Newcomer Adjustment Among Recent College Graduates

Abstract

Newcomer adjustment, the process an individual goes through within the first year at a new organization, can be a challenging transition for traditionally aged recent college graduates. Unsuccessful adjustment can have profound negative consequences for young adults, organizations, and undergraduate institutions. Gaps exist in the human resource development (HRD) and undergraduate education literature leaving practitioners in both fields unsure of how to address this problem. Research regarding individual psychological capital (PsyCap) and proactive behaviors offer new perspectives that enhance understanding of newcomer adjustment and guide practice. In this integrative literature review we present a synthesis of research demonstrating positive interrelationships among PsyCap, proactive behaviors, and newcomer adjustment outcomes such as job performance, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment. Based on the outcomes we offer a model of newcomer adjustment that can guide researchers and practitioners in HRD and undergraduate education in working together to promote successful newcomer adjustment among recent college graduates.

Keywords

newcomer adjustment psychological capital PsyCap proactive behaviors

Each year more than 1.6 million young adults graduate with a bachelor’s degree from a degree-granting postsecondary institution in the United States (Aud et al., 2011). Many of these graduates enter the workforce as new members of an organization and experience newcomer adjustment. Newcomer adjustment is the process an individual goes through within the first year at an employing organization to learn how to perform the tasks of the job and develop positive attitudes toward the organization, work environment, and job requirements (Bauer, Bodner, Erdogan, Truxillo, & Tucker, 2007). All new employees experience newcomer adjustment, however, the process is particularly challenging for traditionally aged recent college graduates ages 21 to 23 (Justice & Dornan, 2001) who are likely to be entering their first position in the professional workforce after graduation while simultaneously experiencing multiple life transitions (Reicherts & Pihet, 2000).

Newcomer adjustment affects individuals as well as organizations. For young adults who are recent college graduates an unsuccessful adjustment can impact their professional and personal development (Ng & Feldman, 2007; Reicherts & Pihet, 2000). It can cause them to question their job satisfaction and organizational commitment, perform job tasks less productively, and ultimately leave the organization (Holton, 1995; Leibowitz, Schlossberg, & Shore, 1991). For organizations, the financial costs associated with decreased productivity, rehiring, and retraining due to disengaged newcomers or losing new employees to turnover can impede growth and profitability (Abbasi & Hollman, 2000).

Even in a weak economy when voluntary turnover is typically low, newcomer adjustment is a significant concern. In a weak economy, newcomers are more likely to stay in their position but may not perform at their peak, making limited contributions to the organization (Davis, 2010). A 2009 poll conducted by human resources consultant Right Management indicated that up to 60% of employees intend to leave their job when the economy stabilizes as a result of low staff morale, disengagement from added responsibilities, and dwindling benefits (Light, 2010). Newcomers could be part of the 60%, and employers may be hiring an influx of college graduates in their first professional job to replace the employees who leave. Thus, an acute need exists to better understand factors related to successful newcomer adjustment.

Newcomer adjustment among traditionally aged college graduates represents a transition from undergraduate education to the professional workforce. Educators in both settings have a stake in ensuring new graduates’ success and play different roles in the transition. In undergraduate education, faculty members in major areas of study provide instruction and experiences that enable students to gain domain-specific knowledge and skills needed to enter professions (Gardner, 1999). Student affairs educators help students secure a job after graduation that matches their chosen career path, skills, and values (Henscheid, 2008) or provide instruction in personal aspects of the school-to-work transition such as budgeting or relocating (Gardner, 1999). In employing organizations, human resource development (HRD) professionals play important roles identifying applicant characteristics that are most likely to fit with the organization and the position (Saks & Ashforth, 2000) and designing job-specific and/or broader social learning experiences to optimize new hire productivity (Swanson & Holton, 2009) and adjustment to the organization (Allen, 2006; Ashforth & Saks, 1996).

