Learning From the Diverse Perspectives and Voice of Newcomers: A Contingency Model

Abstract

New organizational members can be an essential source to work teams. Yet, it is unclear whether teams can leverage newcomers’ distinct backgrounds, knowledge, and expertise through communicative processes to improve team effectiveness. This study develops and tests a theoretical account of the efficacy of newcomer communicative behavior for boosting team effectiveness. In doing so, this study specified the circumstances in which a positive relationship between the two is likely to occur. Results (N =160 teams) showed that newcomer voices’ positive influence on post-entry team performance was contingent upon individual-, team-, and organization-level boundary conditions, including age dissimilarity, team adaptability, and competitive intensity.

Keywords

voice newcomer team performance

New members can be an important source for diverse ideas and new capabilities to work teams, and thus newcomer socialization has had much scholarly attention in communication studies (Kramer & Miller, 2013). The extant newcomer socialization literature has primarily focused on the contextual influence of organizations and insiders on newcomers; far less attention has been paid to the potential emergent impact of newcomers on their teams (e.g., Dailey, 2016; Hart, 2012; Kozlowski & Bell, 2012). For example, it is still unclear how and when teams can take advantage of novices’ information-giving behaviors to leverage their distinct backgrounds, knowledge, and expertise (Manata et al., 2016; Rink et al., 2013). Having acknowledged this gap, several communication scholars have argued that research on how newcomers influence incumbents would be valuable (e.g., Guo, 2019; Heiss & Carmack, 2012; Kozlowski et al., 2010; Kramer & Miller, 1999). In response to this research disparity, this study seeks to provide a more sophisticated understanding of whether and how newcomer communicative behavior is instrumental for boosting team effectiveness by specifying the circumstances and context in which a positive relationship between the two is likely to occur.

Traditionally, newcomer socialization literature has predominantly portrayed newcomers as recipients of influence (i.e., the assimilation process) (Jablin, 2001; Kramer, 2011; Manata et al., 2016). Thus, this literature asserts that newcomers need to accept new identities, acquire unfamiliar skills, and internalize established rules to adjust effectively in teams (Gailliard et al., 2010; Hart & Miller, 2005; Kramer, 2011; Stephens & Dailey, 2012). More recently, a growing body of research suggests that besides being passive targets of influence or proactive information seekers, newcomers can be change agents who alter the thinking and behavior of their established teammates and thereby constitute an essential source of influence (Levine et al., 2003; Miller, 1996; Rink et al., 2013). Scholars have found that newcomers’ proactive behaviors can contribute to team effectiveness by promoting team creativity (Choi & Thompson, 2005), knowledge transfer (Kane et al., 2005), process improvement (Flanagin & Waldeck, 2004), and task innovation (Ashforth et al., 2007). Communication scholars have acknowledged that conversations among team members are important in fostering organizational learning to recognize and adapt to changes (Bisel et al., 2012; Kim & Leach, 2020).

Voice is one type of newcomer communicative behavior. It is employees’ informal and discretionary communication of work-related ideas, concerns, or opinions toward people who might be able to bring about changes (Morrison, 2014, p. 174). This communicative behavior can be a contingent process through which newcomers exert positive influence on team functioning. The extant literature suggests that newcomer voice can spur positive changes by supplying innovative ideas. At the same time, however, newcomer voice can disrupt well-established team routines and hurt team efficiency. Therefore, three boundary conditions of the relationship between newcomer voice and team performance are examined in this study. First, the extent to which newcomers can introduce new information and diverse perspectives may influence whether newcomer voice helps improve dysfunctional norms, change obsolete routines, and facilitate team innovation (Botero & Van Dyne, 2009; Boyraz, 2019; Kim, 2018; Grant & Patil, 2012). Thus, demographic dissimilarity between the newcomers and established team members may indicate opinion diversity and an important drive of team performance. Second, critical communication often gets silenced and sometimes even penalized in organizations (Bisel & Adame, 2019; Kassing, 2011; Zaini et al., 2017). Teams that are receptive to the change-oriented communication initiated by their newest members may be more likely to benefit from newcomer voice (i.e., team adaptability, Garner, 2015; Zanin et al., 2016). Third, I examine whether the teams’ operating environment requires learning and innovation to succeed (i.e., competitive intensity). In subsequent sections, a multilevel model of newcomer influence in teams is considered as an emergent phenomenon fueled by newcomers and buffered by established team members and team environments (Figure 1).

Figure 1.

Hypothesized model.

Newcomer Voice as a Driver for Change

Newcomers may provide work-related evaluative information such as opinions and judgments regarding work processes, roles, and the organization (Hudson & Jablin, 1992). In other words, newcomers may engage in a type of proactive communication—voice—to improve the status quo (Morrison, 2011; Van Dyne & LePine, 1998). Extending the information seeking and uncertainty management research in newcomer communication research, this study focuses on newcomers’ contribution to team development through communication, an evolutionary process through which the newcomer may help improve the team’s knowledge bases and collective capabilities (Kozlowski & Bell, 2008; Zhan, 2020).

Newcomer voice may spur positive change in teams. Over repeated task episodes, team members may settle into established routines, habitual modes of interaction, and shared mindsets (Katz & Allen, 2007; Kozlowski & Bell, 2003). However, routines may be obsolete when the team environment changes. This is because the routines create inertia; adherence to entrenched practices can inhibit teams from exploring and experimenting with alternatives that could be superior to the existing ones (Gersick & Hackman, 1990). In response to this, newcomers are likely to approach work from different perspectives and constitute opinion minorities (Choi & Thompson, 2005; Levine et al., 2003). For example, Choi and Thompson (2005) found that newcomer entry catalyzed the creativity of established team members, boosting team innovation and productivity. In addition, newcomers often have knowledge, skills, and expertise unavailable to the established team members, enabling them to offer instrumental suggestions. Newcomers are motivated to actively express potentially valuable ideas and stand out (Barge & Schlueter, 2004); this can in turn enhance team effectiveness. Therefore, as a form of minority opinions, newcomer voice may be instrumental for challenging and changing team cognitive dynamics in a healthy way that leads to improved collective problem-solving and team productivity (Kerr & Tindale, 2004).

On the other hand, newcomer voice may have limited instrumentality and may not always be readily accepted. Newcomer voice may disrupt the well-tested work practices that had facilitated team coordination and efficiency (Edmonson et al., 2001). For example, a newcomer’s prior experience could lead to the negative transfer of learning due to the team’s rigidity in behavior or thinking (Dokko et al., 2009). Furthermore, as the newest and sometimes youngest members of the teams, new hires usually are the least experienced in accomplishing team tasks. They may misapply their expertise and skills, which may further hinder collective performance. Newcomers also have relatively low role clarity in the first few months after entry (Bauer & Erdogan, 2011); this could limit the scope and applicability of their suggestions and comments.

Overall, the extant literature suggests that the introduction of new information and perspectives by newcomers may or may not contribute to better team performance. For example, Gibson and Saxton (2005) found that, without third-party input, culturally homogeneous and heterogeneous teams were equally effective. Therefore, the following research question is proposed:

Research Question 1: Does newcomer voice contribute positively to change in post-entry team performance?

