Nifadkar, JoM, 2018, Forthcoming

807288
research-article2018
JOMXXX10.1177/0149206318807288Journal of ManagementNifadkar / Newcomers’ Schemas of Supervisors
Journal of Management
Vol. XX No. X, Month XXXX 1–28
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206318807288
10.1177/0149206318807288
© The Author(s) 2018
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
Filling in the “Blank Slate”: Examining

Newcomers’ Schemas of Supervisors
During Organizational Socialization
Sushil S. Nifadkar
Georgia State University
Newcomers have little knowledge of the behavioral tendencies of their future supervisors before
they join the company; thus, they enter the organization with a “blank slate” regarding their
assessments of their supervisors. We know little about how newcomers’ blank slates about their
supervisors are gradually filled with mental images—or schemas—of their supervisors and how
these schemas influence their adjustment to the organization. Thus, the primary purpose of this
study is to examine how newcomers’ schemas of supervisors develop, shape their information
seeking from supervisors, and influence their adjustment. Further, previous socialization
research has not distinguished between different forms of supportive supervisor behaviors or
focused on unique outcomes of newcomers’ personal experience and indirect observation of
supervisors’ behaviors. The findings of this study suggest that supervisors’ individualized con-
sideration and intellectual stimulation, both forms of supervisors’ supportive behaviors, have
distinct effects on newcomers’ warmth and competence schemas of supervisors; newcomers’
personal experience and indirect observation of supervisors’ behaviors have a unique influence
on newcomers’ schemas of supervisors; and warmth and competence schemas of supervisors
influence newcomers’ social and task-related information seeking to different extents. The pri-
mary contribution of the study lies in explaining how newcomers’ blank slate about their supervi-
sors is filled with warmth and competence schemas of supervisors and how these schemas
influence their information seeking and adjustment during socialization.
Keywords: newcomer adjustment; organizational socialization; onboarding; warmth and
competence schemas; information seeking; supervisor support; leadership
Acknowledgments: I would like to thank action editor David Allen and the three anonymous reviewers for their
insightful comments and helpful suggestions. I also acknowledge the help provided by Peter Hom, Leigh Anne Liu,
and Michael Braun.
Corresponding author: Sushil S. Nifadkar, J. Mack Robinson College of Business, Institute of International Business,
Georgia State University, 35 Broad St. No. 1447, Atlanta, GA 30303, USA.
E-mail: snifadkar@gsu.edu
1
2 Journal of Management / Month XXXX
When you change the way you look at things, the things you look at change.
—Max Planck
New employees are necessary for organizational growth and renewal, and, thus, ensuring
that they adjust to the organization as soon as possible has long been a focus of researchers
and practitioners (Ashforth, Sluss, & Harrison, 2007; Ellis, Bauer, Mansfield, Erdogan,
Truxillo, & Simon, 2015; Nifadkar & Bauer, 2016). Early research on organizational social-
ization focused on organizational-level efforts to promote newcomer adjustment (Allen,
2006; Allen & Shanock, 2013; Ashforth & Saks, 1996; Jones, 1986; Van Maanen & Schein,
1979). More recently, scholars have focused on the local environment of newcomers, a
stream of research that suggests that supervisors play a pivotal role in ensuring that new
employees stay with the organization and become productive members (Ashforth et al.,
2007; Jokisaari & Nurmi, 2009; Kammeyer-Mueller, Wanberg, Rubenstein, & Song, 2013;
Nifadkar, Tsui, & Ashforth, 2012; Sluss & Thompson, 2012).
Because “change, contrast, and surprise constitute major features of the entry experience”
(Louis, 1980: 235), newcomers actively try to make sense of their new work environment,
and this sensemaking often entails seeking information from supervisors about task-related
and social issues (Ashford & Black, 1996; Morrison, 1993; Wanberg & Kammeyer-Mueller,
2000). In general, newcomers have little knowledge about the behavioral tendencies of their
future supervisors before they join the company; thus, they enter the organization with a
“blank slate” in terms of their assessments of their supervisors. Schema theory proposes that
people’s mental images, or schemas, of others exert a powerful influence on how people
behave toward them (e.g., Cuddy, Glick, & Beninger, 2011; Fiske, Cuddy, & Glick, 2007;
Fiske, Cuddy, Glick, & Xu, 2002). For instance, if an employee sees a coworker as friendly,
this evaluation may influence the employee’s day-to-day interactions with the coworker,
probably by making the employee more open and comfortable around the coworker. As such,
newcomers’ schemas of their supervisors can mold their information-seeking behavior
toward their supervisors.
Considering that schemas strongly shape individuals’ behavior toward others, it is impor-
tant to examine their role in the newcomer adjustment context and, especially, in influencing
newcomers’ information seeking from supervisors. Thus, the primary purpose of this study is
to investigate the emergence and outcomes of newcomers’ schemas of supervisors during the
socialization period. This study examines newcomers’ schemas of their supervisors in terms
of warmth and competence because, according to schema theory, these are two primary judg-
ments that people use to evaluate others (e.g., Cuddy et al., 2011; Fiske et al., 2002, 2007).
Broadly, the conceptual model (Figure 1) developed in this study proposes that newcomers’
experience and observation of supervisor behaviors—specifically, their individualized con-
sideration and intellectual stimulation (e.g., Bass, 1985; Bass & Avolio, 1994)—give rise to
newcomers’ warmth and competence schemas of supervisors, and these schemas, in turn,
influence newcomers’ information seeking and other adjustment-related outcomes.
By testing this model, this study makes three contributions to newcomer adjustment litera-
ture. First, the study provides an understanding of how newcomers’ schemas of supervisors
develop and shape their information seeking from supervisors. Previous research has exam-
ined newcomers’ proactivity (e.g., Ashford & Black, 1996; Wanberg & Kammeyer-Mueller,
2000) and positive affect (e.g., Nifadkar et al., 2012) as possible predictors of their
Figure 1
Conceptual Model of Antecedents and Outcomes of Newcomers’ Schemas of Supervisors
3
information-seeking behaviors. This study extends our understanding of the phenomenon by

introducing a new lens—newcomers’ schemas of their supervisors—to investigate newcom-
ers’ information-seeking behavior. The results of this study extend our understanding of new-
comers’ proactive behavior by suggesting that newcomers can be proactive about seeking
different types of information (social and task-related) from their supervisors depending on
the specific way they view (in terms of warmth and competence, respectively) their supervi-
sors. Further, this study extends our understanding of newcomers’ positive affect by indicat-
ing that although different forms of supervisors’ supportive behaviors—specifically,
individualized consideration and intellectual stimulation—can potentially give rise to posi-
tive affect, as suggested by Nifadkar et al. (2012), they still can have unique effects on new-
comers’ warmth and competence schemas of supervisors and, in turn, on their social and
task-related information-seeking behaviors. In this way, the current study illuminates under-
standing of the newcomer adjustment phenomenon beyond the insights provided by previous
research on newcomers’ proactivity and positive affect. Second, this study extends the litera-
ture by proposing that newcomers’ schemas of supervisors can develop both through their
personal experience of supervisor behaviors toward themselves and through indirect obser-
vation of supervisor behaviors toward their coworkers. Previous organizational socialization
tactics research (e.g., Allen, 2006; Jones, 1986; Van Maanen & Schein, 1979) has suggested
that organizational-level initiatives, such as providing a role model or a mentor (i.e., serial
socialization tactic), promote newcomer adjustment. Going beyond organizational-level
socialization practices and paying specific attention to newcomers’ unique observation of
supervisor behaviors toward coworkers is important, as coworkers are prominent members
of newcomers’ local work environments (Ashforth et al., 2007), and schema theory suggests
that people form schemas of focal persons not only through personal experience of their
behaviors toward themselves but also through observation of how the focal persons behave
toward others in their vicinity. The results of this study suggest that future newcomer adjust-
ment research should focus not only on organizational tactics (e.g., Jones, 1986; Van Maanen
& Schein, 1979) and newcomers’ personal experience of supervisor behaviors (e.g., Jokisaari
& Nurmi, 2009; Kammeyer-Mueller et al., 2013; Nifadkar et al., 2012) but also on the judg-
ments that they make about supervisors through indirect observation of their behaviors
toward their coworkers.
Third, this study refines our understanding of supervisors’ behaviors toward newcomers
by investigating newcomers’ experience and observation of two different forms of supervi-
sors’ supportive behaviors. Previous newcomer adjustment research has not recognized the
possible differences in outcomes of different forms of supervisors’ supportive behaviors
(e.g., Jokisaari & Nurmi, 2009; Kammeyer-Mueller et al., 2013; Nifadkar et al., 2012).
Research on transformational leadership, however, suggests that supervisors can display
individualized consideration and intellectual stimulation (e.g., Bass, 1985; Bass & Avolio,
1994), both forms of supportive supervisor behaviors but with potentially distinct outcomes.
Lack of scholarly discrimination between different types of supervisor behaviors in the new-
comer adjustment literature has limited understanding of how distinct forms of supervisors’
supportive behaviors can uniquely influence newcomers’ adjustment. This study facilitates a
more fine-grained analysis of supervisors’ supportive behaviors by investigating unique out-
comes of two important forms of such behaviors—individualized consideration and intel-
lectual stimulation (e.g., Bass, 1985; Bass & Avolio, 1994). The findings of this study suggest
Nifadkar / Newcomers’ Schemas of Supervisors 5
that future newcomer adjustment research should pay more attention to conceptual differ-
ences in various types of supportive behaviors because each form of supportive supervisor
behavior can have a unique effect on newcomers’ warmth and competence schemas of super-
visors and, hence, on their information-seeking behaviors and adjustment.
Overall, this study attempts to explain how newcomers’ blank slate in regard to supervi-
sors is filled with mental images, or schemas, of their supervisors and how these schemas
influence their information seeking and adjustment. The results of this study suggest that
supervisors’ individualized consideration and intellectual stimulation have distinct effects on
newcomers’ warmth and competence schemas of newcomers; newcomers’ personal experi-
ence and indirect observation of supervisors’ behaviors have a distinct influence on newcom-
ers’ schemas of supervisors; and warmth and competence schemas influence social and
task-related information seeking to different extents. The hypothesized model was tested
using three-phase survey data from newcomers and their supervisors working in Indian infor-
mation technology companies, for whom retention, adjustment, and performance of new
employees are important concerns (Agrawal & Thite, 2003).
Theory and Hypotheses

