an active role in the socialization process. During economically testing times, buddying may therefore prove to be a cost-effective socialization resource.
While the evidence on the impact of buddying is limited, it is reasonable to draw on evidence relating to the comparable practice of mentoring. Mentoring is a supportive relationship between an experienced mentor and a junior protégé (Kram, 1985), with responsibility on the mentor to provide support, direction, and feedback regarding career plans and personal development (Russell & Adams, 1997). Peer mentoring, where more experienced colleagues act as mentors for less experienced colleagues at the same professional level, provides career-related and psychosocial support (Pullins, Fine, & Warren, 1996) and is thus very similar to buddying. There is some limited evidence of the value of peer mentoring for newcomer socialization (e.g., Allen et al., 1999) and rather more evidence of the positive impact of mentoring more generally on job attitudes (Dreher & Ash, 1990; Koberg, Boss, Chappell, & Ringer, 1994), turnover intentions (Viator & Scandura, 1991), and turnover behavior (Lankau & Scandura, 2002). Buddying therefore is a specific form of peer mentoring, distinguished by the newcomer status of the protégé and its socialization rather than career development function (Murray, 1991).
Hypothesis 1: Satisfaction with buddying will be positively associated with work engagement.
Psychological Capital Creation and Work Engagement
With the potential positive effect of buddying on work engagement discussed, the processes through which this may occur require attention. Primarily, organizational socialization has been viewed as a cognitive-learning process (Fisher, 1986) as new starters seek, or are provided with, information about the norms, values, tasks, and roles expected of them (Ashforth et al., 2007), in order to reduce uncertainty (Falcione & Wilson, 1988). This uncertainty reduction theory (URT) approach argues that socialization can “increase the predictability of interactions between (the new starters) themselves and others within the new organization” (Bauer et al., 2007, p. 708) and generally helps new starters to make sense of their new surroundings and their own role within them (Louis, 1980). In response to this approach, organizations focus on providing information to new hires, primarily via orientation and training, and through the interactions with role models, mentors, and leaders. This information provision, from which the newcomer proceeds to make sense of their new situation, has been proposed to be at the heart of socialization (Ashforth et al., 2007). Research by Bauer et al. (2007) reveals information seeking to have positive associations with job satisfaction, organizational commitment, intentions to remain, and actual performance.
In today's climate, simply knowing about how to behave as implied by the current dominant approach to socialization may be insufficient. Recently, Saks and Gruman (2011) have argued that this information transmission and assimilation perspective undervalues the individuals' strengths and underestimates their active role in developing positive capacities, in both themselves and the organization.
Saks and Gruman (2011) draw on the job demands–resources (JD-R) model as well as the POB construct of psychological capital to provide an alternative interpretation of how socialization operates: SRT. The JD-R model divides the work environment into demands and resources. Job demands require sustained effort, which may incur cost to the individual in physical, emotional, or psychological terms. Job resources, however, refer to the physical, psychological, social, or organizational aspects of the job that can be functional in achieving work goals; reducing job demands; and stimulating personal growth, learning, and development (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007; Demerouti et al., 2001). Job resources can themselves be motivational, but they also buffer workers from the negative effects of job demands. Saks and Gruman propose that socialization generates job resources for the newcomer specifically in the form of psychological capital.
Psychological capital has emerged recently from the study of POB as “an individual's positive psychological state of development and is characterised by: (1) having confidence to take on and put in the necessary effort to succeed at challenging tasks (self-efficacy); (2) making a positive attribution about succeeding now and in the future (optimism); (3) persevering toward goals and, when necessary, redirecting paths to goals in order to succeed (hope); and (4) when beset by problems and adversity, sustaining and bouncing back and even beyond to attain success (resilience)” (Luthans, Youssef, et al., 2007, p. 3). Psychological capital therefore refers to the individual motivational propensities that accrue through the positive psychological constructs of efficacy, optimism, hope, and resilience (see Figure 1).
A Schematic Model of Psychological Capital
Hypothesis 2: Psychological capital will be positively associated with work engagement.
Connecting Buddying, Psychological Capital, and Work Engagement
Hypothesis 3: Satisfaction with buddying will be positively associated with psychological capital.