As described above, educators in undergraduate education and HRD play different yet complementary roles in supporting newcomer adjustment in employing organizations among recent college graduates. Their roles reflect different theoretical and empirical foundations in each domain. For example, in preparing students for transition from school to work, undergraduate faculty and student affairs educators may apply student development or life transitions theories (Evans, Forney, Guido, Patton, & Renn, 2009). In designing learning for new hires of all ages, HRD professionals may use theory and research about organizational socialization (Bauer et al., 2007; Griffin, Colella, & Goparaju, 2000) or workplace learning (Jacobs & Park, 2009). However, the literature in neither domain examines the challenges associated with newcomer adjustment among young adults who are recent college graduates. The purpose of this integrative literature review is to address this gap. The outcomes serve to inform educators and researchers in HRD and undergraduate education in supporting young adults during their first year of professional employment after graduation.

Background

In this section we provide background on how newcomer adjustment impacts organizations, higher education, and individual newcomers. We then present research questions that guided our integrative literature review, the findings, and conclusions.

Impact on Organizations

Newcomers to an organization are at high risk for attrition. Approximately 50% to 60% of newcomers voluntarily or involuntarily leave their new positions within the first 7 months of employment (Leibowitz et al., 1991). A 2010 Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) Foundation report revealed that within the first 120 days, half of all hourly workers leave their new positions (Bauer, 2010). Recent college graduates are especially at risk. In an empirical study Holton (1995) found that after 1 year in their first professional position approximately 33% of recent graduates planned to search for another job in the next year. Employers expend a great deal of time and money recruiting, training, motivating, and attempting to retain new employees. Financially, organizations spend 50% to 60% of an employee’s annual salary recruiting and hiring for the position (Allen, 2008). If a newcomer subsequently leaves the company either voluntarily or involuntarily, the employer incurs the costs of lost productivity and restarting recruiting and training processes. These direct and indirect costs are significant. According to a 2008 SHRM Foundation report, total costs associated with hiring a replacement due to turnover range from 90% to 200% of the employee’s annual salary (Allen, 2008).

For organizations immediate financial losses associated with ineffective newcomer adjustment are considerable, but minimal compared with the long-term consequences. In the most extreme cases, excessive employee turnover and poor newcomer productivity could jeopardize an organization’s viability. The loss of key employees could compromise the quality, quantity, and/or innovation of the organization’s services and products, leading to lower customer satisfaction (PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, 2006). One estimate indicated that voluntary and involuntary turnover costs American industry US$11 billion per year (Abbasi & Hollman, 2000), with additional costs when newcomers remain with the company but perform below expectations. Successful transition of newcomers to the work environment is essential to the company’s economic survival.

For this reason, during the past 6 decades HRD researchers have examined newcomer adjustment using various perspectives. In an early approach, researchers studied formal and informal socialization tactics used by organizations to help new employees learn the company’s beliefs, goals, values, policies, and procedures (see Jones, 1986; Saks, Uggerslev, & Fassina, 2007; Van Maanen & Schein, 1979). This perspective helped organizations understand and create tactics best suited to assist newcomers in adjusting to the company and professional working environment. More recently, researchers have worked to identify the most desirable dispositions for successful adjustment so that organizations can recruit and hire the “right” candidates (see Saks & Ashforth, 2000; Wanberg & Kammeyer-Mueller, 2000). This perspective focuses on what employers can do during hiring and training, and puts the responsibility for successful newcomer adjustment primarily on the shoulders of the organizations. In doing so, organizations can use intentional recruiting and training practices in the hope of reducing the challenges newcomers experience during the adjustment process. Even with these efforts organizations are continually challenged to recruit employees with the right dispositions and skills for available positions (SHRM, 2012), and the problem of unsuccessful newcomer adjustment persists.

Impact on Undergraduate Education

Newcomers transitioning from school to work experience a more challenging adjustment than those transitioning from job to job (Bauer et al., 2007). Despite part-time jobs and internships, traditionally aged recent college graduates often have little exposure to professional settings. Furthermore, graduating from college may trigger additional developmental transitions associated with young adulthood, such as becoming increasingly independent from family and other support systems, developing self-awareness, learning new roles and routines, and establishing new social networks or family of one’s own (Määttä, Nurmi, & Majava, 2002; Reicherts & Pihet, 2000). Because young adults are likely to experience newcomer adjustment many times—on average individuals with a bachelor’s degree have 6.2 jobs between the ages of 18 and 24 and 3.1 jobs between ages 25 to 29 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2012)—early development of the attributes and behaviors that make effective newcomer adjustment more achievable is especially important. Because many recent college graduates apply for entry-level professional positions (NACE, 2012), higher education can be a place where students learn and develop these attributes and skills.