Given the equivocal theoretical and empirical evidence regarding how newcomer voice influences team performance, the conditions under which newcomer voice benefits team performance are worthy of scholarly inquiry. This study investigates the boundary conditions from three aspects: newcomer characteristics, team characteristics, and environmental characteristics. In the following sections, each of the boundary conditions are discussed.

Demographic Dissimilarity as a Boundary Condition

Research shows that workplace demographic diversity facilitates team creativity (Stahl et al., 2010). Newcomers who are demographically different from established team members may introduce complementary information, innovative ideas, and diverse perspectives into the team, resulting in better team functioning, creativity, and performance. Demographic dissimilarity refers to the differences between a new hire and established team members in demographic characteristics, including gender, age, and education. Demographic differences may yield diverging work-related perspectives due to their reliable associations with differences on various underlying attributes including values, beliefs, schemas, attitudes, and social ties (Harrison & Klein, 2007; Twenge et al., 2012). Furthermore, demographic differences may yield differences in knowledge, skills, and abilities (Kurtulus, 2011).

For example, a demographically dissimilar newcomer can voice non-redundant and diverse information, ideas, or perspectives, which may provide superior solutions (Edmondson, 2003) and trigger team innovation leading to improved work practices (Choi & Thompson, 2005). Dissimilar new hires often have remarkably different life experiences than established team members, leading to uniqueness in values, worldviews, cognitions, and contacts (Bhave et al., 2010). For example, researchers have demonstrated that people who were demographically dissimilar tend to diverge in collecting, processing, and interpreting information; this suggests that such individuals are especially helpful sources of team requisite variety in decision making (Zenger & Lawrence, 1989). New members may approach tasks, solve problems, make judgments, and draw conclusions in novel ways by surfacing unshared information, communicating divergent views, and expressing dissenting opinions (Morrison, 2011; Nemeth, 1986). Therefore, newcomers’ voice may benefit team performance only when newcomers and established team members have diverse information and opinions:

Hypothesis 1: Newcomers’ gender, age, and education dissimilarity moderate the relationship between newcomer voice and post-entry team performance, such that when newcomers’ gender, age, and education dissimilarity increase, the relationships between newcomer voice and post-entry team performance become stronger.

Team Adaptability as a Boundary Condition

In the face of challenges and inquiries, adaptive teams may be more receptive to newcomer voice (Kim & Kiura, 2020; Rink et al., 2013; Van Dyne & LePine, 1998). Team socialization is an interactive process jointly driven by the newcomer and the established members (Bauer & Erdogan, 2011; Kozlowski & Bell, 2003). Besides newcomers’ initiatives, established members constitute the other important force responsible for successful newcomer integration. Specifically, adaptive teams are composed of members who are willing to modify their role configuration, behavioral patterns, and cognitive structures to accommodate requirements for change, as opposed to members who cling to consistency and stability and resist or oppose efforts to impose change (Pulakos et al., 2000). Team adaptability captures team members’ behavioral tendency to adjust team structures, strategies, or internal processes to deal with unexpected situations or non-routine tasks (Kozlowski et al., 1999; Moon et al., 2004). Therefore, team adaptability may likely affect teams’ receptivity to newcomers’ potentially constructive yet challenging suggestions.

Highly adaptable teams are more receptive to newcomers’ constructive criticism and alternative perspectives. Teams with high adaptability are open and resilient enough to respond to newcomer voice to improve performance by revisiting ingrained assumptions, refining role configurations, revising strategies, and reconstructing interaction patterns (Kozlowski et al., 1999; LePine, 2005; Morrison & Milliken, 2000). Conversely, in teams with low adaptability, newcomer voice is less likely to be embraced by established team members and is unlikely to produce appreciable effects (Hornsey et al., 2007). In fact, in teams with conservative members who are reluctant to change and experiment, newcomers who actively engage in voice behavior may be ostracized and labeled as “troublemakers” (Kassing, 2011; Morrison & Milliken, 2000). Therefore, highly adaptive teams need to be willing to implement and act on newcomers’ voice to leverage the newcomer voice as a catalyst for learning and innovation, which in turn promotes team productivity (Edmondson, 2003). Therefore, newcomer voice may benefit team performance when the teams are adaptable. As a result, a second hypothesis is proposed:

Hypothesis 2: Team adaptability moderates the relationship between newcomer voice and change in post newcomer entry team performance, such that the relationship between newcomer voice and post-entry team performance is more positive when team adaptability is high rather than low.

Competitive Intensity as a Boundary Condition

As discussed above, through disrupting existing ways of thinking and acting, newcomer voice can trigger changes in teams such as learning and innovation. Nevertheless, the value of these changes varies as a function of the team’s operating environments (Kozlowski & Ilgen, 2006). For example, research has suggested that learning and innovation are critical to performance in highly competitive markets (Huang, 2011; Suarez & Lanzolla, 2007; Yeniaras & Unver, 2016). When there are competitive players in the market, organizations are more likely to adopt innovative practices to achieve performance excellence (Mithas et al., 2013). Consistent with this view, Edmondson (2003) asserts that employee voice is more beneficial in teams whose environments require constant responsiveness to unpredictable situations, such as competitors’ initiatives, because the teams face high demands for learning and innovation. This means that newcomer voice can help teams keep up with or outstrip their rivals. Hence, competitive intensity may be another critical boundary condition moderating the effect of newcomer voice on team performance.

Moreover, as a significant contextual constraint, the operating environment that teams are embedded in has a substantial impact on team processes and therefore plays a critical role in shaping the relationship between member inputs and team outcomes (Kozlowski & Bell, 2012). Competitive intensity may be an important contextual factor for analyzing the contributions of newcomer voice because different environments imply different valuations of newcomer voice. Specifically, newcomer voice may become increasingly beneficial as the degree of competitive intensity escalates. For example, in highly competitive environments, teams face intense pressure to come up with new ideas or conceive novel solutions in response to intense competition and market turbulence; under such circumstances, newcomer voice is precious because it helps teams meet these needs through facilitating learning or sparking innovation (Argyris & Schön, 1978; Choi & Thompson, 2005; Edmondson, 2003). In relatively stable environments, however, the direct effects of newcomer voice on changes in team performance tend to be less intense because the learning and innovation resulting from newcomer voice are not as important as those in highly competitive environments (Lichtenthaler, 2009). In such cases, teams may not be motivated to take risks to adopt new processes or practices and tend to rely on continuing the entrenched practices to maintain the competitive advantages. In short, the benefits of newcomer voice may only exist when environmental competition is intense. Thus, Hypothesis 3 is proposed:

Hypothesis 3: Competitive intensity positively moderates the relationship between newcomer voice and change in post newcomer entry team performance, such that the relationship is stronger when competitive intensity is higher.