Hypothesis 4: Psychological capital will partially mediate the relationship between satisfaction with buddying and work engagement.
Research Model
Since a resourceful environment is associated with higher levels of positive affective states (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004), it is thought that satisfaction with the job resource of buddying will be associated with increased positive outcomes for the individual and organization. According to SRT (Saks & Gruman, 2011), a resourceful environment (operationalized through satisfaction with buddying) will activate personal resources of efficacy, hope, optimism, and resilience (psychological capital), which lead to heightened work engagement. Nonmediation of the satisfaction with the buddying/work engagement relationship by psychological capital would offer support for URT rather than the SRT approach proposed here. The model is illustrated in Figure 2.
Mediation Model Linking Satisfaction With Buddying to Psychological Capital and Work Engagement
Method
Company Background
The research was conducted within the UK division of an international professional services organization where buddying has been policy virtually from the company's inception in 2002. The company delivers employment programs to people who are long-term unemployed, those with health conditions, and single parents, aiming to support individuals into suitable, lasting employment. Newcomers to the company are introduced to a buddy on their first day of work and advised that this person is assigned to them for any informal support they might need as a newcomer to the organization.
Sample
The sample consisted of 188 graduate employees who had started work within the preceding 12 months, and each of which had been allocated a buddy on joining the company. Participants were based within one of several office locations throughout the United Kingdom. They were approached by e-mail to complete the online questionnaire.
A total of 78 surveys were returned, yielding a response rate of 41%. Complete data were retrieved due to a function on the electronic survey alerting respondents to any missing data before submission. The sample consisted of 45 females (58 percent) and 33 males (42 percent), who were all employed at the same nonmanagerial level by the company. The majority of respondents (74 percent) were aged in their 20s. The average organizational tenure of the sample was 7 months (SD = 3.8 months). The sample is broadly representative of the potential population eligible for the study in terms of gender balance, age, and tenure.
Measures
Satisfaction With Buddy
Newcomer satisfaction with a buddying relationship was measured by a four-item scale labeled “Satisfaction with buddy.” This was an adapted version of the “Satisfaction With Mentor” scale by Ragins and Cotton (1999), with the word mentor replaced by buddy. A sample item reads “My buddy is someone I am satisfied with,” measured on a seven-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, to 7 = strongly agree), higher values representing greater satisfaction with the buddying partnership. An established definition of buddying was used to introduce the survey to ensure participants held a common understanding of the term: “A buddy is defined as a formal contact assigned to you at the point of starting work with the company, who is available for any support you may need as a newcomer to the organization.” The coefficient alpha for the scale was .89.
Work Engagement
Work engagement was measured using the shortened 9-item version of the 17-Item Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (Schaufeli, Salanova, Gonzalez-Romá, & Bakker, 2002). It has been shown to have high levels of cross cultural validity (Schaufeli, Martínez, Marques Pinto, Salanova, & Bakker, 2002; Storm & Rothmann, 2003), and shares more than 80 percent of its variance with the original longer version (Schaufeli et al., 2006). The scale assesses the three dimensions of work engagement, namely vigor (three items: e.g., “At my work, I feel bursting with energy”), dedication (three items: e.g., “I find the work that I do full of meaning and purpose”), and absorption (three items: e.g., “Time flies when I am working”). Participants were advised that the statements were about how they feel at work, and were instructed to indicate if they ever feel that way about their job. Items were measured on a six-point frequency scale (0 = Never, to 6 = always/every day). Only the results for the composite scale are reported here, the scale achieving a high level of internal consistency (a = .93).
Psychological Capital
Psychological capital is also a composite measure derived from the Psychological Capital Questionnaire (PCQ) developed by Luthans, Avolio, Avey, and Norman (2007). It assesses self-efficacy (six items: e.g., “I feel confident helping to set targets/goals in my work area”), hope (six items: e.g., “There are lots of ways around any problem”), optimism (six items: e.g., “I approach this job as if every cloud has a silver lining”), and resilience (six items: e.g., “I feel I can handle many things at a time at this job”). Again response choices are given on a six-point Likert-type scale (1 = strongly disagree to 6 = strongly agree). To facilitate statelike framing, respondents were asked to describe how they think about themselves right now. While each of the subscales demonstrate adequate reliability (alpha self-efficacy .93; hope .91; optimism .77; and resilience .84), the overall composite score is reported here, for which the calculated alpha coefficient was .95.