Undergraduate institutions already have a stake in newcomer adjustment. Although colleges and universities aim to prepare students to become educated and engaged citizens that contribute to society, helping them secure their first professional job is a significant institutional goal (Henscheid, 2008). However, as Holton (1995) emphasized, colleges and universities “must hold themselves accountable for successful organizational entry, not just job placement” (p. 75). By failing to prepare students to adjust to their role as working professionals, undergraduate institutions risk hindering the future success of the constituents they serve.

Colleges and universities face additional consequences if they neglect to prepare undergraduate students for workforce entry. According to Geroy (1990), if employing organizations deem that graduates from a certain university are not ready and able to manage the requirements of their chosen job, company, or career, employers may be less likely to hire future graduates from that school, reducing the value of the institution’s degrees. A college with subsequently low job placement rates may experience a decrease in the school’s reputation, lower numbers of potential new students choosing to attend, and less money brought in from tuition and donations.

Furthermore, because of the vast amount of time, energy, and resources students and their parents invest in undergraduate education, they demand that colleges and universities do more to meet their needs, including preparing students for professional workforce entry (Wood, 2004). An institution’s ability to meet this need is the top consideration for students and parents in the college selection process. According to a study by the Higher Education Research Institute (2010), 56.5% of college first year students chose to attend their college because its graduates secure good jobs, the most important reason by almost 15%. Thus, undergraduate institutions have numerous incentives to assist in the newcomer adjustment process.

In addressing the senior year transition from undergraduate education to full employment, faculty have focused on preparing seniors to gain discipline-specific knowledge required for work in targeted fields and to secure a professional job. One approach involves senior seminars or capstone courses in specific academic majors that help students synthesize and apply comprehensive skills and knowledge learned in classes (Gardner, 1999). Another approach is the Senior Year Experience in which student affairs educators offer courses and programs to prepare senior undergraduate students for the transition from college to post-college life (Gardner, 1999). Specific topics may address career development, development of professional workplace behaviors such as business etiquette and workplace ethics, or personal areas of transition such as wellness, relocation, and personal finance (Henscheid, 2008). Although valuable, these approaches in undergraduate education lack a focus on specific individual attributes, behaviors, and skills most related to successful newcomer adjustment and supports for students to develop them.

Impact on Newcomers

Young adults who are recent college graduates can struggle during their first year in the professional workforce. Initially, new professionals may become stressed, experience negative mood changes, or lose motivation and confidence in themselves and their abilities (Reicherts & Pihet, 2000). Such changes can impact newcomers’ job performance, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment, and can ultimately lead to voluntary or involuntary turnover sometime within the first year of employment (Holton, 1995; Leibowitz et al., 1991).

An unsuccessful newcomer experience can also negatively influence young adults’ long-term professional and personal development. A negative experience may relate to increased risk of developing longer-term personal issues with adult identity and decision-making abilities (Ng & Feldman, 2007), psychological well-being (Reicherts & Pihet, 2000), and self-efficacy (Fournier & Payne, 1994). Career identity and career and income trajectories can be negatively impacted as well (Määttä et al., 2002).

Because the effects of unsuccessful newcomer adjustment have the potential to be detrimental to new professionals, researchers investigated cognitive processes through which newcomers internalize and cope with their new surroundings (see Falcione & Wilson, 1988; Feldman & Brett, 1983; Louis, 1980). Additional studies explored how individuals’ initial expectations differed from realities of the work environment (see Major, Kozlowski, Chao, & Gardner, 1995; Wanous, Poland, Premack, & Davis, 1992) and newcomers’ perceptions of how well the job and organization fit with their interests and values (see Saks & Ashforth, 2002). These lines of research did not specifically focus on young adults or recent college graduates. They considered new employees to be reactive participants responding to their environment (Morrison, 1993) and failed to take into account adjustment initiatives conducted by the newcomers themselves or individual attributes that may enable successful newcomer adjustment.