Theoretical Overview
According to schema theory, a schema refers to a generalized evaluation or mental image
that an individual may have about a particular person (Cuddy et al., 2011; Fiske et al., 2002;
Nishida, 1999). In general, such schemas contain knowledge about dominant characteristics
and inclinations of the other person (Nishida, 1999), and they emerge when people categorize
others after noticing distinct patterns in their behaviors (Baldwin, 1992). When an individual
needs to interact with a focal person, schemas about that person’s general characteristics are
activated, shaping the individual’s behavior toward that person (Baldwin, 1992; Cuddy et al.,
2011; Nishida, 1999).
The stereotype content model suggests that warmth and competence schemas are the two
primary ways that people view others (e.g., Cuddy et al., 2011; Fiske et al., 2002). According
to this perspective, the warmth schema refers to evaluations of a person in terms of the per-
son’s likeability, friendliness, and trustworthiness and whether the person is seen as well
intentioned and good-natured. In comparison, the competence schema refers to an evaluation
of a person in terms of the person’s intelligence, skills, efficiency, and capability (Cuddy
et al., 2011). Further, it is possible for people to evoke both warmth and competence sche-
mas, evoke only one of the two schemas, or be weak in both warmth and competence sche-
mas (Fiske et al., 2002).
Given that schemas form during early interactions with strangers (Nishida, 1999), it
would seem apt to examine their influence in newcomer adjustment. Indeed, when new-
comers enter the organization, they generally have no mental images of their supervisors.
Thus, the newcomer adjustment process provides an appropriate context for studying ab
initio schema development. No previous study, however, has investigated the role of sche-
mas in newcomer adjustment and information-seeking phenomena. This is a major short-
coming of the current literature, as schemas exert a strong influence on our behaviors toward
others, signifying their potential influence on newcomers’ information seeking during the
adjustment period.
Following schema theory, the model presented in Figure 1 proposes how newcomers’
schemas of supervisors may emerge and how they can influence newcomers’ information
seeking. In the first step, newcomers’ experience and observation of supervisor behaviors is
proposed to be associated with the development of newcomers’ warmth and competence
schemas of supervisors (Cuddy et al., 2011; Fiske et al., 2002). In the second step, newcom-
ers’ schemas of supervisors are hypothesized to relate to newcomers’ information seeking
from supervisors. This is based on the proposition of schema theory that people behave
toward others in congruence with the schemas they hold of these individuals. In the third
step, subordinates’ information seeking from supervisors is linked with newcomers’ task
performance, intention to stay, helping behavior, and adjustment. These proposed relation-
ships are discussed in the following sections.
Newcomers’ Schemas of Supervisors as Outcomes of Experience and

Observation of Supervisor Behaviors
During the newcomer adjustment period, two types of supervisor behaviors are especially
relevant and effective in ensuring that newcomers adjust quickly. The first such supervisor
behavior is taking an interest in newcomers’ personal well-being as unique individuals, while
the second is encouraging them to enhance their knowledge and learn new ways to complete
tasks (Ashforth et al., 2007; Nifadkar & Bauer, 2016). These two supervisor behaviors cor-
respond to two subdimensions of transformational leadership—individualized consideration
and intellectual stimulation, respectively (e.g., Bass, 1985; Bass & Avolio, 1994; Judge &
Piccolo, 2004). The individualized consideration subdimension of transformational leader-
ship refers to the extent to which the leader treats the follower as an individual and provides
personalized support, while the intellectual stimulation subdimension reflects the extent to
which the supervisor encourages the intellectual development of subordinates (e.g., Bass,
1985; Bass & Avolio, 1994; Judge & Piccolo, 2004). Thus, supervisors’ individualized con-
sideration and intellectual stimulation are investigated in this study as two forms of support-
ive supervisor behaviors.
How do schemas form? The extant schema literature suggests that schemas develop when
individuals observe that a focal person repeatedly enacts specific behaviors (e.g., Baldwin,
1992; Mehl, Gosling, & Pennebaker, 2006; Nishida, 1999). When the focal person displays
a particular set of behaviors repeatedly, people start noticing key patterns in that person’s
behavior, and, with time, such patterns result in the formation of durable mental images or
evaluations of the person (Nishida, 1999). For instance, based on observation of repeated
behaviors, one may come to believe that “‘John is neurotic,’ ‘Taro is shy,’ or ‘Mary is easy-
going’” (Nishida, 1999: 757).
Schemas can form through both personal experience and indirect observation of behav-
iors of the focal person. For instance, if the focal person uses abusive language toward
others (that is, not the observer directly), a negative schema about the person may emerge
even though the abusive words were not targeted at the observer. The same would be the
case when the observer himself or herself is the target of the focal person’s abusive lan-
guage. Despite the understanding that newcomers keenly observe their immediate work
context for sensemaking (Louis, 1980) and that their coworkers are an important element of
their local environment (Ashforth et al., 2007), no previous study on newcomer adjustment
has investigated the effects of newcomers’ observation of supervisor behaviors toward

newcomers’ colleagues. It is proposed here that newcomers’ direct experience as well as
their observation of supervisor behaviors toward their colleagues will influence the mental
images that newcomers form of their supervisors.
In particular, supervisors’ individualized consideration is proposed to be associated with
newcomers’ warmth schema of supervisors, and supervisors’ intellectual stimulation is likely
related to newcomers’ competence schema of supervisors. Supervisors’ individualized con-
sideration includes behaviors that indicate that they respect their subordinates as unique indi-
viduals and are aware of and considerate toward their personal feelings and needs (Bass,
1985; Bass & Avolio, 1994; Judge & Piccolo, 2004; Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Moorman, &
Fetter, 1990). Individualized consideration is especially important during newcomer adjust-
ment because newcomers’ needs are often different from those of their more established
coworkers. In their early days, newcomers need to complete a large amount of paperwork
(e.g., regarding benefits and taxation) within the company and potentially outside the com-
pany as well, if they are relocating from another city. At the same time, they must learn about
the company’s expectations, become acquainted with their colleagues, and figure out how
things work in the organization.
Some supervisors may be mindful of the fact that newcomers could be facing several
challenges at work and probably outside of work as well. These supervisors may consider
the unique situation newcomers are in and assign them goals that are somewhat lower than
those of their more established coworkers, provide them with additional resources that help
them to adjust, allow them the flexibility that they need during their adjustment, or intro-
duce them to colleagues who can help them to complete their tasks, both within and outside
the group. People who display caring behaviors more frequently are evaluated by others as
friendly (Mehl et al., 2006) and considerate relationship partners (Abe, 2011). Thus, if
supervisors are consistently mindful of newcomers’ unique needs during adjustment, treat
them with respect, and provide them with the support they need to start performing, new-
comers may start seeing them as caring and friendly, which are essential features of the
warmth schema (Fiske et al., 2002).
Newcomers’ coworkers may also face unique challenges at work and home from time to
time and can have distinct needs and aspirations. Moreover, supervisors may differ in terms
of how supportive they are toward these employees, given their individual situations and
requirements. As discussed above, if newcomers observe that their supervisors are mindful
of the distinct needs of their coworkers, they may develop a warmth schema about them. This
leads to the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 1a: Newcomers’ experience and observation of supervisors’ individualized consider-

ation will relate positively to newcomers’ warmth schema of supervisors.
Intellectual stimulation refers to supervisor behaviors through which they encourage sub-
ordinates to reexamine their assumptions and learn new ways to work (Bass, 1985; Bass &
Avolio, 1994; Judge & Piccolo, 2004; Podsakoff et al., 1990). Supervisors may display such
behaviors by asking subordinates to look at problems in new ways, challenging subordinates’
basic assumptions about how to complete tasks, and prodding them to think more deeply about
work-related challenges (Podsakoff et al., 1990). Supervisors may notice that newcomers are
working toward honing their task-related skills and learning how to complete their assign-
ments. Occasionally, newcomers’ coworkers also can face work-related hurdles or may need
to update their technical repertoire. In such situations, some supervisors may encourage new-
comers and their coworkers to think deeply about the situation, learn more about the issues
that they are facing, come up with answers by devising their own solutions through self-
learning and experimentation, and possibly suggest technical websites or documentation to
enhance their knowledge.
When newcomers see that their supervisors encourage them and their coworkers to update
skills and learn new ways of doing things by questioning assumptions and asking insightful
questions, they may start to notice an intellectual streak in their supervisors and realize that
their supervisors are intelligent and technically knowledgeable. Findings in social psychol-
ogy research suggest that individuals who encourage the acquisition of new knowledge and
skills are often seen by others as competent. For instance, Mehl et al. (2006) found that
people who used words that emphasize insight and understanding were seen by independent
observers as diligent. Previous research also suggests that people who encourage develop-
ment of extensive knowledge about various issues are rated by others as confident, smart, and
informative (Fast & Funder, 2008), that is, competent. Therefore, when newcomers experi-
ence and observe that their supervisors consistently provide an intellectually stimulating
work environment and actively promote learning, they may start viewing them as technically
competent. These arguments lead to the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 1b: Newcomers’ experience and observation of supervisors’ intellectual stimulation will
relate positively to newcomers’ competence schema of supervisors.
Although newcomers’ firsthand experience and observation of supervisor behaviors