Control Variables
Two control variables were considered: organizational tenure in months (synonymous with the duration of buddying relationship) and gender. The nature of the sample meant that occupation and rank were consistent. T-tests indicated that gender was unrelated to all variables in the model, supporting previous research (e.g., Schaufeli et al., 2006), and so was excluded from the analysis. Tenure was retained.
Procedure
The scales and measures described above were combined into the “Experience of Work Survey.” An invitation e-mail was sent to an HR representative at the organization, who then forwarded it to employees who met the inclusion criteria. In order to ensure that respondents had a clear understanding of the buddying scheme, a summary was provided as to how they had been assigned a buddy when they started work. Survey data were collected anonymously and automatically via a spreadsheet, which was later imported into SPSS for analysis.
In addition, interviews were carried out with an HR representative and four employees in receipt of buddying in order to provide a qualitative context for the study.
Results
The buddying system within the organization is seen as “normal practice” to assist the orientation of new employees. The formal procedure for matching a buddy with a newcomer is undertaken by the local manager with the stipulation that the buddy should have at least 12 months' experience within their job role. Little formal advice on how the buddying relationship should be managed is given to managers or the job incumbent who acts as the buddy. Company policy identifies the role of the buddy as being one of providing support to enable the new starter to become familiar and comfortable in their role. In practice, this was reported to range from providing job-related information (in line with the URT interpretation of socialization) through to suggestions on where to go for lunch and acting as a sounding board for the new starter to discuss their thoughts and feelings with a trusted organizational insider, representing more of a job resource. Indeed, the interviews with employees suggested that newcomers found talking to their buddy more comfortable than approaching their manager or unknown colleagues about thoughts and feelings.
Descriptive statistics for the key variables are included in Table 1. Tenure was positively correlated with both work engagement (r = .268, N = 78, p < .05) and psychological capital (r = .281, N = 78, p < .05), which suggests that these cognitive–affective states may build over time within the organizational environment.
The results here demonstrate significant associations between satisfaction with buddy and both psychological capital and work engagement, and between psychological capital and work engagement. The particularly strong relationship between psychological capital and work engagement raises some concern regarding whether these represent two distinct constructs. Therefore, confirmatory factor analyses were carried out to establish whether the three-factor measurement model in fact is substantiated.
Results showed that the hypothesized three-factor measurement model with satisfaction with buddy, psychological capital, and work engagement as three separate but correlated factors fit the data well (x2 = 126.99, df = 62, p<.001; x2 / df = 2.05; CFI = .96; IFI = .94; TLI = .96; RMSEA = .06). Relative to this hypothesized model, the fit of the alternative model where we set the covariance between work engagement and psychological capital factors to be equal to 1.0 was significantly worse (x2 = 635.21, df = 90, p<.001; x2 / df = 7.06; CFI = .64; IFI = .62; TLI = .60; RMSEA = .19), as was that for a second alternative model, in which we set the covariance between the satisfaction with buddy and psychological capital (x2 = 1,004.58, df = 66, p<.001; x2 /df = 15.22; CFI = .20; IFI = .19; TLI = .03; RMSEA = .30). Finally, the fit of the three-factor hypothesized model was also superior to a model in which we set the covariance between work engagement and satisfaction with buddy to be equal to 1.0 (x2 = 1009.61, df = 66, p<.001; x2 / df = 15.30; CFI = .34; IFI = .34; TLI = .09; RMSEA = .31). These results thus provide support for the discriminant validity of the self-rated employee constructs. Given this, hypotheses 1, 2, and 3 are supported. Moderate relationships between tenure and both work engagement and psychological capital suggested its retention as a control variable in subsequent mediation analysis.