Methods

Research Context and Sample

To minimize common method bias, the present study used multiple waves of surveys and different data sources. With support from top management, the HR department of a large commercial bank located in Mideastern China distributed and collected all the data. The research was temporally coupled with a large-scale recruitment drive, which the cooperating company launched to expand its financial service teams. In this drive, newcomers were recruited by the end of May and were scheduled to embark on their new positions in July or August. The teams in the sample took on only one newcomer. Newcomers comprised a diverse pool, including fresh college graduates, experienced relationship managers from other banks, organizational veterans transferred from other departments, and people who had never worked in the banking industry but had relevant retailing experience. Each team worked in one geographic location, but the teams were dispersed throughout a massive geographic region. Given the complex nature of financial service, organizational members must rely on each other while accomplishing team tasks. For the teams studied in this research, members engage in intense interaction with each other and with team leaders daily, and each team has only one leader.

Design and Procedures

The first wave of data, including newcomer and team characteristics, was collected approximately 3 weeks before newcomer entry. Generally, newcomer characteristics were self-report data derived from resumes or solicited by the HR department; team characteristics data were collected from team members using surveys. All surveys were sent and received via the bank’s intranet system.

Newcomer socialization is a dynamic process (Kammeyer-Mueller et al., 2013). To determine when to measure voice behaviors, several senior team leaders were consulted. Consistent with the existing literature (Bauer & Erdogan, 2011), the leaders indicated that newcomers usually started to exhibit help and voice behaviors after the first few months, when they were still on probation but had familiarized themselves with the job tasks to some extent so that they were motivated and able to help and voice. Therefore, newcomers’ help and voice behaviors were measured approximately 3 months after newcomer entry. Measures for voice behavior were inserted into the quarterly performance appraisal process, an organizational routine that required team leaders to evaluate the performance of each team member under their supervision. Newcomer task performance also came from quarterly performance appraisals rated by team leaders. To ensure that the change in team performance trajectory was attributable to newcomer effects, the bank’s HR department identified and excluded teams that experienced other significant changes during the 6 months. For example, five teams were excluded because their team leaders were replaced during the study.

Measures

Responses to all measures (except for newcomer task performance) used 7-point Likert-type scales anchored by 1 = Strongly Disagree to 7 = Strongly Agree.

Newcomer Voice

Voice behavior was measured using Van Dyne and LePine’s (1998) 6-item scale. Sample items include: “this particular employee develops and makes recommendations concerning issues that affect this work group,” and “this particular employee speaks up and encourages others in this group to get involved in issues that affect the group.” Cronbach’s α was .89.

Demographic Dissimilarity

Following existing studies (e.g., Avery et al., 2013; Bhave et al., 2010; Chattopadhyay et al., 2010), demographic dissimilarity was operationalized as a Euclidean distance measure that is the square root of the average squared distance of a newcomer relative to all preexisting members of the team (Harrison & Klein, 2007). Although the use of such distance measures has been criticized (Edwards, 1994), this study’s focus on the cumulative demographic differences between a newcomer and preexisting members of the team makes Euclidean distance measure the best choice (Harrison & Klein, 2007). Furthermore, alternative methods, such as an interaction term approach, also have limitations (see Riordan & Wayne, 2008, for a recent review).

Team adaptability

Team adaptability was measured by the 8-item scale developed by LePine (2003). The wording of the items was slightly adjusted to measure the team’s overall tendency to adapt to changes. Example items included “Members of this team were NOT hesitant about changing the way they do tasks” and “Members of this team adjusted what they do to accommodate other members’ needs.” Cronbach’s α was .87. Aggregating the team adaptability score across members to the team level was supported by inter-member agreement, average rwg(j) = .93, and reliability, ICC(1) = .27, F(159,335) = 2.14, p < .01. ICC(2) = .53.

Competitive Intensity

Archival data were used to measure competitive intensity. Each financial service team was affiliated with a branch that often serves a given geographic region. The number of competitors that can provide the same service in the given region was used as an indicator of competitive intensity.

Newcomer Task Performance

Team leaders rated newcomers’ task performance using five items developed and employed by the bank. The instruction for the measure is that “compared to the standards established in the bank, please rate the following employee’s performance in the past 3 months,” on five dimensions: work quantity, work efficiency, judgment, creativity, and work quality. Team leaders gave their ratings on a 5-point Likert-type scale (1 = needs much improvement, 5 = exceptional).

Team Performance

Team performance was derived from archival data: the exact amount of profit each team brought into the bank within each quarter. The archival data for three consecutive quarters covering the entire period of our study were obtained (i.e., team performance upon newcomer entry, 3 months after newcomer entry, and 6 months after newcomer entry). To facilitate the comparability of results with confidentiality, team performance was standardized following prior research (Mathieu et al., 2006).

Control Variables

Control variables included age, gender, newcomer help behavior, industry experience, and task performance at the individual level. Team performance upon newcomer entry and team size were also included as control variables. Newcomer industry experience was operationalized as the number of years worked in the financial industry and was derived from newcomers’ resumes. Newcomer help behavior was measured by the 6-item scale adapted from Van Dyne and LePine (1998). Two items from the original scale were dropped because newcomers rarely enact the behaviors described. Sample items included “This particular employee often assists others with heavy workloads, even though it is not part of his/her jobs,” and “This particular employee attends functions outside his/her normal duties to help other team members’ tasks.” Cronbach’s α was .93.

Analytical Strategy

Our analyses were conducted at the team level. Because each team in our sample was embedded in a branch, such nested data structure calls into question whether the team-level data were independent. Therefore, before conducting the analyses, multilevel analyses were employed to explicitly model the nonindependence resulting from branch membership (Raudenbush & Bryk, 2002). The results indicated that the dependent variable (i.e., team performance) at the team level did not vary significantly across branches: ICC(1) = .01, F (27, 132) = 1.03, p > .05, suggesting that the variance of team performance attributable to branch membership was insignificant in explaining variance in the team-level dependent variable. Therefore, ordinary least squares regression at the team level was used to test the hypotheses (Raudenbush & Bryk, 2002). The pattern and significance of the results were unchanged when multilevel models were used. Descriptive statistics and correlations are in Table 1.

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics and Correlations for Study Variables.

	M	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14
1. Team size	4.35	1.06
2. Newcomer age	26.88	2.81	.15
3. Newcomer gender	.57	.50	−.03	−.10
4. Newcomer education	5.03	.28	.11	.07	.01
5. Newcomer industry experience	2.78	2.16	.21**	.86**	−.04	−.14
6. Newcomer age dissimilarity	10.18	3.68	−.17*	−.58**	.15	.01	−.47**
7. Newcomer gender dissimilarity	.58	.27	.29**	.08	−.03	−.02	.09	−.06
8. Newcomer education dissimilarity	.98	.42	.05	−.14	.06	.35**	−.08	.29**	.05
9. Competitive intensity	0	1	−.03	.10	−.04	−.03	.09	−.04	−.03	−.08
10. Newcomer task performance (T2)	3.26	.92	.06	.13	.02	−.02	.15	−.10	.04	.01	−.05
11. Newcomer help (T2)	5.06	.83	−.02	.02	−.08	.03	−.02	−.12	.04	.05	.14	.46**
12. Newcomer voice (T2)	4.71	.79	−.01	.05	.05	.05	.02	−.18*	.01	.08	.03	.38**	.53**
13. Team adaptability (T1)	5.21	.57	.04	.04	.01	.05	.09	−.09	−.12	−.09	−.04	−.06	.01	.09
14. Team performance (T1)	0	1	.29**	.06	.15	.05	.13	−.04	.10	−.03	.11	.03	−.06	−.05	.16*
15. Team performance (T3)	0	1	.31**	.11	.09	.03	.20*	−.00	.07	−.01	.13	.03	.01	−.03	.21**	.87**

Notes. N = 160; * p ≤ .05, Gender: 1 = male, 0 = female. T1 = before newcomer entry, T2 = 3 months after newcomer entry, T3 = 6 months after newcomer entry. Education (1 = less than a high school diploma, 2 = high school diploma, 3 = some college, 4 = associate’s degree, 5 = bachelor’s degree, and 6 = advanced degree). Internal consistency reliability coefficients (alpha) are reported on the diagonal in parentheses.