toward coworkers are proposed to lead to the formation of newcomers’ schemas about them,
it is possible that the effect of newcomers’ personal experience of supervisor behaviors will
be stronger than that of their observation of supervisor behaviors toward coworkers. This
may happen because, in general, direct experience of people’s behavior is more credible and
influential than indirect observation of people’s behaviors toward others (e.g., Fazio, Powell,
& Herr, 1983; Fazio & Zanna, 1981). When newcomers experience supervisor behaviors
firsthand, there is little ambiguity about these behaviors, as there are virtually no barriers to
hinder cognitive processing and assimilation of these experiences. Hence, if the supervisor
behaves in a particular manner toward a newcomer, this information is directly and unam-
biguously registered in the newcomer’s memory.
In comparison, when supervisors behave in a particular manner with newcomers’ cowork-
ers, some barriers may obstruct cognitive assimilation of the behavior by newcomers (Fazio
et al., 1983; Fazio & Zanna, 1981). For instance, they may occasionally miss observing
supervisor behaviors toward coworkers because supervisors may sometimes interact with
coworkers when newcomers are not around. Further, even if supervisors behave in a particu-
lar manner with coworkers in the presence of newcomers, newcomers may not notice it fully
if they are focusing on completing their own tasks and, hence, are not paying close attention
to supervisor behaviors toward coworkers. Thus, compared with their personal experience of
supervisor behaviors by newcomers, their observation of supervisor behaviors toward cowork-
ers may be more ambiguous and inconsistent. This leads to the possibility that newcomers’
personal experience of supervisor behaviors will be more influential in the formation of

schemas than will their observation of supervisor behaviors toward coworkers. This discus-
sion is summarized through the following hypotheses:
Hypothesis 1c: The effect of newcomers’ experience of supervisors’ individualized consideration on

newcomers’ warmth schema of supervisors will be stronger than that of newcomers’ observation
of supervisors’ individualized consideration toward coworkers.
Hypothesis 1d: The effect of newcomers’ experience of supervisors’ intellectual stimulation on new-
comers’ competence schema of supervisors will be stronger than that of newcomers’ observation
of supervisors’ intellectual stimulation toward coworkers.
Newcomers’ Information Seeking From Supervisors as Schema-Congruent

Behavior
Newcomers need information about task-related and social aspects of working in the orga-
nization so that they can achieve their performance goals and develop friendly relationships
with coworkers (Bauer & Green, 1998; Morrison, 1993). Thus, following Morrison (1993)
and Bauer and Green (1998), newcomers’ task information seeking in this study refers to
asking for information about completing the officially assigned tasks efficiently, and new-
comers’ social information seeking refers to asking questions about people-related and rela-
tionship-oriented aspects of working in the organization.
Schema theory proposes that “warmth and competence assessments [of others] each
determine different aspects of how we interact with others” (Cuddy et al., 2011: 74), suggest-
ing that people generally behave in congruence with the schemas that they hold of others.
Thus, it is likely that newcomers’ schemas of supervisors will influence their information
seeking in a schema-congruent manner and that warmth and competence schemas will be
associated with information seeking about different domains.
Further, existing research suggests that people display greater openness in discussing
social matters with people whom they view as friendly, trustworthy, and likeable (Chaiken,
1980). While communicating with such individuals, they may feel comfortable asking ques-
tions and seeking information on people-related issues without the fear of negative repercus-
sions and with the expectation of receiving a thoughtful response. Thus, newcomers may feel
at ease with asking questions regarding social matters of supervisors whom they view as
friendly, open, and welcoming. Similarly, if newcomers view supervisors as skillful and
knowledgeable, they are more likely to approach them to ask questions about their technical
and task-related concerns. For instance, in an experimental study on acceptance of supervisor
feedback, respondents were more open to receiving and acting upon information provided by
a seemingly more competent source rather than a less competent information provider
(Bannister, 1986). Broadly, people find experts in a given field more reliable when discussing
a logical and factual issue (Maddux & Rogers, 1980). These arguments are summarized in
the following hypotheses:
Hypothesis 2a: Newcomers’ warmth schema of supervisors will relate positively to newcomers’
social information seeking from them.
Hypothesis 2b: Newcomers’ competence schema of supervisors will relate positively to newcomers’
task information seeking from them.
Outcomes of Newcomers’ Information Seeking From Supervisors

The newcomer adjustment literature views newcomers’ task performance, helping
behavior, intention to stay, and adjustment (i.e., newcomers’ self-evaluation of their role
clarity, social adjustment, and task mastery) as important newcomer outcomes, and previ-
ous research has emphasized the influence of newcomers’ information seeking on these
outcomes (e.g., Ashforth et al., 2007; Bauer, Bodner, Erdogan, Truxillo, & Tucker, 2007;
Chao, O’Leary-Kelly, Wolf, Klein, & Gardner, 1994; Morrison, 1993; Ostroff & Kozlowski,
1992). Social information seeking from supervisors, by enhancing subordinates’ job
embeddedness, may make it difficult for subordinates to leave the organization (Mitchell,
Holtom, Lee, Sablynski, & Erez, 2001). Thus, social information seeking may promote
newcomers’ intention to stay. Social information seeking from supervisors also may pro-
vide information to newcomers about which particular coworker is falling behind, enabling
them to help that person. Moreover, by providing insights about formal, informal, and social
aspects of working in the organization, social information seeking may enhance newcom-
ers’ perceptions of their adjustment to the organization. Overall, social information seeking
from supervisors is likely associated with newcomers’ intention to stay, helping behavior,
and adjustment.
Task information seeking from supervisors may be associated with important organiza-
tional outcomes as well (e.g., Morrison, 1993; Nifadkar & Bauer, 2016). The primary expec-
tation that organizations have of employees is that they effectively perform the tasks assigned
to them. Following task information seeking by newcomers, supervisors may assist newcom-
ers’ achievement of their task-related targets by providing guidance on how to make progress
toward completing tasks. Thus, task information seeking from supervisors is likely to enhance
newcomers’ task performance. In addition, task information provided by supervisors may
signal to newcomers that the organization cares for them, and, therefore, they may be inclined
to stay with the organization. Mastering tasks and understanding one’s role in the organiza-
tion are important aspects of newcomer adjustment. Thus, task-related information seeking
from supervisors may enhance newcomers’ perceptions of their adjustment to the organiza-
tion. The above discussion is summarized in the following hypotheses:
Hypothesis 3a: Newcomers’ social information seeking from supervisors will relate positively to
their intention to stay, helping behavior, and adjustment.
Hypothesis 3b: Newcomers’ task information seeking from supervisors will relate positively to their
task performance, intention to stay, and adjustment.
Method
Data were collected from Indian software engineers. To minimize common method bias
(Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003), data were collected from two sources—
newcomers and their supervisors—in three steps using electronic surveys. The survey items
and research design were vetted by company managers before implementation. The first
wave collected data on newcomers’ experience and observation of supervisor behaviors over
10 days. The second wave collected data 1 month later from newcomers about their warmth
and competence schemas of supervisors. Information-seeking and outcome data were col-
lected in the last wave, 1 month after the second wave. At this time, task performance and
helping behavior data were collected from supervisors, and information-seeking, intention-
to-stay, and newcomer adjustment data were collected from newcomers.
The focus of data collection was unique supervisor–subordinate pairs. This was important
for two reasons. First, supervisors may treat each newcomer differently, and, similarly, new-
comers may develop distinct schemas about their supervisors due to unique supervisor
behaviors that they may experience and observe. Second, the use of unique pairs allowed
overcoming the potential nesting effects that might arise if data for multiple newcomers were
clustered within one supervisor. Prospective focal newcomers in this step were 453 Indian
software engineers who worked in three companies. These engineers had joined the compa-
nies 1 month before the first wave of data collection. At the end of data collection, complete
data were obtained for 267 newcomers (59% of the initial sample). The mean age of new-
comers was 29.6 years, 73% were males, and all had an undergraduate degree.
The research setting was appropriate for this study because, to support their rapid growth
and high turnover, major Indian information technology companies hire tens of thousands of
new employees each year (Agrawal & Thite, 2003). Thus, ensuring that new employees adjust
quickly, perform well, and stay with the organization is a major concern for these and other
companies in the industry (Agrawal & Thite, 2003). Further, site visits suggested that employ-
ees worked in an open-office format with no closed workspaces for employees, which facili-
tated frequent interactions between newcomers and supervisors and enabled easy observation
of supervisor behaviors toward group members by newcomers. Moreover, clear directions for
completing official tasks and adjusting to the workplace were rare, and, hence, newcomers
strongly relied on their supervisors to obtain the information and directions that they needed.
Measures
Likert-type scales were used to measure the variables (1 = completely disagree to 7 = com-
pletely agree, unless specified otherwise) as described below.
Newcomers’ experience and observation of supervisor behavior (Time 1). Given that sche-
mas are formed by experiencing and observing repeated behaviors of the focal person, these
variables were assessed by measuring newcomers’ experience and observation of these supervisor
behaviors over a period of 10 working days through daily surveys. Separate scales were created
for measuring newcomers’ experience of supervisor behaviors toward themselves and newcom-
ers’ observation of supervisor behaviors toward other group members (not including newcomers).
Based on previous studies, five items each were adapted to measure supervisors’ individu-
alized consideration toward the newcomer and toward other group members (Bass & Avolio,
1997; Podsakoff et al., 1990). Similarly, five items each were modified to measure supervi-
sors’ intellectual stimulation toward the newcomer and toward other group members (Bass &
Avolio, 1997; Podsakoff et al., 1990). At the end of the day, newcomers were asked whether
their supervisors displayed each of the 20 behaviors (five for each type of behavior) on that
particular day by providing a yes or no response. Automated e-mail, text, and voice messages
were sent as follow-ups. The total count of the particular behavior marked yes over the 10
days was used to arrive at a score for supervisor behaviors for that item. Average scores on
each of these five items for the four supervisor behaviors were used to calculate ratings for
newcomers’ experience and observation of supervisor behaviors.
A sample item for newcomers’ personal experience of supervisors’ newcomer-directed