Conclusions

In reviewing background information on how newcomer adjustment impacts organizations, undergraduate institutions, and individuals, we identified different yet complementary roles undergraduate institutions and employing organizations play in supporting newcomers who are recent college graduates and contrasting perspectives underlying the roles. In undergraduate education, faculty and student affairs educators focus on experiences that prepare students in terms of knowledge and skills in a specific field and in terms of personal adjustment to broadly defined postgraduate life (Schuh, Jones, Harper, & Associates, 2010). In organizations, employers offer supports that enable newcomers to learn specific job tasks and responsibilities and become productive members of the organization and profession. The design and implementation of these supports falls within the expertise of HRD professionals (Swanson & Holton, 2009).

We also identified an underlying assumption common across perspectives, in which the individual is viewed as a passive entity—either an inexperienced learner lacking “real work world” knowledge and skills or an employee dependent upon employer supports to successfully navigate his or her first year on the job. Noticeably missing from the literature were theoretical or empirical works that provided insight into the active role of the individual, particularly young adults, in adjusting to an organization as a newcomer.

In our review of the literature on newcomer adjustment we found two lines of research in which individuals are viewed as proactive agents in their own newcomer adjustment process through development of the necessary qualities and behaviors to make success a reality (Morrison, 1993). The first line focuses on psychological capital (PsyCap), an emerging HRD construct that involves development of individuals’ self-efficacy, hope, optimism, and resiliency to improve work-related outcomes (Luthans, Youssef, & Avolio, 2007). The second line of research highlights the role of proactive behaviors in successful adjustment to the workforce (Ashford & Black, 1996). Proactive behaviors are the intentional actions taken to gather information, build relationships, and change working conditions to effectively adapt to a new work environment (Ashford & Black, 1996). The purpose of this article is to integrate the literature pertaining to PsyCap, proactive behaviors, and newcomer adjustment outcomes such as job performance, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment, leading to the development of a model of newcomer adjustment. The model can serve as a guide for educators and researchers in HRD and undergraduate education in promoting successful newcomer adjustment among traditionally aged recent college graduates.

Research Questions

Our investigation was guided by the following research questions:

RQ1: How does PsyCap relate to newcomer adjustment outcomes?

RQ2: How do proactive behaviors relate to newcomer adjustment outcomes?

RQ3: How does PsyCap relate to the use of proactive behaviors?

Method

Newcomer adjustment is a relatively established phenomenon and mature topic (Torraco, 2005) in the HRD field. Little consensus exists, however, on how best to tackle the problems related to unsuccessful adjustment, particularly among recent college graduates. Guided by our research questions, we conducted an integrative literature review by reviewing, analyzing, and synthesizing relevant literature to expand and reconceptualize the topic (Torraco, 2005) to include emerging research on individual attributes such as PsyCap and proactive behaviors.

Procedures

To create a data set, we examined peer-reviewed articles and books in the English language. We conducted searches through ERIC, PsycINFO, ABI/INFORM Global, and Academic Search Premier using the following descriptors: “newcomer adjustment,” “psychological capital,” “proactive behavior” with “newcomer adjustment,” and “proactive behavior” with “socialization.” By setting up alert notifications using these descriptors on the aforementioned databases, we identified newly published articles subsequent to the initial database search. In addition, through our connections with the researchers who originally developed the construct of PsyCap, we received notice of new publications on the topic. Using these search strategies we initially identified 293 sources. We excluded book and article reviews, interviews, no access to full-text articles, and articles not written in English. Inclusion criteria included relevancy to work settings and work-related outcomes and a focus on individual characteristics and behaviors rather than organizational efforts. After filtering out duplicate articles and entries not meeting the inclusion criteria, the final data set consisted of 55 peer-reviewed journal articles and 1 scholarly book. The scholarly book was conceptual and addressed PsyCap. The articles were categorized into: 30 PsyCap articles (20 empirical, 10 conceptual), 19 proactive behavior articles (18 empirical, 1 conceptual), and 6 empirical newcomer adjustment articles relating to self-efficacy. The authors reviewed each article in each category multiple times to identify information that could be compared, contrasted, and synthesized with information obtained from other articles to formulate an answer to each research question. We used an Excel file to organize information extracted from each article. Organizational headings included article type (empirical, conceptual, practice), author names, publication data, publication source, purpose, conclusions, and implications. Additional headings for empirical articles included research questions or hypotheses, methods, instruments and scales, results, effect sizes, and limitations.