Results

Confirmatory Factor Analysis

Confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) in Mplus 8.0 were conducted to examine whether the data from the same source captured distinct constructs. The CFA involved two variables (i.e., voice and help) because the newcomer task performance scale was developed by a corporation that prohibited sharing the scale. The measurement model that allowed the indicators associated with each latent variable to correlate freely fit the data well, χ² (df = 31, N = 160) = 43.03, comparative fit index (CFI) = .98, root-mean-square error of approximation (RMSEA) = .05. Relative to the hypothesized 2-factor model, an alternative 1-factor model in which indicators of voice and help were set to load on a single factor fit the data significantly worse, Δχ² (Δdf = 1, N = 160) = 80.81 p < .01, CFI = .94, RMSEA = .13. These results supported the discriminant validity of the voice and help measures and suggested that the two measures assessed distinct constructs.

Test of Hypotheses

A series of regression analyses were conducted to test the main effect of newcomer voice and the interactive effects between newcomer voice and each moderator. All the results are presented in Table 2.

Table 2.

Hierarchical Regression Results: Main and Interactive Effects.

Variables	Control Model	Main Effects Model
Variables	Model 1	Model 2	Model 3	Model 4	Model 5
Control variables
Team performance (T1)	.85**	.85**	.85**	.86**	.85**
Team size	.04	.04	.07	.03	.05
Newcomer gender	−.02	−.02	−.03	−.03	−.02
Newcomer age	−.11	−.11	−.03	−.10	−.11
Newcomer education	−.01	−.01	.00	−.01	−.01
Newcomer industry experience	.19*	.19*	.18*	.18*	.19*
Newcomer task performance (T2)	−.06	−.06	−.06	−.06	−.06
Newcomer help (T2)	.10*	.12*	.12*	.10*	.11*
Main effects
Newcomer voice (T2)		−.02	−.00	.01	−.02
Newcomer gender dissimilarity			−.03
Newcomer age dissimilarity			.13*
Newcomer education dissimilarity			−.02
Team adaptability (T1)				.10*
Competitive intensity					.01
Interactive effects
Newcomer voice * Newcomer gender dissimilarity
Newcomer voice * Newcomer age dissimilarity
Newcomer voice * Newcomer education dissimilarity
Newcomer voice * team adaptability
Newcomer voice * competitive intensity
R ²	.77**	.77**	.78**	.78**	.77**

Variables	Moderation Effects
Variables	Model 6	Model 7	Model 8	Model 9
Control variables
Team performance (T1)	.84**	.85**	.85**	.86**
Team size	.06	.03	.04	.04
Newcomer gender	−.04	−.03	−.02	−.05
Newcomer age	−.05	−.09	−.11	−.01
Newcomer education	.00	−.01	.00	−.01
Newcomer industry experience	.19*	.17*	.18*	.15*
Newcomer task performance (T2)	−.05	−.05	−.05	−.04
Newcomer help (T2)	.12**	.12*	.12*	.14**
Main effects
Newcomer voice (T2)	−.00	−.01	−.03	.02
Newcomer gender dissimilarity	−.02			−.04
Newcomer age dissimilarity	.14**			.14**
Newcomer education dissimilarity	−.03			−.01
Team adaptability (T1)		.05		.05
Competitive intensity			.02	.02
Interactive effects
Newcomer voice * Newcomer gender dissimilarity	.02			.00
Newcomer voice * Newcomer age dissimilarity	.10*			.11**
Newcomer voice * Newcomer education dissimilarity	−.03			.01
Newcomer voice * team adaptability		.09*		.12**
Newcomer voice * competitive intensity			.08*	.10**
R²	.79**	.78**	.78**	.81**

Notes. ^aN= 160. *p < .05. **p < .01. T1 = before newcomer entry, T2 = 3 months after newcomer entry.

The results of the baseline model (Model 1) showed that prior team performance was the most powerful predictor of subsequent team performance (β = .85, p < .01), and that newcomers’ industry experience also significantly contributed to post-entry team performance (β = .19, p < .05; β = .10, p < .05, respectively). To answer research question 1, newcomer voice was added to the baseline model. The main effect of newcomer voice was not significant (β = −.02, p > .05), indicating newcomer voice did not explain additional variance of team performance change above and beyond the control variables.

Hypothesis 1 asked about the relationship between newcomer voice and team performance change as moderated by newcomer demographic dissimilarity, including age, gender, and education dissimilarity. As shown in Model 6 of Table 2, of the three interaction terms, only the one between newcomer voice and newcomer age dissimilarity was significant (β = .10, p < .05), while the other two interaction terms were not significant (β = .02, p > .05; β = −.03, p > .05, respectively). To further probe the significant interaction, the interaction plot (Figure 2) showed that when age dissimilarity was high, newcomer voice was positively related to team performance change (β = .10, p > .05). In contrast, when age dissimilarity was low, newcomer voice was negatively related to team performance change (β = −.11, p > .05). Although the simple slope tests indicated that the relationship between newcomer voice and team performance change was not significant in both low and high conditions of age dissimilarity, the direction of the relationship differed across the two conditions.

Figure 2.

The interactive effect of newcomer voice and age dissimilarity on postentry team performance.

Hypothesis 2 asked whether the relationship between newcomer voice and team performance change further depends on team adaptability. As shown in Model 7 of Table 2, the interaction between newcomer voice and team adaptability was significant (β = .09, p < .05). Hypothesis 2 was supported. The interaction plot (Figure 3) showed that when team adaptability was high, newcomer voice was positively related to team performance change (β = .08, p > .05). In contrast, when team adaptability was low, newcomer voice was negatively associated with team performance change (β = −.09, p > .05).

Figure 3.

The interactive effect of newcomer voice and team adaptability on postentry team performance.

Hypothesis 3 asked whether the relationship between newcomer voice and team performance change hinges on competitive intensity. As shown in Model 8 of Table 2, the interaction between newcomer voice and competitive intensity was significant (β = .08, p < .05). Therefore, Hypothesis 3 was supported. The plot of results, presented in Figure 4, shows that when competitive intensity was high, newcomer voice was positively related to team performance change (β = .06, p > .05). In contrast, when competitive intensity was low, newcomer voice was negatively associated with team performance change (β = −.12, p > .05).