Mediation Analysis
Mediation analysis was performed to address Hypothesis 4, based on Baron and Kenny's (1986) four-step approach. The three initial criteria regarding relationships between predictor (satisfaction with buddying), outcome (work engagement), and mediator (psychological capital) variables were met (see above). The mediation model presented in Figure 2 was therefore tested while controlling for tenure. Regression analysis revealed a direct positive relationship between satisfaction with buddy and work engagement (b = .28, p = .012) and between satisfaction with buddy and psychological capital (b = .22, p = .047). As psychological capital was also positively associated with work engagement (b = .58, p<.001), the relationships between the variables were consistent with the model and appropriate for the proposed mediation analysis.
Table 2 shows the stages of the regression model proposed here. The overall model is significant (F = 16.96, p<.001). The control variable of tenure is significantly associated with work engagement (step 1); however, its contribution decreases with the addition of the predictor variables, suggesting that explanation cannot be restricted to the effect of tenure alone. While satisfaction with buddy significantly increases the proportion of variance accounted for in work engagement (step 2), when psychological capital is entered in step 3 the direct association between satisfaction with buddy and work engagement becomes nonsignificant (b = .16, p > .05). Psychological capital thus fully mediates the relationship between satisfaction with buddy and work engagement (b = .55, p<.001). Hypothesis 4 had suggested only partial mediation; however, this fully mediated effect provides potentially stronger support for the role of psychological capital in the socialization process.
Discussion
The current investigation sought to address the question of whether buddying, used as part of induction for newcomers within organizations (CIPD, 2009), is associated with positive work-related outcomes for the individual. It was proposed that satisfaction with buddying would positively relate to work engagement. This relationship was hypothesized to be partially mediated by a third variable, psychological capital, which represents personal resources of efficacy, hope, optimism, and resilience. The data collected and the mediation analysis carried out reveal full mediation, which merits further discussion.
In line with previous research, employees in the current study who reported more satisfaction with the job resource of buddying reported greater levels of work engagement and psychological capital. This supports the theoretical proposition that job resources have motivational potential for employees, within this context at least, and demonstrates the resourceful nature of buddying during newcomer induction. Job resources are thought to be predictors of work engagement (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004), and the current report offers support for their importance during organizational socialization (Feldman, 1976). Furthermore, evidence of a positive gain spiral, as observed by Avey et al. (2008), was found since psychological capital was positively associated with work engagement.
In terms of socialization theory, the research presented here offers support for Saks and Gruman's (2011) conceptualization of socialization as providing a job resource that creates psychological capital, leading to positive outcomes for employees in terms of work engagement (SRT). While Saks and Gruman proposed partial mediation of socialization resources on positive individual and organizational outcomes by psychological capital, the data here demonstrate full mediation. We suggest this is due to the social rather than informational nature of buddying in developing employees' personal resources. Causality cannot, of course, be determined from a regression but the relationships support Saks and Gruman's proposed mechanism within SRT. These results suggest that for the socialization tactic of buddying, SRT is a better explanation of the process at work than URT (Falcione & Wilson, 1988; Miller & Jablin, 1991), which focuses only on the collection of workplace information by the new starter in order to reduce uncertainty over how to perform successfully in the organization and job. The findings thus offer support for a POB approach, interpreting buddying as a socialization resource, rather than a cognitive-learning approach.
Conclusions
The process of organizational entry is a critical time for attitude formation (Mestre, Stainer, & Stainer, 1997; Schermerhorn, 1993) and can impact on long-term attitudes and potentially behavioral intentions (Vandenberg & Self, 1993). This mediation effect indicates how psychological capital can be activated by resourceful work environments, leading to work engagement. In the present study, employees who experienced effective and satisfying buddying relationships also reported higher levels of personal resources in relation to their work, an observation also found by Xanthopoulou et al. (2007) when examining job resources related to feedback and development. This has implications for organizations since engagement with work can directly impact on revenue figures, objective managerial evaluations, and customer satisfaction (Harter et at., 2002). Furthermore, employees who are more engaged at work may also report greater subjective well-being (Schaufeli, Salanova, Gonzalez-Romá, & Bakker, 2002, 2009). Therefore, since the job resource of buddying can impact on engagement at work, it has the potential to make significant contributions to individual and organizational success. Data collected in the course of this study demonstrated a significant negative relationship between work engagement and turnover intention, which provides some support for this proposition.