Limitations

The findings of this integrative literature review may be limited by the methods used to identify and select articles and to extract information. Some relevant articles may have been overlooked because they were not identified by the search terms or because they did not meet all of the inclusion criteria. Important information may have been omitted due to errors in extracting information from included articles. Finally, we limited our search to English language sources and relevant articles may exist in other languages that may have informed this review.

Findings

We report the findings from our synthesis of the literature in relation to the three research questions. First we present findings related to RQ1 in which we synthesized literature indicating how PsyCap relates to newcomer adjustment outcomes. The findings pertaining to relationships between proactive behaviors and newcomer adjustment outcomes (RQ2) are next, followed by relationships between PsyCap and proactive behaviors (RQ3).

How Does PsyCap Relate to Newcomer Adjustment Outcomes?

In the pursuit of sustained competitive advantage, many organizations recognize the importance of collective and implicit knowledge, skills, and experiences of their employees, also known as “human capital,” in achieving economic capital (Luthans, Youssef, et al., 2007, p. 20). However, recent research suggests organizations need to move beyond the “what you know” of human capital to “who you are” and “who you are becoming” (p. 20). This uniquely positive focus on employees and their development into their “possible self” is called positive psychological capital, or PsyCap (p. 21). The construct of PsyCap originated in the field of organizational behavior based in research spearheaded by Luthans and colleagues (Luthans, Youssef, et al., 2007) who defined PsyCap as:

An individual’s positive psychological state of development that is characterized by: (1) having confidence (self-efficacy) to take on and put in the necessary effort to succeed at challenging tasks; (2) making a positive attribution (optimism) about succeeding now and in the future; (3) persevering toward goals and, when necessary, redirecting paths to goals (hope) in order to succeed; and (4) when beset by problems and adversity, sustaining and bouncing back and even beyond (resiliency) to attain success. (p. 3)

PsyCap consists of self-efficacy, hope, optimism, and resiliency. The four components represent distinctive developmental capacities that are positive, theory- and research-based, measurable, and state-like (Luthans, Youssef, et al., 2007). When combined, they synergistically create the higher order core construct of PsyCap. The impact of overall PsyCap on performance and attitudinal outcomes is larger than its individual facets, indicating that “the whole (PsyCap) [is] greater than the sum of its parts” (Luthans, Avolio, Avey, & Norman, 2007, p. 19). Luthans, Avolio, et al. (2007) tested this hypothesis using a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) on the psychological capital questionnaire (PCQ), an instrument developed by Luthans, Youssef, et al. (2007) to measure PsyCap and each of its components. The CFA revealed that self-efficacy, hope, optimism, and resiliency all loaded at .99 on the latent factor PsyCap, while each component singularly ranged from .89-.98 (p < .01). In addition, a Chi-Square Goodness-of-Fit test found the four-factor structure to be the best fitting model (Δχ²(7) = 1831.14, p < .001). The researchers tested the PCQ on four samples ranging from students to professionals and found a Cronbach’s α for overall PsyCap ranging from .88-.89.

As a construct, one of PsyCap’s unique qualities is its state-like distinction on the state-trait continuum. State-like constructs are more stable than states (e.g., moods) but more malleable and open to change than trait-like constructs (e.g., personality characteristics) and fixed traits (e.g., inherited attributes) (Luthans, Youssef, et al., 2007). Thus, an individual’s overall PsyCap can be developed if presented with effective intervention and environmental conditions (Luthans, Avey, & Patera, 2008; Luthans, Norman, Avolio, & Avey, 2008).