Figure 4.

The interactive effect of newcomer voice and competitive intensity on postentry team performance.

Last, to test whether the significant interactive effects were compensatory, all interaction terms were simultaneously entered into the regression model. As shown in Model 9 of Table 2, all results remained the same.

Discussion

To investigate whether and when newcomer voice contributes to team performance after newcomer entry, this study examined whether demographic dissimilarity, team adaptability, and competitive intensity served as boundary conditions. Overall, the study results showed that newcomer voice could be a driver for better team performance when the newcomers differ in age from established team members, when the team adaptability is high, and when the environment is highly competitive.

Although much theoretical and empirical evidence exists in the literature that suggests a positive relationship between newcomer voice and team performance, some scholars have suggested that voice, as a type of change-oriented behavior, may harm or have no influence on the team’s performance under certain conditions. For example, Frese and Fay (2001) argued that challenge-oriented behaviors do not always contribute to task performance and relationships in teams positively because they upset the status quo and sometimes induce unnecessary changes. Furthermore, changes usually are coupled with setbacks and failures. When established members are not receptive to challenging inquiries and suggestions, especially those from the youngest and newest members, newcomer voice probably will not benefit team performance. Therefore, the non-significant result indicated that newcomer voices’ positive implications are contingent on certain factors. Moreover, the results emphasized the critical need to examine the boundary conditions.

The non-significant relationship between newcomer voice and team performance suggested that there may be conditions under which newcomers are able to contribute positively to teams through voice. Specifically, this study reveals that newcomers’ age dissimilarity served as an important boundary condition for the relationship between newcomer voice and team performance. This is because voice coming from newcomers different in age benefits team productivity by introducing new ideas and perspectives that preexisting team members do not possess. The unique information, diverse perspectives, and complementary resources such newcomers possess are critical determinants of the value of their voice. Furthermore, age difference can make a newcomer distinct relative to established team members in terms of their traditions, worldviews, education, and social networks (Chattopadhyay, 1999). These different attributes enabled the newcomer’s voice to add divergent thoughts, novel ideas, and non-redundant perspectives to the team.

Furthermore, in most teams, newcomers were younger than the established members of the team. It is possible that the newcomers were motivated to form relationships and learn from the experienced members (Finkelstein et al., 2003) and the age differences were not large enough to result in generation gaps. Too much age diversity may activate the social categorization processes and lead to negative performance implications. However, the interpersonal relationships established may foster the elaboration and integration of unique information and perspectives voiced by newcomers, leading to better performance.

Notably, gender and education dissimilarity did not have significant effects on the relationship between newcomer voice and team performance. It appeared that the differences in the teams’ gender and education did not bring instrumental new ideas and opinions for improving team performance. Existing research has found that the nature of work tasks moderates the relationship between team composition and performance (Timmerman, 2000). For example, gender differences at the workplace such as emotion regulation (Domagalski & Steelman, 2007) and negotiation initiation (Kugler et al., 2018) may be relevant in accomplishing certain team tasks. Furthermore, people with various professional and educational backgrounds were recruited as team members. Therefore, their specific work tasks may not require the knowledge, skills, and abilities from their education.

Moreover, team adaptability was a boundary condition for the relationship between newcomer voice and team performance. Not all teams are open to voice or have the capability to make necessary adjustments based on voice by team members (Morrison, 2011). As pointed out by Rink et al. (2013), it is difficult for newcomers to bring changes to their teams without the receptivity of preexisting team members. The moderating role of team adaptability corroborated the existing finding that responses to voice are partially the result of organizational and interactional context (Wåhlin-Jacobsen, 2020). Moreover, team adaptability may have ameliorated the relatively low receptibility of newcomer voice in high power distance cultures, such as Chinese Culture (Bauer & Erdogan, 2011). Therefore, based on the results of the study, newcomer voice is more likely to enhance collective effectiveness when it is coupled with high levels of team adaptability (Burke et al., 2006; LePine, 2003).

Finally, the utility of newcomer voice further depended on competitive intensity. Competitive intensity’s role in shaping organizational operations and performance has been examined in the literature. For example, in cross-functional collaborations, knowledge integration had a positive effect on new product performance when the competitive intensity was high (Tsai & Hsu, 2014). The results of this study supported Kozlowski and Ilgen’s (2006) argument that the environment in which teams operate impacts the difficulty, complexity, and tempo of team tasks, therefore constituting a major contingency for the link between member inputs and team outcomes. Moreover, a fast-paced, shifting, and competitive environment creates commensurate team task demands that must be resolved through triggering innovation (Choi & Thompson, 2005), fostering learning (Edmondson et al., 2007), and facilitating adaptation (Kozlowski & Bell, 2012; Kozlowski et al., 2010). Therefore, a highly competitive environment will make newcomer voice particularly valuable.

Theoretical Implications

This study makes several contributions to the newcomer socialization and employee voice research from a communicative perspective. First, following a few precursors (e.g., Guo, 2019; Kramer et al., 2019; Rink et al., 2013), the present study reinforces the thrust of investigations on how newcomers affect teams through a critical communication process (i.e., voice). Although it has long been recognized that newcomer socialization is a process of mutual influence and adjustment, the preponderance of the literature had put much emphasis on examining organizational strategies to socialize newcomers (Kammeyer-Mueller et al., 2013). Moreover, by unpacking the equivocal effect of newcomer voice on team performance, this study sheds light on whether, how, and when the most junior team members shape the collective performance through critical communication processes.

Second, answering Keyton’s (2017) call to link communication processes to team performance outcomes by extending the uncertainty management perspective in newcomer communication research, this study developed a theoretical account to understand the unique function that newcomer voice plays in enhancing team performance. Although existing team members are primarily considered as passive information sources after newcomers initiate information-seeking behaviors (Ellis et al., 2014), the results of this study suggested that employee proactive communicative behaviors (e.g., voice) may be more likely to result in positive implications when the initiatives are coupled with contextual receptivity (Bisel & Adame, 2019; Miller & Jablin, 1991).

Third, the study corroborated the interactionist perspective arguing that proactive behaviors’ positive implications are contingent upon personal and contextual factors (Grant & Ashford, 2008). By exploring the boundary conditions that may facilitate or attenuate the benefits of newcomer voice, I answer the call to a more sophisticated understanding of why some teams with newcomers are more successful in obtaining proactive outcomes (Saks et al., 2011). For example, when teams had the tendency to adapt to changes well, it appeared that they were more receptive to newcomer voice. These insights extend the newcomer socialization research by showing that a more complete understanding of newcomer integration needs to concurrently consider the characteristics of newcomers, established team members, and the environment of teams.

Practical Implications

The study sheds lights on several implications for managers. First, newcomers can be valuable resources for managers and organizations. Newcomers usually require considerable training to be able to perform to the same level as established team members. However, the results of this study suggested that under certain conditions, newcomers can be driving forces for better team performance. Second, developing a demographically diverse workforce for teamwork could contribute positively to team performance. Finally, established team members should develop an open, receptive, and flexible team in response to demands for change.