individualized consideration is “Today, my supervisor looked out for my personal welfare,”
and one for newcomers’ observation of supervisors’ coworker-directed individualized con-
sideration is “Today, my supervisor looked out for personal welfare of a group member” (α =
.82 and .93, respectively). A sample item for newcomers’ personal experience of supervisors’
newcomer-directed intellectual stimulation is “Today, my supervisor encouraged me to learn
new ways of completing official tasks,” and one for newcomers’ observation of supervisors’
coworker-directed intellectual stimulation is “Today, my supervisor encouraged a group
member to learn new ways of completing official tasks” (α = .89 and .82, respectively).
Newcomers’ schemas of supervisors (Time 2). The items for these scales measured the
extent to which newcomers viewed their supervisors as warm (warmth schema) and techni-
cally competent (competence schema). Five items each from existing scales for competence
and warmth schemas (Fiske et al., 2002) were adapted to measure these constructs. The
original items measured respondents’ schemas about groups, and these items were adapted
to measure newcomers’ schemas of their supervisors. A sample item for newcomers’ warmth
schema of supervisors is “My supervisor is a very warm person” (α = .95) and, for new-
comers’ competence schema of supervisors, is “My supervisor is a technically competent
person” (α = .93).
Newcomers’ information seeking from supervisors (Time 3). Using a 7-point Likert-

type scale (1 = never to 7 = always), newcomers’ information-seeking items measured the
frequency with which newcomers sought information from their supervisors about social
and task-related issues. Newcomers’ information seeking from supervisors on social issues
was measured by adapting VandeWalle, Ganesan, Challagalla, and Brown’s (2000) five-item
feedback-seeking scale to measure newcomers’ information seeking on social matters. A
sample item from this scale is “[How frequently do you ask your supervisor for information
about] how to develop friendly relationships with coworkers?” VandeWalle et al.’s (2000)
five-item scale was adapted to measure newcomers’ information seeking from supervisors
on task-related issues as well. A sample item for newcomers’ task information seeking from
supervisors is “[How frequently do you ask your supervisor for information about] technical
aspects of your job?” (α = .91 and .92 for newcomers’ social and task information seeking
from supervisors, respectively).
Task performance (Time 3). Supervisors rated the extent to which newcomers fulfilled
the official tasks assigned to them, using a five-item scale from Tsui, Pearce, Porter, and
Tripoli (1997). A sample item from this scale is “This employee performs the core job tasks
very well” (α = .94).
Intention to stay (Time 3). Newcomers’ intention to stay was measured through a four-
item scale from Bozeman and Perrewé (2001). A sample item from this scale is “I intend to
stay with this company for at least one more year” (α = .93).
Helping behavior (Time 3). This variable was measured using a five-item scale from
Podsakoff et al. (1990) through data provided by supervisors. A sample item from this scale
is “This employee helps others who have heavy workloads” (α = .96).
Newcomer adjustment (Time 3). Newcomer adjustment was measured using three scales—
role clarity, social adjustment, and task mastery—consistent with previous newcomer adjust-
ment research (e.g., Ashforth et al., 2007; Bauer et al., 2007; Kammeyer-Mueller & Wanberg,
2003; Nifadkar et al., 2012; Wesson & Gogus, 2005). Role clarity was measured using six
items from Rizzo, House, and Lirtzman (1970), and a sample item is “I know how much
authority I have at work” (α = .89). Social adjustment was measured using the six-item people
scale from Chao et al. (1994), and a sample item is “I believe most of my coworkers like me”
(α = .94). Task mastery was measured using the five-item performance proficiency scale from
Chao et al. (1994), and a sample item is “I fully understand how to successfully perform my
job” (α = .97). Averaged scores from these three scales were used as manifest indicators of the
latent construct called newcomer adjustment.
To verify whether role clarity, social adjustment, and task mastery can be treated as three
indicators of the latent construct of newcomer adjustment, items for the three measures were
first loaded on their hypothesized variables. The fit indices of this model were good, χ2(119) =
364.93, comparative fit index (CFI) = .97, incremental fit index (IFI) = .97, root mean square
error of approximation (RMSEA) = .09, and all factor loadings were significant and in the
expected directions. Next, the three first-order latent constructs of role clarity, social adjust-
ment, and task mastery were loaded on the second-order latent factor of newcomer adjust-
ment. The fit indices of this model, χ2(117) = 216.72, CFI = .99, IFI = .99, RMSEA = .06
(Δχ2/df = 74.10, p < .05, ΔCFI = .02), were better than those of the previous model, and the
loadings of the three first-order factors on the second-order factor were significant and in the
expected directions. Given that the fit indices of the second-order factor structure were sig-
nificantly better than those of the three-factor structure, and for parsimony, in this study,
newcomer adjustment is viewed as a three-dimensional construct composed of role clarity,
social adjustment, and task mastery.
Control variables. In structural equation modeling (SEM), parsimonious models are pre-
ferred (Williams, Vandenberg, & Edwards, 2009). Therefore, only the most appropriate con-
trol variables were used by specifying direct paths between the control variables and the study
variables with which they were most directly associated. Proactivity research (e.g., Ashford
& Black, 1996; Seibert, Crant, & Kraimer, 1999) suggests that individuals with high proactiv-
ity are more likely to ask for information from their supervisors. Thus, proactive personality
was added in the model by specifying direct paths to the two information-seeking variables.
Items for this variable were taken from Seibert et al. (1999) (α = .95). Further, information
seeking from coworkers may also facilitate newcomer adjustment. Thus, newcomers’ social
information seeking from coworkers and newcomers’ task information seeking from cowork-
ers (α = .93 and .96, respectively) were added as control variables by adding direct paths to
the newcomer outcome variables. Several other variables were measured as potential controls
but were not entered in the structural model for parsimony and to preserve degrees of freedom.
Results
Analyses
Descriptive statistics for the study variables are shown in Table 1.
Table 1
14
Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations
Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
1. Newcomers’ experience of 5.12 1.56