Although buddying practices are popular (CIPD, 2009; Williams, 2006), the lack of rigorous investigation has led to ambiguity concerning the possible outcomes for organizations and the individuals within them. This paper has provided empirical evidence to support the use of buddying as part of newcomer induction since significant associations with heightened positive cognitive–affective states of work engagement and psychological capital were found within this context. There is also the potential that these positive states generate benefit to the organization. Within a culture of careerism (Feldman & Weitz, 1991), positive attitudes and states can be vital for retaining talent. The more satisfied employees are with buddying as a job resource, the more likely they are to have a fulfilling and positive work related state of mind. Furthermore, this paper has observed mediation effects of personal (psychological) resources on work engagement, first demonstrated by Xanthopoulou et al. (2007) in relation to job resources such as coaching and professional development opportunities. To this list we can now tentatively add buddying. Further research is needed, however, to establish a direct link to organizational performance although Harter et al. (2002) have indicated a link to financial performance.
The process of newcomer socialization can help to build a strong employment relationship that transcends the temptations to switch employers, as offered by careerist cultures (Feldman & Weitz, 1991). The process of buddying provides a mechanism for achieving these outcomes. Employees who have more personal resources in the form of psychological capital may also be in a stronger position when confronted with the dynamic, global environmental contexts of modern workplaces (Luthans, Youssef, & Avolio, 2007), and so may offer organizations a source of strength during times of recession.
Although the current model supported SRT rather than URT, this does not mean that uncertainty reduction has no role in organizational socialization but rather that this may be best provided by routes other than buddying, for example, the more formal and institutionalized socialization tactics identified by Van Maanen and Schein (1979) and Jones (1986). It is, of course, also possible that the creation of psychological capital also aids in the reduction of uncertainty, but that this is not directly related to buddying. Care does also need to be taken to ensure that organizational socialization is not simply used to exert normative control (Ray, 1986) or to alter the effort bargain in the workplace by encouraging compulsory citizenship behaviors (Coyle-Shapiro et al., 2004; Vigoda-Gadot, 2006). Nevertheless, the usefulness of buddying in increasing individuals' personal resources within a particular organizational context remains.
Managerial Implications
From a strategic human resource perspective, the results raise a number of important issues regarding the way in which organizations can encourage supportive buddying relationships. Investment that strengthens the potential of buddying so that positive outcomes are amplified or subject to positive cumulative gain spirals (Hakanen, Perhoniemi, & Toppinen-Tanner, 2008) is recommended, and following Kompier (2003) in order to be comprehensive, this should be a multilevel strategy. On an individual level, this could include providing training for buddies on interpersonal skills or emotional intelligence (Goleman, 1998), improving manager awareness of potentially positive outcomes, and implementing feedback/evaluation processes that help improve the internal validity of this resource. At an organizational level, human resource management strategy would need to encourage an organizational culture that supports peer mentoring through buddying. For example, an emphasis on team performance (where teams are made up of several buddying dyads) may foster collaboration between peers (Allen et al., 1999).
Since the effectiveness of mentoring relationships lie along a continuum (Levinson, Darrow, Klein, Levinson, & McKee, 1978; Ragins et al., 2000), it is recommended that organizations invest in developing the potential of buddying relationships. This could involve offering guidance to employees acting as a buddy, so that they can anticipate the support needs of newcomers. This may help activate the personal resources that form psychological capital, thus strengthening the likelihood that effective buddying will increase work engagement and reduce turnover.
In the international HR literature, shadowing and buddying with returning expatriates is commonly held up as good practice for new international assignees. The parallels are apparent, and the potential implications for expatriate success significant.
Limitations and Future Research
Clearly, the nature of the study (cross-sectional, questionnaire) raises criticisms regarding the direction of causality; does satisfaction with buddying increase psychological capital or are individuals with higher psychological capital likely to be most sympathetic towards and appreciative of a workplace buddy? Might those more engaged at work also be more likely to report higher levels of psychological capital? Although tentative causal links are made based on the theoretical grounding of SRT, it is possible that the relationships operate in the opposite direction or are indeed reciprocal. Further longitudinal research is needed to investigate these challenges to the validity of the model. Additionally, further qualitative work investigating newcomer experiences of buddying could also help to uncover whether the identified relationships operate as causal mechanisms in the manner hypothesized. The contextual discussions which accompanied this study, however, suggested that newcomers were more comfortable approaching their buddy with thoughts and feelings rather than their manager or unknown colleagues suggesting a buddying—psychological capital directionality rather than vice versa.