Limitations and Future Directions

The study has several limitations which point to future research directions. First, data were collected from one financial institution and the generalizability of the results may be limited. For example, in teams working on creative tasks (e.g., movie production teams), newcomers were consistently found to be sources of innovation and performance (Perretti & Negro, 2007). Culture may also affect newcomer voice processes and outcomes (Bauer & Erdogan, 2011). Future research should consider the context in which newcomers speaking up is encouraged and accepted. Second, although the data were collected in several waves based on the theoretical model, the causal relationship cannot be established empirically. For instance, the data suggested that newcomer voice was more instrumental in highly adaptable teams. Thus, future studies may consider manipulating team adaptability to experimentally test this effect. Third, newcomer performance was rated subjectively by their supervisor, which may be subject to biases such as personal liking and social desirability. Item-level data were not available for CFA. A more objective measure of newcomer performance is suggested for future studies. Given these shortcomings, it is worth noting that this study revealed three important boundary conditions for the relationship between newcomer voice and team performance: availability of diverse opinions among newcomers, established team members’ receptivity of those ideas, or the need for teams to adapt to the changing environment.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Mengqi Monica Zhan

Author Biography

Mengqi Monica Zhan (PhD, University of Maryland College Park) is an assistant professor in the Department of Communication at University of Texas at Arlington, USA. Her main research interests include employee communication and corporate communication.

References

Argyris

Schön

D. A.

(1978). Organizational learning. Addison-Wesley.

Ashforth

B. E.

Sluss

D. M.

Saks

A. M.

(2007). Socialization tactics, proactive behavior, and newcomer learning: Integrating socialization models. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 70(3), 447–462. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2007.02.001

Avery

D. R.

Wang

Volpone

S. D.

Zhou

(2013). Different strokes for different folks: The impact of se dissimilarity in the environment-performance relationship. Personnel Psychology, 66(3), 757–784. http://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12032

Barge

J. K.

Schlueter

D. W.

(2004). Memorable messages and newcomer socialization. Western Journal of Communication, 68(3), 233–256. http://doi.org/10.1080/10570310409374800

Bauer

T. N.

Erdogan

(2011). Organizational socialization: The effective onboarding of new employees. In Zedeck

(ed.), APA handbook of industrial and organizational psychology. Vol. 3. Maintaining, expanding, and contracting the organization (pp. 51–64). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/12171-002

Bhave

D. P.

Kramer

Glomb

T. M.

(2010). Work–family conflict in work groups: Social information processing, support, and demographic dissimilarity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(1), 145–158. http://doi.org/10.1037/a0017885

Bisel

R. S.

Adame

E. A.

(2019). Encouraging upward ethical dissent in organizations: The role of deference to embodied expertise. Management Communication Quarterly, 33(2), 139–159. https://doi.org/10.1177/0893318918811949

Bisel

R. S.

Messersmith

A. S.

Kelley

K. M.

(2012). Supervisor-subordinate communication: Hierarchical mum effect meets organizational learning. The Journal of Business Communication, 49(2), 128–147. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021943612436972

Botero

I. C.

Van Dyne

(2009). Employee voice behavior: Interactive effects of LMX and power distance in the United States and Colombia. Management Communication Quarterly, 23(1), 84–104. http://doi.org/10.1177/0893318909335415

10.

Boyraz

(2019). Faultlines as the “earth’s crust”: The role of team identification, communication climate, and subjective perceptions of subgroups for global team satisfaction and innovation. Management Communication Quarterly, 33(4), 581–615. https://doi.org/10.1177/0893318919860799

11.

Burke

C. S.

Stagl

K. C.

Salas

Pierce

Kendall

(2006). Understanding team adaptation: A conceptual analysis and model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(6), 1189–1207. http://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.91.6.1189

12.

Chattopadhyay

(1999). Beyond direct and symmetrical effects: The influence of demographic dissimilarity on organizational citizenship behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 42(3), 273–287. https://doi.org/10.2307/256919

13.

Chattopadhyay

Finn

Ashkanasy

N. M.

(2010). Affective responses to professional dissimilarity: A matter of status. Academy of Management Journal, 53(4), 808–826. http://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2010.52814603

14.

Choi

Thompson

(2005). Old wine in a new bottle: Impact of membership change on group creativity. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 98(2), 121–132. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2005.06.003

15.

Dailey

S. L.

(2016). What happens before full-time employment? Internships as a mechanism of anticipatory socialization. Western Journal of Communication, 80(4), 453–480. https://doi.org/10.1080/10570314.2016.1159727

16.

Dokko

Wilk

S. L.

Rothbard

N. P.

(2009). Unpacking prior experience: How career history affects job performance. Organization Science, 20(1), 51–68. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1080.0357

17.

Domagalski

T. A.

Steelman

L. A.

(2007). The impact of gender and organizational status on workplace anger expression. Management Communication Quarterly, 20(3), 297–315, https://doi.org/10.1177/0893318906295681

18.

Edmondson

A. C.

(2003). Speaking up in the operating room: How team leaders promote learning in interdisciplinary action teams. Journal of Management Studies, 40(6), 1419–1452. http://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6486.00386

19.

Edmondson

A. C.

Bohmer

R. M.

Pisano

G. P.

(2001). Disrupted routines: Team learning and new technology implementation in hospitals. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46(4), 685–716. http://doi.org/10.2307/3094828

20.

Edmondson

A. C.

Dillon

J. R.

Roloff

K. S.

(2007). Three perspectives on team learning. Academy of Management Annals 1(1), 269–314. http://doi.org/10.5465/078559811

21.

Edwards

J. R.

(1994). The study of congruence in organizational behavior research: Critique and a proposed alternative. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 58(1), 51–100. http://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1994.1029

22.

Ellis

A. M.

Bauer

T. N.

Erdogan

(2014). New employee organizational socialization. In Grusec

J. E.

Hastings

P. D.

(eds.) Handbook of socialization: Theory and research (pp. 301–311). Guilford.

23.

Finkelstein

L. M.

Kulas

J. T.

Dages

K. D.

(2003). Age differences in proactive newcomer socialization strategies in two populations. Journal of Business and Psychology, 17(4), 473–502. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1023400201387

24.

Flanagin

A. J.

Waldeck

J. H.

(2004). Technology use and organizational newcomer socialization. Journal of Business Communication, 41(2), 137–165. http://doi.org/10.1177/0021943604263290

25.

Frese

Fay

(2001). Personal initiative: An active performance concept for work in the 21st century. Research in Organizational Behavior, 23, 133–187. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0191-3085(01)23005-6

26.

Gailliard

B. M.

Myers

K. K.

Seibold

D. R.

(2010). Organizational assimilation: A multidimensional reconceptualization and measure. Management Communication Quarterly, 24(4), 552–578. https://doi.org/10.1177/0893318910374933

27.

Garner

J. T.

(2015). Open doors and iron cages: Management responses to employee dissent. International Journal of Business Communication, 53(1), 27–54. https://doi.org/10.1177/2329488414525466

28.