supervisors’ individualized
consideration
2. Newcomers’ observation of 5.29 2.32 .39**
supervisors’ individualized
consideration toward coworkers
3. Newcomers’ experience of 5.11 1.74 .28** .19**
supervisors’ intellectual stimulation
4. Newcomers’ observation of 4.21 1.71 .19** .02 .23**
supervisors’ intellectual stimulation
toward coworkers
5. Newcomers’ warmth schema of 5.05 1.58 .46** .43** .11 .10
supervisors
6. Newcomers’ competence schema 4.79 1.47 .21** .10 .54** .35** .19**
of supervisors
7. Newcomers’ social information 4.45 1.47 .27** .14* .10 .13* .30** 0.02
seeking from supervisors
8. Newcomers’ task information 5.14 1.38 .19** .12* .19** .21** .18** .34** .20**
9. Task performance 5.07 1.47 .14* .05 .17** .19** .11 .20** .15* .37**
10. Intention to stay 4.87 1.60 .32** .19** .20** .07 .26** .12* .31** .18** .08
11. Helping behavior 5.45 1.65 .28** .05 .09 .14* .25** .13* .31** .25** .41** .25**
12. Role clarity 5.05 1.82 .14* .15* .17** .18** .07 .12* .21** .40** .23** .05 .22**
13. Social adjustment 5.51 1.63 .23** .06 .14* .13* .18** .10 .41** .13* .23** .12* .45** .32**
14. Task mastery 5.08 1.81 .13* .09 .21** .19** .07 .15* .19** .43** .30** .11 .24** .57** .40**
15. Proactive personality 5.32 1.41 .10 .15* .06 .06 .15* .06 .25** .27** .13* .17** .19** .29** .14* .25**
16. Newcomers’ social information 5.16 1.51 .20** .07 .17** .16* .13* .11 .30** .17** .21** .29** .33** .42** .63** .34** .19**
seeking from coworkers
17. Newcomers’ task information 5.17 1.54 .14* .07 .15* .13* .09 .11 .19** .33** .52** .19** .30** .27** .24** .40** .28** .26**
*p < .05
**p < .01
Confirmatory factor analyses (CFAs). Two separate sets of CFAs were conducted, one
for the data provided by newcomers and the other for the data provided by supervisors.
A 15-factor model for newcomer-provided data in which all items were loaded onto their
hypothesized latent constructs showed a good fit, χ2(3054) = 5039.84, CFI = .92, IFI = .92,
RMSEA = .05; all factor loadings were significant, and the items loaded on their latent fac-
tors as expected. In comparison, a one-factor model in which all items for the 15 variables
were loaded on the same latent construct showed a poor fit, χ2(3159) = 22382.57, CFI = .19,
IFI = .19, RMSEA = .15 (Δχ2/df = 165.17, p < .05, ΔCFI = .73). The next CFA considered the
factor structure of the four supervisor behavior variables, data for which were collected in
the first phase. In the first step, items for the four variables were loaded on their hypothesized
constructs. The fit of this model was good, χ2(164) = 258.47, CFI = .97, IFI = .97, RMSEA =
.05. In comparison, the model in which all items for these four variables were loaded on the
same construct showed an inferior fit, χ2(170) = 1747.41, CFI = .45, IFI = .45, RMSEA = .19
(Δχ2/df = 248.16, p < .05, ΔCFI = .52).
The next step examined the factor structure of the items for newcomers’ warmth and com-
petence schemas of supervisors. The CFA in which items for warmth and competence sche-
mas were loaded on their hypothesized constructs showed a good fit, χ2(34) = 134.39, CFI =
.96, IFI = .96, RMSEA = .09, while the fit of the model in which all warmth and competence
schema items were loaded on the same construct was weaker, χ2(35) = 1144.78, CFI = .56,
IFI = .56, RMSEA = .34 (Δχ2/df = 1010.39, p < .05, ΔCFI = .40). The next CFA examined the
factor structure of the items for newcomers’ social and task information seeking from super-
visors. The two-factor model in which the items for social and task information seeking were
loaded on two different constructs showed a better fit, χ2(34) = 52.36, CFI = .98, IFI = .98,
RMSEA = .07, than did the one-factor model in which all items were loaded on the same
construct, χ2(35) = 542.69, CFI = .52, IFI = .52, RMSEA = .39 (Δχ2/df = 490.33, p < .05,
ΔCFI = .46).
The second set of CFAs examined the factor structure of newcomers’ task performance
and helping behavior, data for which were provided by the supervisors. A two-factor model
in which all items were loaded onto their hypothesized latent constructs showed a good fit,
χ2(34) = 66.18, CFI = .99, IFI = .99, RMSEA = .06. All factor loadings were significant, and
the items loaded on their latent factors as expected. In comparison, a one-factor model in
which all items for the two variables were loaded on the same latent construct showed a weak
fit, χ2(35) = 1123.79, CFI = .71, IFI = .71, RMSEA = .34 (Δχ2/df = 1057.61, p < .05, ΔCFI =
.28). Overall, the above analyses suggest that the hypothesized factor structure of the study
variables was acceptable (Bagozzi, Yi, & Phillips, 1991).
Structural model testing. SEM through EQS 6.2 was used to test the hypothesized model.
This step included testing three structural models, and the fit indices of these models are
shown in Table 2. Model 1 was the full hypothesized model, as shown in Figure 2, and it
included all the control variables mentioned above. Model 2 included additional direct paths
from newcomers’ experience and observation of supervisors’ individualized consideration
behaviors to social information seeking, using Model 1 as the base model. Model 3 added
direct paths from newcomers’ experience and observation of supervisors’ intellectual stimu-
lation to task information seeking, using Model 1 as the base model. These models tested the
possibility that mechanisms other than the ones proposed here mediated the paths between
Table 2
Fit Statistics of the Hypothesized Structural Equation Model
Model CFI IFI RMSEA χ2 df Δχ2/df ΔCFI
Model 1 (hypothesized structural model) .95 .95 .05 1409.22 904

Model 2 (added direct paths from .96 .96 .05 1399.86 902 4.68, p < .05 .01
newcomers’ experience and observation of
individualized consideration to newcomers’
social information seeking to Model 1)
Model 3 (added direct paths from newcomers’ .96 .96 .05 1406.64 902 1.29, ns .01
experience and observation of supervisors’
intellectual stimulation to newcomers’ task
information seeking to Model 1)
Note: CFI = comparative fit index; IFI = incremental fit index; RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation.
newcomers’ experience and observation of supervisor behaviors and newcomers’ informa-

tion seeking from supervisors.
The fit of Model 1 was good, χ2(904) = 1409.22, CFI = .95, IFI = .95, RMSEA = .05.
Overall, as shown in Table 2, all of the tested models showed a good fit to the data, and the
parameter estimates of the hypothesized paths were similar across these models. Δχ2 tests
suggested that Model 1 was significantly different from Model 2 but not from Model 3. In
addition, because Δχ2 results are sometimes dependent on sample size, a ΔCFI test is sug-
gested as a more robust method for comparing model fit, and ΔCFI values greater than .01
are believed to indicate significant differences among nested models (Cheung & Rensvold,
2002). As shown in Table 2, ΔCFI was not greater than .01 for any of the alternate models,
suggesting that the alternate models were not significantly different from the hypothesized
model. This is probably because, in general, adding or deleting a few paths from complex
models does not affect the overall fit indices significantly. In addition, Model 1 was the most
parsimonious of the three models that were tested. Hence, standardized parameter estimates
from Model 1 were used to test the hypotheses.
Standardized parameter estimates of the hypothesized paths from Model 1 are shown in
Figure 2. Hypotheses 1a and 1b predicted relationships between newcomers’ experience and
observation of supervisors’ individualized consideration and intellectual stimulation, respec-
tively, and newcomers’ schemas of supervisors. As shown in Figure 2, these hypotheses were
supported. Hypotheses 2a and 2b predicted relationships between newcomers’ schemas of
supervisors and newcomers’ information seeking from supervisors. These hypotheses were
supported, as shown in Figure 2. Hypotheses 3a and 3b proposed newcomers’ social and task
information seeking from supervisors as predictors of newcomer outcomes. As shown in
Figure 2, these hypotheses were partially supported. Specifically, the path from newcomers’
task information seeking from supervisors to intention to stay was not significant, while the
other paths were significant.
Testing for Hypotheses 1c and 1d involved examining whether there is a difference
between the effects of newcomers’ personal experience of supervisor behaviors and their
observation of supervisor behaviors toward coworkers on newcomers’ schemas of supervi-
sors. Relative weight and dominance weight analyses (Braun & Oswald, 2011; Johnson,
2000; Tonidandel & LeBreton, 2011) were used for this purpose. These approaches produce
Figure 2
Structural Model Linking Newcomers’ Schemas of Supervisors and Newcomer Outcomes
Note: N = 267, comparative fit index = .95, incremental fit index = .95, root mean square error of approximation = .05. Standardized parameter estimates are shown.
Standard errors appear after the comma. Solid arrows show significant paths (p < .05), and dashed arrows represent nonsignificant paths. Control variables are shown in
shaded ovals. T1, T2, and T3 represent the three waves of data collection, which were separated by 1 month. NC indicates that the data were collected from newcomers,
and Sup. shows that the data were collected from supervisors.
17
relative weights of the predictors by rescaling the weights to form a total of 100%. In the first
set, newcomers’ personal experience of supervisors’ individualized consideration and new-
comers’ observation of supervisors’ individualized consideration toward coworkers were
entered as independent variables, and newcomers’ warmth schema of supervisors was entered
as the dependent variable. The results suggested that the effect of newcomers’ personal expe-
rience of supervisors’ individualized consideration was higher than that of their observation
of supervisors’ individualized consideration toward coworkers (relative weight, 55.1% and
44.9%, p < .05, respectively; dominance weight, 55.3% and 44.7%, p < .05, respectively).
In the second set, newcomers’ personal experience and observation of supervisors’ intel-
lectual stimulation were entered as independent variables, with newcomers’ competence
schema of supervisors as the dependent variable. The results suggested that the effect of
newcomers’ personal experience of supervisors’ intellectual stimulation was much higher
than that of their observation of supervisors’ intellectual stimulation toward coworkers (rela-
tive weight, 74.2%, and 25.8%, p < .05, respectively; dominance weight, 74.3% and 25.7%,
p < .05, respectively). Overall, these results suggested that, compared with newcomers’
observation of supervisor behaviors toward coworkers, their personal experience of supervi-
sor behaviors had stronger effects on newcomers’ schemas of supervisors. Thus, Hypotheses
1c and 1d were supported.
Post Hoc Analyses

Combinations of newcomers’ experience and observation of supervisor behaviors. It is
possible that newcomers’ schemas of supervisors are most likely to develop when newcomers
observe that supervisors display specific behaviors toward themselves and toward their cowork-
ers consistently. Conversely, the relationship between newcomers’ experience and observation
of supervisor behaviors and newcomers’ schemas of supervisors should be weakest when super-
visors display specific behaviors toward both newcomers and their coworkers very rarely. The
approach suggested by Shanock, Baran, Pattison, and Heggestad (2010) was used to test this
possibility. This procedure generates four values (coefficients a1 to a4), reflecting four different
insights about the combinations of the two predictor variables. On the response surface plot,
coefficient a1 represents the slope of the line of perfect agreement between the two predictors,
and a significant value of coefficient a1 reflects a linear relationship between the two predictors
in relation to the outcome. Coefficient a2 represents curvature along the line of perfect agree-
ment, and a significant value of coefficient a2 reflects that the agreement between the two predic-
tors relates to the outcome in a nonlinear way. Coefficient a3 represents the slope of the line of
incongruence between the two predictors, and a significant value of coefficient a3 reflects how
the direction of discrepancy between the two predictors is related to the outcome. Coefficient
a4 represents the curvature of the line of incongruence, and a significant value of coefficient a4
reflects how the degree of discrepancy between the two predictors relates to the outcome.1
The results for newcomers’ personal experience and observation of supervisors’ individu-
alized consideration suggest that newcomers’ warmth schema of supervisors increases when
both experienced and observed supervisors’ individualized consideration increase (coeffi-
cient a1 = .56, p < .001). Coefficients a2, a3, and a4 were not significant. The response surface
plot for this procedure is shown in Figure 3. The same approach (Shanock et al., 2010) was
used to test for the effects of combinations of newcomers’ experience of supervisors’ intel-
lectual stimulation and their observation of supervisors’ intellectual stimulation toward their
Figure 3
Response Surface Analysis Plot for Newcomers’ Experience and Observation of
Supervisors’ Individualized Consideration Predicting Newcomers’ Warmth Schema
of Supervisors
coworkers. The results suggested that newcomers’ experience and observation of supervi-
sors’ intellectual stimulation positively influenced the formation of competence schemas at
all levels of both experienced and observed intellectual stimulation (coefficient a1 = .52, p <
.001). A decrease in this effect, however, is observed at higher levels of newcomers’ experi-
ence and observation of supervisors’ intellectual stimulation (coefficient a2 = −.13, p < .01).
Further, the effect was stronger when newcomers’ experience of supervisors’ intellectual
stimulation was higher than their observed intellectual stimulation (coefficient a3 = .27, p <
.001). Moreover, as the discrepancy between newcomers’ experience and observation of
supervisors’ intellectual stimulation increased, competence schemas decreased (coefficient
a4 = −.15, p < .01). Figure 4 shows the response surface plot for this test.
Combinations of newcomers’ warmth and competence schemas of supervisors. The approach

