Mindstretches® // Finders, Keepers?
The importance of induction in retention

Notes from a Mindstretch® on Induction and retention


Click Here to downdoad the Slides.

8 November 2005

Present:

The session began with an all-too- familiar description of what can happen when a new person joins an organisation.    Much of what was in the slide was unfortunately based on actual experiences!

Defining socialisation,    much of the literature identified it as “the process by which the individual acquires the social knowledge and the necessary skills to assume a particular organisational role. Because newcomers can’t rely absolutely on their previous experience to guide them in the new company, they often feel anxiety. Mixed messages between the official version of what it’s like to work in the company and the messages people can pick up by actually being there can cause a “disconnect” between expectations and reality.

The theories around socialisation – and much of the empirical evidence – would indicate that how people find their way in organisations is much the same, regardless of their profession.

  Any job role combines three streams of activity – content or knowledge; a strategic base which suggests the ground rules for choosing particular solutions (for example, cost containment, quality above all else, etc) and a role mission, which is grounded in the organisational mission.

Research has noted that socialisation tactics influence individual responses to the taking up of a new job: a custodial approach which preserves the status quo; content innovation where changes are made to improve things, but the traditional aims and norms of the role are accepted; and role innovation where the individual seeks to redefine the entire role by changing the mission associated with it.

A classification of induction and socialisation “tactics”

But what are these socialisation tactics? A possible classification is presented on the next slide.    Context refers to how the socialisation is done; content refers to how the various elements are organised; and the social aspects are about what support the organisation provides to the individual. “Institutionalised” is how some of these tactics were grouped which indicates significant organisational input. Individualised” means more responsibility is on the individual new recruit/job entrant. Each of the classifications is described in the following slides.

  The collective tactics are commonly applied to basic training in the Armed Forces and foreign call centre operatives, among other groups. These socialisation tactics foster a feeling of “being in the same boat”. Individual tactics are associated with traditional apprenticeships, or, with more senior roles, the coaching of a more junior person into a senior role. Because the recruit is kept away from other recruits and therefore, their experience is strongly influenced by the person helping them into the organisation (socialisation agent)

Following on from this    formal socialisation tactics are found in police academies, the training of airline pilots and medical school. Formal tactics that keep new recruits away from the rest of the organisation, mean that often training cannot be directly applied – and so after learning it “in theory”, a period of informal socialisation is required to enable recruits to try out their skills “in practice”. As a result, the focus of formal training is often on attitude rather than skills.

Informal socialisation is where the recruit learns while on the job. This is a more powerful technique of shaping work behaviour because the outcomes are real – putting the recruits under more stress – and also because the teachers are people who will be doing the job.

Sequential and random socialisation tactics    are around the logical order of chunks of knowledge about the role and the organisation. Most professional training steps leading to a professional role will be negotiated in a specific order. On the other hand, where learning is not mapped out, recruits may receive information that conflicts from one step to another. This conflict may require the recruit to choose how they reconcile this information, which in turn may lead to innovation in the role or job content.

Fixed and variable tactics    refer to the time it will take for recruits to complete their socialisation, or induction. When it is fixed, it may be that recruits relax and can be more innovative. However, a variable timescale may lead recruits to become competitive and anxious – the timetable providing an indication of performance.

  Serial and disjunctive tactics refer to the role models available to new recruits to guide their performance and behaviour. New police officers are often partnered with a more experienced office, for example in serial tactics. While this has many benefits, it also has some drawbacks – the experienced organisational member may serve to maintain the status quo and propagate old prejudices and views. Disjunctive tactics mean that there is no role model available – perhaps in a new job, or where a woman is taking a job previously only held by men. This offers the recruit no guidance, and may lead to a lack of clarity about the role – but might also lead again, to innovation in the role, as the new recruit does it his or her way.
In the next slide   , the discussion turns to identity. Investiture indicates that the organisation does not want to change the individual and welcomes their ideas and previous experience. Divestiture is about the “stripping” of identity from new recruits and happens most commonly in the Armed Forces. Divestiture process essentially constructs a new identity for the individual. To some extent, in order to justify the effort in creating this new identity, it may be the individual will seek to enhance and maintain self- esteem by supporting the identity through behaviours, which rewarded by the organisation, become self-fulfilling.

Placed on the slide in the way suggested by Jones, there was some discussion about whether the tactics were in the right order. Sue pointed out that she at first considered that divestiture was a bad thing, but she then changed her mind as recruits presumably went through the divestiture process willingly. It was thought that this was essential if the new identity was to be put in place successfully.

What the various tactics have been shown to produce

The results of the empirical research around this      showed that institutionalised socialisation (collective, formal, sequential, fixed, serial and investiture tactics) has resulted in some positive outcomes – lower new recruit stress and lower uncertainty about the role and less inclination to quit the organisation.

In addition, these sorts of tactics are positively related to some powerful attitudinal outcomes – job satisfaction, organisational commitment and organisational identification. However, being socialised in a group with a variety of safety nets to lower stress may result in a group performance norm that constrains the individual. So the result may be steady, but not outstanding performance. In addition, these sorts of socialisation tactics preserve the status quo – they are negatively related to role innovation and – with the exception of collective tactics – person change.

When we look at some of the evidence around individualised socialisation tactics    these – with the recruits left to find their own way, make their own choices, and set their own performance standards – are positively associated with performance. One of the more negative outcomes is that it is more likely they will want to leave the organisation – one possible explanation is that individuals who successfully develop the role and job content feel more confident about finding other work elsewhere.

These findings also appear to be consistent over time.   

Some of the thoughts participants had while considering their own organisations and their induction programmes were:

Back

Mindstretches®