Gersick

C. J.

Hackman

J. R.

(1990). Habitual routines in task-performing groups. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 47(1), 65–97. http://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(90)90047-d

29.

Gibson

C. B.

Saxton

(2005). Thinking outside the black box: Outcomes of team decisions with third-party intervention. Small Group Research, 36(2), 208–236. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496404270376

30.

Grant

A. M.

Ashford

S. J.

(2008). The dynamics of proactivity at work. Research in Organizational Behavior, 28, 3–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2008.04.002

31.

Grant

A. M.

Patil

(2012). Challenging the norm of self-interest: Minority influence and transitions to helping norms in work units. Academy of Management Review, 37(4), 547–568. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2010.0437

32.

Guo

(2019). ‘Let our emotions tell the story’: An exploration of emotion management in Chinese proactive workgroup socialization. Human Relations, 72(7), 1187–1208. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726718796154

33.

Harrison

D. A.

Klein

K. J.

(2007). What’s the difference? Diversity constructs as separation, variety, or disparity in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 32(4), 1199–1228. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2007.26586096

34.

Hart

Z. P.

(2012). Message content and sources during organizational socialization. Journal of Business Communication, 49(3), 191–209. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021943612446731

35.

Hart

Z. P.

Miller

V. D.

(2005). Context and message content during organizational socialization: A research note. Human Communication Research, 31(2), 295–309. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2005.tb00873.x

36.

Heiss

S. N.

Carmack

H. J.

(2012). Knock, knock; who’s there? Making sense of organizational entrance through humor. Management Communication Quarterly, 26(1), 106–132. https://doi.org/10.1177/0893318911414914

37.

Hornsey

M. J.

Grice

Jetten

Paulsen

Callan

(2007). Group-directed criticisms and recommendations for change: Why newcomers arouse more resistance than old-timers. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 33(7), 1036–1048. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167207301029

38.

Huang

K. F.

(2011). Technology competencies in competitive environment. Journal of Business Research, 64(2), 172–179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2010.02.003

39.

Hudson

D. C.

Jablin

F. M.

(1992, May). Newcomer information-giving during organizational entry: Conceptualization and the development of a message categorization scheme [Paper Presentation]. In International Communication Association Annual Meeting, Miami, FL.

40.

Jablin

F. M.

(2001). Organizational entry, assimilation, and disengagement/exit. In Jablin

F. M.

Putnam

L. L.

(eds.), The new handbook of organizational communication: Advances in theory, research, and methods (pp. 679–740). Sage.

41.

Kammeyer-Mueller

Wanberg

Rubenstein

Song

(2013). Support, undermining, and newcomer socialization: Fitting in during the first 90 days. Academy of Management Journal, 56(4), 1104–1124. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2010.0791

42.

Kane

A. A.

Argote

Levine

J. M.

(2005). Knowledge transfer between groups via personnel rotation: Effects of social identity and knowledge quality. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 96(1), 56–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2004.09.002

43.

Kassing

J. W.

(2011). Dissent in organizations. Polity.

44.

Katz

Allen

T. J.

(2007). Investigating the not invented here (NIH) syndrome: A look at the performance, tenure, and communication patterns of 50 R & D project groups. R&D Management, 12(1), 7–20. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9310.1982.tb00478.x

45.

Kerr

N. L.

Tindale

R. S.

(2004). Group performance and decision making. Annual Review of Psychology, 55(1), 623–655. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.55.090902.142009

46.

Keyton

(2017). Communication in organizations. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 4(1), 501–526. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032516-113341

47.

Kim

(2018). Differential impacts of functional, geographical, and hierarchical diversity on knowledge sharing in the midst of organizational change. Management Communication Quarterly, 32(1), 5–30. https://doi.org/10.1177/0893318917728340

48.

Kim

Kiura

(2020). The influences of social status and organizational justice on employee voice: A case of customer care workers. International Journal of Business Communication. Advance Online Publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/2329488420969776

49.

Kim

Leach

(2020). The role of digitally-enabled employee voice in fostering positive change and affective commitment in centralized organizations, Communication Monographs, 87(4), 425–444. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637751.2020.1745859

50.

Kozlowski

S. W.

Ilgen

D. R.

(2006). Enhancing the effectiveness of work groups and teams. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 7(3), 77–124. https://doi.org/10.1111%2Fj.1529-1006.2006.00030.x

51.

Kozlowski

S. W. J.

Bell

B. S.

(2008). Team learning, development, and adaptation. In Sessa

V. I.

London

(eds.) Work group learning: Understanding, improving and assessing how groups learn in organizations (pp. 15–44). Taylor & Francis.

52.

Kozlowski

S. W. J.

Bell

B. S.

(2012). Work groups and teams in organizations. In Weiner

I. B.

(eds.), Handbook of psychology (pp. 333–375). Wiley.

53.

Kozlowski

S. W. J.

Chao

G. T.

Jensen

J. M.

(2010). Building an infrastructure for organizational learning: A multilevel approach. In Kozlowski

S. W. J.

Salas

(eds.) Learning, training, and development in organizations (pp. 363–403). Taylor & Francis.

54.

Kozlowski

S. W. J.

Gully

S. M.

Nason

E. R.

Smith

E. M.

(1999). Developing adaptive teams: A theory of compilation and performance across levels and time. In Campbell

J. P.

Ilgen

D. R.

Pulakos

E. D.

(eds.), The changing nature of performance: Implications for staffing, motivation, and development (pp. 240–292). Jossey-Bass.

55.

Kozlowski

S. W.

Bell

B. S.

(2003). Work groups and teams in organizations. In W. C. Borman, D. R. Ilgen, & R. J. Klimoski (Eds.), Handbook of Psychology: Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 12, (pp. 333-375). John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

56.

Kramer

M. W.

(2011). Toward a communication odel for the socialization of voluntary members. Communication Monographs, 78(2), 233–255. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637751.2011.564640

57.

Kramer

M. W.

Lee

S. K.

Guo

(2019). Using communication technology to manage uncertainty during organizational assimilation: Information-seeking and information-giving. Western Journal of Communication, 83(3), 304–325. https://doi.org/10.1080/10570314.2018.1518538

58.

Kramer

M. W.

Miller

V. D.

(1999). A response to criticisms of organizational socialization research: In support of contemporary conceptualizations of organizational assimilation. Communication Monographs, 66(4), 358–367. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637759909376485

59.

Kramer

M. W.

Miller

V. D.

(2013). Socialization and assimilation: Theories, processes, and outcomes. In Putnam

L. L.

Mumby

D. K.

(eds.), The SAGE handbook of organizational communication: Advances in theory, research, and methods (pp. 525–547). Sage.

60.

Kugler

K. G.

Reif

J. A. M.

Kaschner

Brodbeck

F. C.

(2018). Gender differences in the initiation of negotiations: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 144(2), 198–222. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000135

61.

Kurtulus

F. A.

(2011). What types of diversity benefit workers? Empirical evidence on the effects of co-worker dissimilarity on the performance of employees. Industrial Relations: A Journal of Economy and Society, 50(4), 678–712. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-232x.2011.00657.x

62.