described above (Shanock et al., 2010) was used to test for the effects of combinations of warmth
and competence schemas. The first test was conducted for newcomers’ social information seek-
ing from supervisors as the outcome. The results suggested that newcomers’ social informa-
tion seeking from supervisors increases linearly with increases in both warmth and competence
schemas (coefficient a1 = .32, p < .01; coefficient a2 was not significant). The results further sug-
gested that newcomers’ social information seeking from supervisors is higher when the warmth
schema is higher than the competence schema (coefficient a3 = .25, p < .01). The level of dis-
crepancy between newcomers’ warmth and competence schemas, however, does not influence
the change in newcomers’ social information seeking from supervisors (coefficient a4 was not
significant). The response surface plot shown in Figure 5 represents this analysis.
The next analysis tested for the effects of combinations of newcomers’ warmth and compe-
tence schemas of supervisors on newcomers’ task information seeking from supervisors. Using
Figure 4
Response Surface Analysis Plot for Newcomers’ Experience and Observation of
Supervisors’ Intellectual Stimulation Predicting Newcomers’ Competence Schema of
Supervisors
Figure 5
Response Surface Analysis Plot for Newcomers’ Warmth and Competence Schemas of
Supervisors Predicting Newcomers’ Social Information Seeking From Supervisors
Figure 6
Response Surface Analysis Plot for Newcomers’ Warmth and Competence Schemas of
Supervisors Predicting Newcomers’ Task Information Seeking From Supervisors
the above procedure (Shanock et al., 2010), the results suggested that coefficients a1 and a3 were
significant (coefficient a1 = .46, p < .01; coefficient a3 = −.29, p < .01) and that coefficients a2 and
a4 were not significant. This suggested that newcomers’ task information seeking increases when
both warmth and competence schemas increase and that newcomers’ task information seeking
from supervisors was higher when newcomers’ competence schema of supervisors is higher than
their warmth schema of supervisors. Figure 6 shows the response surface plot for this procedure.
Relative weights of newcomers’ information seeking from supervisors and coworkers. This

analysis was conducted to verify whether newcomers’ information seeking from supervisors
exerts a unique influence on newcomer outcomes after controlling for the effects of new-
comers’ information seeking from coworkers. The relative weight and dominance weight
analyses described above (Braun & Oswald, 2011; Johnson, 2000; Tonidandel & LeBreton,
2011) were used for this purpose. For newcomers’ task performance, the relative weights of
newcomers’ task information seeking from both supervisors and coworkers were significant
(relative weight, 28.5% and 71.5%, p < .05, respectively; dominance weight, 27.4% and
72.6%, p < .05, respectively). For newcomers’ intention to stay, the relative weights of new-
comers’ social information seeking from both supervisors and coworkers were significant
(relative weight, 54.5% and 45.5%, p < .05, respectively; dominance weight, 53.6% and
46.4%, p < .05, respectively). The relative weights of newcomers’ task information seeking
from supervisors and coworkers on intention to stay were not computed because their effects
on the variable were nonsignificant, as shown in Figure 2. For newcomers’ helping behavior,
the relative weights of newcomers’ social information seeking from both supervisors and
coworkers were significant (relative weight, 45.8% and 54.2%, p < .05, respectively; domi-
nance weight, 46.9% and 53.1%, p < .05, respectively).
For newcomer adjustment (calculated as the average of role clarity, social adjustment, and
task mastery), the relative weights of four predictors (newcomers’ social and task information
seeking from supervisors and coworkers) were computed. The relative weights of newcomers’
social information seeking from supervisors and coworkers (relative weight, 10.7% and
51.8%, p < .05, respectively; dominance weight, 11.2% and 51.1%, p < .05, respectively) and
newcomers’ task information seeking from supervisors and coworkers (relative weight,
22.1% and 15.4%, p < .05, respectively; dominance weight, 22.2% and 15.5%, p < .05,
respectively) on newcomer adjustment were significant. These results suggested that new-
comers’ information seeking from supervisors exerts a unique influence on newcomer out-
comes after controlling for the effects of newcomers’ information seeking from coworkers.
Discussion
This study is the first examination of a schema-based model in the newcomer adjustment
literature. Examination of schemas in the newcomer adjustment context was important for a
more comprehensive understanding of the phenomenon, as they shape people’s future behav-
ior toward others. The present study suggests that newcomers’ schemas of supervisors play a
critical role in promoting newcomers’ information seeking from supervisors and influencing
their adjustment.
Implications for Theory

The primary purpose of this study was to investigate the emergence and influence of new-
comers’ schemas of supervisors. For the first time in the newcomer adjustment research, this
study revealed that newcomers’ “blank slates” in terms of supervisors’ images are gradually
filled with schemas developed through repeated experience and observation of supervisors’
behaviors. By investigating the development and outcomes of newcomers’ schemas of super-
visors, this study throws a new light on how newcomers make sense of their supervisors’
behaviors and introduces a new lens—schemas—to examine and link supervisor behaviors,
newcomers’ information seeking, and newcomers’ adjustment. Focusing on schemas is
important in the newcomer adjustment context because schemas about others start develop-
ing as soon as we start interacting with them and because schemas influence our behavior
toward others. In accordance with schema theory, the results of the present study suggested
that newcomers evaluate supervisors in terms of their warmth and competence and that these
two forms of schemas influence their social and task information seeking, respectively.
Previously, newcomers’ proactivity (e.g., Ashford & Black, 1996; Wanberg & Kammeyer-
Mueller, 2000) has been put forward as a predictor of their information-seeking behavior.
The results of this study suggested that newcomers’ warmth and competence schemas of their
supervisors can incline newcomers to proactively seek social and task-related information
from their supervisors, after controlling for the effect of their proactive personality. Further,
Nifadkar et al. (2012) examined the effect of newcomers’ positive affect on their information
seeking from supervisors. The results of this study suggested that, although different forms
of supervisors’ supportive behaviors—specifically, individualized consideration and intel-