The use of a cross-sectional survey raises concerns about common method variance, and socially desirable responding. The promise of anonymity and the high reliability of each scale reduced concern over these artifacts (Spector, 1987). While independent ratings of work engagement might be suggested, the nature of this construct makes such measurement problematic. Independent assessment of the quality of the buddy relationship might be a more promising route, as would longitudinal studies of the development of the buddying relationship and psychological capital. The tentative proposal forwarded in the conclusion that psychological capital may also aid individuals in being able to reduce uncertainty could also be examined in future research.
The absence of an identifiable control group poses problems for the validity of the study. Is it the buddying relationship that affects engagement and psychological capital, or merely the continued experience of life in the organization, which could itself increase individual psychological resources? In this particular context, no appropriate comparison group was available as all new entrants are assigned a buddy. Future work may wish to explore whether tenure is a reasonable proxy for satisfaction with the buddy relationship in activating psychological capital and building work engagement. Nevertheless, any significant effects of tenure on work engagement were removed in this study when adding satisfaction with buddying. Additional qualitative investigation may also serve to further uncover the antecedents of work engagement and psychological capital.
Future research could also incorporate more of the perspective of the buddy. The ways in which buddies were utilized and the dynamics of the buddying relationships were not explored, and a holistic explanation of the buddying relationship would require such follow-up.
The sample size for this study, while substantial, remains relatively small and consisted of employees within the United Kingdom. Larger and more diverse samples would enhance understanding of the nature and effectiveness of this practice. There is also the issue of context, and while buddying has been found to have positive relationships in this professional services environment for new graduate recruits, further research in other contexts is needed to establish whether and how these relationships play out in different environments. It is also conceivable that the particular context may also be more conducive to work engagement because of the nature of professional service work. Furthermore, the context may also be more suitable for buddying as a socialization resource. Custodial role orientations, associated with more structured and institutionalized socialization tactics (Van Maanen & Schein, 1979), may not have been encouraged in this organization, for example. Further in-depth research to clarify the exact nature of the realized relationships is thus required, as argued earlier.
The role of psychological capital in reducing uncertainty, as a further step, could also be examined in future research. There is also much potential to examine the “crossover effects” or emotional contagion (Westman, 2001) of cognitive–affective states within buddy dyads, and future research should examine whether positive gain spirals (Hakanen et al., 2008) of work engagement and psychological capital occur during newcomer socialization. Finally, while this study provides some initial support for the SRT model, testing a wider range of socialization resources (e.g., formal orientation training) and socialization outcomes (e.g., job satisfaction and performance) would serve to clarify the relative power of the SRT and URT explanations of organizational socialization.
Biographical Information
Neelam Nigah has achieved a diverse career portfolio as a scientist practitioner. Neelam has practiced as a coach, trainer, and applied researcher, with her most recent assignments focusing on human–computer interaction in health care. She has undertaken academic research projects with Aston Business School and Imperial College, London.
Ann J. Davis is currently head of the Work & Organisational Psychology Group at Aston University. Ann has extensive experience in consulting, teaching, and researching individual and organizational effectiveness and individual well-being. A chartered psychologist as well as chartered member of CIPD in the United Kingdom, her research interests focus on the construction and enactment of the employment relationship, primarily from the employee perspective. Her work sits at the crossover between occupational psychology and human resource management. She is currently exploring the process through which individuals come to identify with their employing organization, and the relationships between organizational commitment, identification, and work engagement.
Scott A. Hurrell is a lecturer in work and employment studies in the Institute for Socio-Management, University of Stirling, and Stirling Management School's convenor for undergraduate studies. Scott's research interests include skills and work organization; recruitment, selection and socialization; labor market issues; and fairness at work. Scott is currently developing research looking at employees' experiences of and attitudes toward employers' use of social networking sites within recruitment and the employment relationship.