LePine

J. A.

(2003). Team adaptation and postchange performance: Effects of team composition in terms of members’ cognitive ability and personality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(1), 27–39. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.1.27

63.

LePine

J. A.

(2005). Adaptation of teams in response to unforeseen change: Effects of goal difficulty and team composition in terms of cognitive ability and goal orientation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(6), 1153–1167. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.90.6.1153

64.

Levine

J. M.

Choi

H. S.

Moreland

R. L.

(2003). Newcomer innovation in work teams. In Paulus

P. B.

Nijstad

B. A.

(eds.) Group creativity: Innovation through collaboration (pp. 202–224). Oxford University Press.

65.

Lichtenthaler

(2009). Absorptive capacity, environmental turbulence, and the complementarity of organizational learning processes. Academy of Management Journal, 52(4), 822–846. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2009.43670902

66.

Manata

Miller

V. D.

DeAngelis

B. N.

Esther Paik

(2016). Newcomer socialization research: The importance and application of multilevel theory and communication. Annals of the International Communication Association, 40(1), 307–340. https://doi.org/10.1080/23808985.2015.11735264

67.

Mathieu

J. E.

Gilson

L. L.

Ruddy

T. M.

(2006). Empowerment and team effectiveness: An empirical test of an integrated model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(1), 97–108. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.91.1.97

68.

Miller

V. D.

(1996). An experimental study of newcomers’ information seeking behaviors during organizational entry, Communication Studies, 47(1–2), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/10510979609368460

69.

Miller

V. D.

Jablin

F. M.

(1991). Information seeking during organizational entry: Influences, tactics, and a model of the process. Academy of Management Review, 16(1), 92–120. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1991.4278997

70.

Mithas

Tafti

Mitchell

(2013). How a firm’s competitive environment and digital strategic posture influence digital business strategy. MIS Quarterly, 37(2), 511–536. https://doi.org/10.25300/misq/2013/37.2.09

71.

Moon

Hollenbeck

J. R.

Humphrey

S. E.

Ilgen

D. R.

West

Ellis

A. P.

Porter

C. O.

(2004). Asymmetric adaptability: Dynamic team structures as one-way streets. Academy of Management Journal, 47(5), 681–695. https://doi.org/10.2307/20159611

72.

Morrison

E. W.

(2011). Employee voice behavior: Integration and directions for future research. Academy of Management Annals, 5(1), 373–412. https://doi.org/10.5465/19416520.2011.574506

73.

Morrison

E. W.

(2014). Employee voice and silence. The Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 1(1), 173–197. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-031413-091328

74.

Morrison

E. W.

Milliken

F. J.

(2000). Organizational silence: A barrier to change and development in a pluralistic world. Academy of Management Review, 25(4), 706–725. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2000.3707697

75.

Nemeth

C. J

. (1986). Differential contributions of majority and minority influence. Psychological Review, 93(1), 23–32. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295x.93.1.23

76.

Perretti

Negro

(2007). Mixing genres and matching people: A study in innovation and team composition in Hollywood. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 28(5), 563–586. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.464

77.

Pulakos

E. D.

Arad

Donovan

M. A.

Plamondon

K. E.

(2000). Adaptability in the workplace: Development of a taxonomy of adaptive performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(4), 612–624. https://doi.org/10.1037//0021-9010.85.4.612

78.

Raudenbush

S. W.

Bryk

A. S.

(2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods (2nd ed., Vol. 1). Sage.

79.

Rink

Kane

A. A.

Ellemers

Van Der Vegt

(2013). Team receptivity to newcomers: Five decades of evidence and future research themes. Academy of Management Annals, 7(1), 247–293. https://doi.org/10.5465/19416520.2013.766405

80.

Riordan

C. M.

Wayne

J. H.

(2008). A review and examination of demographic similarity measures used to assess relational demography within groups. Organizational Research Methods, 11(3), 562–592. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428106295503

81.

Saks

A. M.

Gruman

J. A.

Cooper-Thomas

(2011). The neglected role of proactive behavior and outcomes in newcomer socialization. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 79(1), 36–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2010.12.007

82.

Stahl

G. K.

Maznevski

M. L.

Voigt

Jonsen

(2010). Unraveling the effects of cultural diversity in teams: A meta-analysis of research on multicultural work groups. Journal of International Business Studies, 41(4), 690–709. https://doi.org/10.1057/jibs.2009.85

83.

Stephens

K. K.

Dailey

S. L.

(2012). Situated organizational identification in newcomers: Impacts of preentry organizational exposure. Management Communication Quarterly, 26(3), 404–422. https://doi.org/10.1177/0893318912440179

84.

Suarez

F. F.

Lanzolla

(2007). The role of environmental dynamics in building a first mover advantage theory. Academy of Management Review, 32(2), 377–392. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2007.24349587

85.

Timmerman

T. A.

(2000). Racial diversity, age diversity, interdependence, and team performance. Small Group Research, 31(5), 592–606. https://doi.org/10.1177/104649640003100505

86.

Tsai

K. H.

Hsu

T. T.

(2014). Cross-functional collaboration, competitive intensity, knowledge integration mechanisms, and new product performance: A mediated moderation model. Industrial Marketing Management, 43(2), 293–303. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2013.08.012

87.

Twenge

J. M.

Campbell

W. K.

Freeman

E. C.

(2012). Generational differences in young adults’ life goals, concern for others, and civic orientation, 1966–2009. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102(5), 1045–1062. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027408

88.

Van Dyne

LePine

J. A.

(1998). Helping and voice extra-role behaviors: Evidence of construct and predictive validity. Academy of Management Journal, 41(1), 108–119. https://doi.org/10.2307/256902

89.

Wåhlin-Jacobsen

C. D.

(2020). Open or closed? A social interaction perspective online managers’ reactions to employee voice. Management Communication Quarterly, 34(1), 32–57. https://doi.org/10.1177/0893318919879901

90.

Yeniaras

Unver

(2016). Revisiting the mediating effect of entrepreneurial behaviour on proactiveness–performance relationship: The role of business ties and competitive intensity. European Management Review, 13(4), 291–306. https://doi.org/10.1111/emre.12084

91.

Zaini

R. M.

Elmes

M. B.

Pavlov

O. V.

Saeed

(2017). Organizational dissent dynamics. Management Communication Quarterly, 31(2), 258–277. https://doi.org/10.1177/0893318916671216

92.

Zanin

A. C.

Bisel

R. S.

Adame

E. A.

(2016). Supervisor moral talk contagion and trust-in-supervisor: Mitigating the workplace moral mum effect. Management Communication Quarterly, 30(2), 147–163. https://doi.org/10.1177/0893318915619755

93.

Zenger

T. R.

Lawrence

B. S.

(1989). Organizational demography: The differential effects of age and tenure distributions on technical communication. Academy of Management Journal, 32(2), 353–376. https://doi.org/10.2307/256366

94.

Zhan

(2020). When to speak up at work: A review of employee voice and silence behavior using a prospect approach. Atlantic Journal of Communication, 28(5), 273–288. https://doi.org/10.1080/15456870.2020.1720682