lectual stimulation—can potentially give rise to positive affect, as suggested by Nifadkar
et al., they can have distinct effects on newcomers’ warmth and competence schemas of
supervisors and, in turn, on their social and task-related information seeking behaviors.
Therefore, given the influence of schemas on newcomers’ proactive information seeking,
future research on newcomer adjustment should pay greater attention to newcomers’ sche-
mas of their supervisors.
This study also extended the existing research by examining, for the first time, newcom-
ers’ vicarious sensemaking through observation of their supervisors’ behaviors toward their
coworkers. Previous research on organizational socialization tactics has emphasized the
importance of newcomers’ coworkers for facilitating newcomers’ adjustment (e.g., Jones,
1986; Van Maanen & Schein, 1979). This research has found that, through serial socializa-
tion tactic, organizations can provide mentors or role models to newcomers. Whereas the
previous research focused on organizational-level practices, the present study examined
newcomers’ unique individual-level observation of supervisors’ behavior toward coworkers.
A specific focus on newcomers’ observation of supervisor behaviors toward coworkers opens
the door for future examination of vicarious learning through indirect observation, rather
than through personal experience of supervisor behaviors, as has been the norm in the extant
newcomer adjustment research.
The results suggest that although the effects of newcomers’ personal experience of super-
visor behaviors were stronger than those of their observation of supervisor behaviors toward
coworkers, the latter exerted significant and independent effects on the development of new-
comers’ schemas of supervisors. This finding was in consonance with schema research,
which suggests that indirect observation of others’ behaviors can influence how people eval-
uate others (Baldwin, 1992; Nishida, 1999). The significant effect of newcomers’ indirect
observation of supervisor behaviors toward coworkers on schema development also was
consistent with social psychology research that proposes that learning can take place through
observation in addition to experience (Fazio et al., 1983; Fazio & Zanna, 1981). These find-
ings on learning from others’ experiences also extend the research on vicarious learning that
proposes that we can learn from the failures of others (e.g., Kim & Miner, 2007). Overall, the
study partially addressed an important gap related to a lack of examination of newcomers’
vicarious sensemaking through indirect observation of supervisor behaviors toward
coworkers.
The results of this study are in keeping with the broad findings of previous research about
the importance of supervisors’ support of newcomers (e.g., Jokisaari & Nurmi, 2009;
Kammeyer-Mueller et al., 2013; Nifadkar et al., 2012). Previous research on supervisor
behavior in the newcomer adjustment context, however, has not considered that supervisors’
supportive behaviors can take different forms. This study contributed to the newcomer
adjustment literature by facilitating a more fine-grained analysis of supervisor behaviors by
bifurcating supervisors’ supportive behaviors into two distinct forms, each with its own set
of outcomes. This separation increases conceptual clarity regarding different forms of super-
visor support that have been investigated in previous newcomer adjustment research. For
instance, Jokisaari and Nurmi (2009) investigated supervisors’ work-related support, and
Kammeyer-Mueller et al. (2013) measured effects of supervisors’ personal support. It is pos-
sible that a high degree of task-related supervisor support studied by Jokisaari and Nurmi
leads to the development of competence schema about supervisors and that the effects of
supervisors’ personal support examined by Kammeyer-Mueller et al. are transmitted via
newcomers’ warmth schema of supervisors. Thus, this study highlighted that supervisor sup-
port can take different forms and emphasized the importance of a more refined examination
of distinct supervisor behaviors and accompanying schemas in newcomer adjustment
research and in the broader literature on perceived supervisor support (e.g., Eisenberger,
Stinglhamber, Vandenberghe, Sucharski, & Rhoades, 2002).
For the first time in the newcomer adjustment literature, this study examined the effects of
different patterns of newcomers’ personal experience and indirect observation of supervisors’
behaviors. Additional analyses (Figures 3 and 4) revealed that warmth schemas increased at
all levels of newcomers’ experience and observation of supervisors’ individualized consider-
ation. Similarly, competence schemas increased at all levels of newcomers’ experience and
observation of supervisors’ intellectual stimulation. This suggests that newcomers make
sense of supervisors’ behaviors not only through their personal experience but also by observ-
ing supervisors’ behaviors toward others in the workplace. Moreover, supplementary analy-
ses (Figures 5 and 6) on combinations of warmth and competence suggested that the
agreement between newcomers’ warmth and competence schemas of supervisors influences
newcomers’ social and task information seeking from them. It seems that this happens
because both warmth and competence schemas are positively tinged evaluations of supervi-
sors, and such favorable schemas of supervisors should promote different forms of informa-
tion seeking from them, albeit to different extents.
Moreover, additional tests using relative weight and dominance weight analyses revealed
that although the effect of newcomers’ task information seeking from supervisors on new-
comers’ task performance was significant, the effect of task information seeking from
coworkers was stronger. This suggests that newcomers obtain distinct aspects of task-related
information from supervisors and coworkers. Further, compared with newcomers’ social
information seeking from coworkers, social information seeking from supervisors had a
stronger influence on their intention to stay. This aligns with a recent survey of corporate
managers that found that about half of the employees leave their company due to problems
related to their managers (Harter & Adkins, 2015).
Another strength of this study was the use of repeated measures of newcomers’ experience
and observation of supervisor behaviors, possibly for the first time in newcomer adjustment
research. Schema theory proposes that schemas are formed through repeated observation of
people’s behaviors. Thus, in congruence with schema theory, data for newcomers’ experience
and observation of supervisor behaviors were collected through repeated measures over 10
working days. This approach to data collection was a major improvement over previous
research on supervisor behaviors, which has generally measured supervisor behavior at one
time, as it is possible that a single retrospective snapshot of supervisor behaviors is a measure
of newcomers’ composite perception of supervisor behaviors rather than a record of their
actual repeated behaviors.
Limitations and Suggestions for Future Research

This study investigated information seeking as a form of newcomers’ proactive behavior.
Newcomers’ schemas of their supervisors, however, can potentially influence other proactive
behaviors as well (Parker & Collins, 2010). One such important proactive behavior is voice,
which is defined as speaking up, sharing ideas, and raising concerns in organizations (Van
Dyne & LePine, 1998). It is possible that warmth schemas of supervisors signal to newcom-
ers that it is safe for them to raise personal concerns with their supervisors, and competence
schemas of supervisors indicate to them that the supervisors are receptive to their task-related
suggestions and concerns. Similarly, some organizations may value commitment from their
employees (e.g., Allen & Shanock, 2013; Meyer & Allen, 1991). Thus, future scholars should
include voice and organizational commitment in their models and test whether newcomers’
schemas of supervisors predict these outcomes as well.
Another interesting possibility would be to investigate the extent to which the model pre-
sented in this study is applicable to employees with longer organizational tenures. The litera-
ture on schemas proposes that schemas develop during early interactions with others and,
once formed, are difficult to change. Thus, newcomers and the more experienced employees
may differ in terms of the stages of schema development because, while newcomers’ sche-
mas of supervisors would be in the formative stage during the socialization period, the sche-
mas that the more experienced employees have of supervisors would have become relatively
more stable with time. Therefore, it is possible that the incremental influence of recent expe-
rience and observation of supervisor behaviors on the development of schemas would
become weaker with tenure. Further, the more experienced employees would have accumu-
lated greater social and task-related information, and, hence, they would need less informa-
tion from their supervisors in these respects. Thus, the relationship between more experienced
employees’ schemas of supervisors and their information seeking from supervisors may be
weaker than that for newcomers.
The study also should be interpreted in light of its cultural context. India is a high-power-
distance country (Hofstede, 1984), signifying that supervisors are held in much greater regard
than are their subordinates and that the status differential between supervisors and subordi-
nates is much higher than in Western countries. This may have multiple implications for the
results of this study. First, Indian supervisors may tend to use individualized consideration
more frequently, given the cultural norms in the country. Second, given the relatively higher
status accorded to supervisors, they are probably also expected to be much more competent
than are their subordinates. Thus, the baseline behavior expectations from supervisors and
the associated warmth and competence schemas may differ across cultural contexts. Given
the difference in power distance in India and Western countries, replicating this study in other
national contexts would be a useful exercise.
Implications for Practice

The findings of this study highlighted the vital role of supervisors during organizational
socialization. In particular, supervisors should be encouraged to use both individualized
consideration and intellectual stimulation with new employees because these behaviors
have different influences on information seeking by newcomers. While supervisors’ indi-
vidualized consideration likely triggers newcomers’ information seeking on social issues,
intellectual stimulation possibly motivates task-related information seeking by newcomers.
Further, as suggested by the results of this study, these newcomer behaviors are associated
with organizationally important outcomes.
Further, the results of this study suggested that while supervisor behaviors directed toward
newcomers are important precursors to newcomer adjustment and performance, their behav-
iors toward other group members play an important role in the process as well. Thus, although
it is important for supervisors to pay attention to newcomers, they should be aware that new-
comers also observe how supervisors behave toward their colleagues. Therefore, it is critical
for supervisors to display consistently helpful behavior toward all group members, including
newcomers, to facilitate their adjustment and promote their performance.
Conclusion
Newcomers generally enter the organization with a “blank slate” regarding their assess-
ments of their supervisors. Yet, newcomers’ schemas of supervisors have tremendous influ-
ence on the degree to which newcomers perform in organizations. This study is the first step
in the scholarly journey toward understanding how newcomers’ blank slates about their
supervisors are filled in with schemas of their supervisors and how these schemas influence
newcomers’ information seeking and adjustment. Future research may throw new light on the
role of employees’ schemas of supervisors in other organizational and national contexts.
Note
1. Results of the response surface analyses after deleting outliers remained similar and are available upon request.
ORCID iD
Sushil S. Nifadkar https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3351-9533
References
Abe, J. A. A. 2011. Positive emotions, emotional intelligence, and successful experiential learning. Personality and
Individual Differences, 51: 817-822.
Agrawal, N. M., & Thite, M. 2003. Human resource issues, challenges and strategies in the Indian software industry.
International Journal of Human Resources Development and Management, 3: 249-264.
Allen, D. G. 2006. Do organizational socialization tactics influence newcomer embeddedness and turnover? Journal
of Management, 32: 237-256.
Allen, D. G., & Shanock, L. R. 2013. Perceived organizational support and embeddedness as key mechanisms con-
necting socialization tactics to commitment and turnover among new employees. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 34: 350-369.
Ashford, S. J., & Black, J. S. 1996. Proactivity during organizational entry: The role of desire for control. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 81: 199-214.
Ashforth, B. E., & Saks, A. M. 1996. Socialization tactics: Longitudinal effects on newcomer adjustment. Academy
of Management Journal, 39: 149-178.
Ashforth, B. E., Sluss, D. M., & Harrison, S. H. 2007. Socialization in organizational contexts. International Review
of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 22: 1-70.
Bagozzi, R. P., Yi, Y., & Phillips, L. W. 1991. Assessing construct validity in organizational research. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 36: 421-458.
Baldwin, M. W. 1992. Relational schemas and the processing of social information. Psychological Bulletin, 112:
461-484.
Bannister, B. D. 1986. Performance outcome feedback and attributional feedback: Interactive effects on recipient
responses. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71: 203-210.
Bass, B. M. 1985. Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: Free Press.
Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. 1994. Improving organizational effectiveness through transformational leadership.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. 1997. Full range leadership development: Manual for multifactor leadership question-
naire. Palo Alto, CA: Mindgarden.
Bauer, T. N., Bodner, T., Erdogan, B., Truxillo, D. M., & Tucker, J. S. 2007. Newcomer adjustment during orga-
nizational socialization: A meta-analytic review of antecedents, outcomes, and methods. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 92: 707-721.
Bauer, T. N., & Green, S. G. 1998. Testing the combined effects of newcomer information seeking and managerial
behavior on socialization. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83: 72-83.
Bozeman, D. P., & Perrewé, P. L. 2001. The effect of item content overlap on Organizational Commitment
Questionnaire-turnover cognitions relationships. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86: 161-173.
Braun, M. T., & Oswald, F. L. 2011. Exploratory regression analysis: A tool for selecting models and determining
predictor importance. Behavior Research Methods, 43: 331-339.
Chaiken, S. 1980. Heuristic versus systematic information processing and the use of source versus message cues in
persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39: 752-766.
Chao, G. T., O’Leary-Kelly, A. M., Wolf, S., Klein, H. J., & Gardner, P. D. 1994. Organizational socialization: Its
content and consequences. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79: 730-743.
Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. 2002. Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance.
Structural Equation Modeling, 9: 233-255.
Cuddy, A. J., Glick, P., & Beninger, A. 2011. The dynamics of warmth and competence judgments, and their out-
comes in organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 31: 73-98.
Eisenberger, R., Stinglhamber, F., Vandenberghe, C., Sucharski, I. L., & Rhoades, L. 2002. Perceived supervi-
sor support: Contributions to perceived organizational support and employee retention. Journal of Applied
Ellis, A. M., Bauer, T. N., Mansfield, L. R., Erdogan, B., Truxillo, D. M., & Simon, L. S. 2015. Navigating uncharted
waters: Newcomer socialization through the lens of stress theory. Journal of Management, 41: 203-235.
Fast, L. A., & Funder, D. C. 2008. Personality as manifest in word use: Correlations with self-report, acquaintance
report, and behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94: 334-346.
Fazio, R. H., Powell, M. C., & Herr, P. M. 1983. Toward a process model of the attitude-behavior relation: Accessing
one’s attitude upon mere observation of the attitude object. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44:
723-735.
Fazio, R. H., & Zanna, M. P. 1981. Direct experience and attitude-behavior consistency. Advances in Experimental
Social Psychology, 14: 161-202.
Fiske, S. T., Cuddy, A. J., & Glick, P. 2007. Universal dimensions of social cognition: Warmth and competence.
Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11: 77-83.
Fiske, S. T., Cuddy, A. J., Glick, P., & Xu, J. 2002. A model of often mixed stereotype content: Competence
and warmth respectively follow from perceived status and competition. Journal of Personality and Social
Harter, J., & Adkins, A. 2015. Employees want a lot more from their managers. Gallup News. Retrieved from
http://news.gallup.com/businessjournal/182321/employees-lot-managers.aspx.
Hofstede, G. 1984. Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values. Newbury Park, CA:
Sage.
Johnson, J. W. 2000. A heuristic method for estimating the relative weight of predictor variables in multiple regres-
sion. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 35: 1-19.
Jokisaari, M., & Nurmi, J. E. 2009. Change in newcomers’ supervisor support and socialization outcomes after
organizational entry. Academy of Management Journal, 52: 527-544.
Jones, G. R. 1986. Socialization tactics, self-efficacy, and newcomers’ adjustment to organizations. Academy of
Management Journal, 29: 262-279.
Judge, T. A., & Piccolo, R. F. 2004. Transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic test of their
relative validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89: 755-768.
Kammeyer-Mueller, J. D., & Wanberg, C. 2003. Unwrapping the organizational entry process: Disentangling mul-
tiple antecedents and their pathways to adjustment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88: 779-794.
Kammeyer-Mueller, J., Wanberg, C., Rubenstein, A., & Song, Z. 2013. Support, undermining, and newcomer
socialization: Fitting in during the first 90 days. Academy of Management Journal, 56: 1104-1124.
Kim, J. Y. J., & Miner, A. S. 2007. Vicarious learning from the failures and near-failures of others: Evidence from
the US commercial banking industry. Academy of Management Journal, 50: 687-714.
Louis, M. 1980. Surprise and sense making: What newcomers experience in entering unfamiliar organizational set-
tings. Administrative Science Quarterly, 25: 226-251.
Maddux, J. E., & Rogers, R. W. 1980. Effects of source expertness, physical attractiveness, and supporting argu-
ments on persuasion: A case of brains over beauty. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39: 235-244.
Mehl, M. R., Gosling, S. D., & Pennebaker, J. W. 2006. Personality in its natural habitat: Manifestations and implicit
folk theories of personality in daily life. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90: 862-877.
Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. 1991. A three-component conceptualization of organizational commitment. Human
Resource Management Review, 1: 61-89.
Mitchell, T. R., Holtom, B. C., Lee, T. W., Sablynski, C. J., & Erez, M. 2001. Why people stay: Using job embed-
dedness to predict voluntary turnover. Academy of Management Journal, 44: 1102-1121.
Morrison, E. W. 1993. Newcomer information seeking: Exploring types, modes, sources, and outcomes. Academy
of Management Journal, 36: 557-589.
Nifadkar, S. S., & Bauer, T. N. 2016. Breach of belongingness: Newcomer relationship conflict, information, and
task-related outcomes during organizational socialization. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101: 1-13.
Nifadkar, S., Tsui, A. S., & Ashforth, B. E. 2012. The way you make me feel and behave: Supervisor-triggered
newcomer affect and approach-avoidance behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 55: 1146-1168.
Nishida, H. 1999. A cognitive approach to intercultural communication based on schema theory. International
Journal of Intercultural Relations, 23: 753-777.
Ostroff, C., & Kozlowski, S. W. 1992. Organizational socialization as a learning process: The role of information
acquisition. Personnel Psychology, 45: 849-874.
Parker, S. K., & Collins, C. G. 2010. Taking stock: Integrating and differentiating multiple proactive behaviors.
Journal of Management, 36: 633-662.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. 2003. Common method biases in behavioral research:
A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88: 879-903.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Moorman, R. H., & Fetter, R. 1990. Transformational leader behaviors and
their effects on followers’ trust in leader, satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behaviors. Leadership
Quarterly, 1: 107-142.
Rizzo, J. P., House, R. J., & Lirtzman, S. I. 1970. Role conflict and ambiguity in complex organizations.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 15: 150-163.
Seibert, S. E., Crant, J. M., & Kraimer, M. L. 1999. Proactive personality and career success. Journal of Applied
Shanock, L. R., Baran, B. E., Gentry, W. A., Pattison, S. C., & Heggestad, E. D. 2010. Polynomial regression with
response surface analysis: A powerful approach for examining moderation and overcoming limitations of dif-
ference scores. Journal of Business and Psychology, 25: 543-554.
Sluss, D. M., & Thompson, B. S. 2012. Socializing the newcomer: The mediating role of leader-member exchange.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 119: 114-125.
Tonidandel, S., & LeBreton, J. M. 2011. Relative importance analysis: A useful supplement to regression analysis.
Journal of Business and Psychology, 26: 1-9.
Tsui, A. S., Pearce, J. L., Porter, L. W., & Tripoli, A. M. 1997. Alternative approaches to the employee-organization
relationship: Does investment in employees pay off? Academy of Management Journal, 40: 1089-1121.
VandeWalle, D., Ganesan, S., Challagalla, G. N., & Brown, S. P. 2000. An integrated model of feedback-seeking
behavior: Disposition, context, and cognition. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85: 996-1003.
Van Dyne, L., & LePine, J. A. 1998. Helping and voice extra-role behaviors: Evidence of construct and predictive
validity. Academy of Management Journal, 41: 108-119.
Van Maanen, J., & Schein, E. H. 1979. Toward a theory of organizational socialization. Research in Organizational
Behavior, 1: 209-264.
Wanberg, C. R., & Kammeyer-Mueller, J. D. 2000. Predictors and outcomes of proactivity in the socialization pro-
cess. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85: 373-385.
Wesson, M. J., & Gogus, C. I. 2005. Shaking hands with a computer: An examination of two methods of organiza-
tional newcomer orientation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90: 1018-1026.
Williams, L. J., Vandenberg, R. J., & Edwards, J. R. 2009. Structural equation modeling in management research:
A guide for improved analysis. Academy of Management Annals, 3: 543-604.

Nifadkar, JoM, 2018, Forthcoming

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Nifadkar, JoM, 2018, Forthcoming

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

807288

Filling in the “Blank Slate”: Examining

information-seeking behaviors. This study extends our understanding of the phenomenon by

Theory and Hypotheses

Newcomers’ Schemas of Supervisors as Outcomes of Experience and

has investigated the effects of newcomers’ observation of supervisor behaviors toward

Hypothesis 1a: Newcomers’ experience and observation of supervisors’ individualized consider-

Although newcomers’ firsthand experience and observation of supervisor behaviors

personal experience of supervisor behaviors will be more influential in the formation of

Hypothesis 1c: The effect of newcomers’ experience of supervisors’ individualized consideration on

Newcomers’ Information Seeking From Supervisors as Schema-Congruent

Outcomes of Newcomers’ Information Seeking From Supervisors

A sample item for newcomers’ personal experience of supervisors’ newcomer-directed

Newcomers’ information seeking from supervisors (Time 3). Using a 7-point Likert-

1. Newcomers’ experience of 5.12 1.56

Model CFI IFI RMSEA χ2 df Δχ2/df ΔCFI

Model 1 (hypothesized structural model) .95 .95 .05 1409.22 904

newcomers’ experience and observation of supervisor behaviors and newcomers’ informa-

Post Hoc Analyses

Combinations of newcomers’ warmth and competence schemas of supervisors. The approach

Relative weights of newcomers’ information seeking from supervisors and coworkers. This

Implications for Theory

of supervisors’ supportive behaviors—specifically, individualized consideration and intel-

Limitations and Suggestions for Future Research

Implications for Practice

You might also like