Researchers have connected PsyCap to prominent work-related outcomes such as job performance, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment. Support for the positive relationship between PsyCap and job performance is based on two studies reported by Luthans, Avolio, et al. (2007). In the first study of engineers and technicians from a Fortune 100 manufacturing firm (N = 115), total PsyCap had a moderate positive correlation with supervisor-rated performance (ESz_r = .34)¹. In the second study of employees from all functions and levels of a midsized insurance firm (N = 144), the correlation between PsyCap and supervisor’s performance ratings was smaller (ESz_r = .22) yet still notable. Similarly, Luthans, Avey, Clapp-Smith, and Li (2008) and Luthans, Avolio, Walumbwa, and Li (2005) found a small positive correlation between PsyCap and supervisor-rated performance among workers in China, including its largest private and state-owned enterprise copper refining factories (ESz_r = .26; N = 456) and three additional factories (ESz_r = .27; N = 422). Together, these studies indicate that employees with higher PsyCap may demonstrate higher job performance based on supervisor assessments.

In addition to higher job performance, individuals with higher levels of PsyCap tend to be more satisfied with their jobs and committed to the organization than individuals with lower PsyCap. Larson and Luthans (2006) found PsyCap had a moderate positive correlation with job satisfaction (ESz_r = .39) and organizational commitment (ESz_r = .32) among production workers in a small medium-tech manufacturing company in the Midwest (N = 74). In two later studies Luthans, Norman, et al. (2008) found even stronger relationships. They identified moderate to large correlations between PsyCap and job satisfaction (Study 1: ESz_r = .60; Study 2: ESz_r = .91) and organizational commitment (Study 1: ESz_r = .47; Study 2: ESz_r = .52). Participants in Study 1 (N = 163) were policy and claims processing employees in a midsize insurance services firm, and participants in Study 2 (N = 288) were engineers and technicians in a very large high-tech manufacturing firm. The consistency across multiple populations and work settings suggests that when applied to newcomer adjustment, newcomers with higher levels of PsyCap may perform moderately better, and be more satisfied with their job and committed to their employing organization than their peers with lower levels of PsyCap.

Though much of the empirical support for the positive relationship between PsyCap and job performance, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment comes from studies of experienced workers, researchers have found similar outcomes in studies with younger adults. For example, Luthans, Norman, et al. (2008) found a moderate correlation between PsyCap and self-rated job performance (ESz_r = .26), job satisfaction (ESz_r = .41), and organizational commitment (ESz_r = .32) among undergraduate management students (N = 404) who answered questions in terms of their current or most recent job or class project to frame the study in a work-related context. Because the results mirrored those of Luthans, Avolio, et al. (2007), Luthans, Avey, Clapp-Smith, et al. (2008), Luthans, Avolio, et al. (2005), and Larson and Luthans (2006) we can reasonably conclude that PsyCap’s relationship with performance and attitudinal outcomes is present across individuals of different ages (including young adults), work experience levels, and work environments. This conclusion gives additional credibility to the possibility that supporting undergraduate students’ development of PsyCap prior to organizational entry may enhance their newcomer adjustment outcomes.

Unlike other individual characteristics associated with newcomer adjustment such as personality traits and dispositions (Luthans, Avey, Avolio, & Peterson, 2010), PsyCap is state-like, and thus malleable and open to development through training interventions. Luthans, Avey, and Patera (2008) used an experimental study to examine if a highly focused, short duration, web-based intervention specifically designed to develop self-efficacy, hope, optimism, and resiliency could enhance PsyCap. The study participants were working adults from a variety of industries and jobs randomly assigned to an intervention (n = 187) or control (n = 177) group. Each group completed two, 45-min online training sessions, with the intervention group focused on developing the individual psychological components of PsyCap while the control group learned about decision making. Posttest PsyCap levels increased slightly (ESz_r = .10) among members of the intervention group, whereas levels decreased slightly among the control group (ESz_r = -.08). The study demonstrated that PsyCap can be developed in individuals through a highly focused, web-based micro-intervention.

The impact of training on the development of PsyCap was also demonstrated among college students. In a study by Luthans et al. (2010), 242 upper-level undergraduate management students were randomly assigned to intervention (n = 153) or control (n = 89) groups. Students in the intervention group who participated in a 2-hr training intervention, called the Psychological Capital Intervention (PCI), demonstrated gains in PsyCap (ESz_r = .20), whereas those in the control group who participated in training centered on group decision making experienced virtually no change in pre- to posttest PsyCap levels (ESz_r = .02). The PCI intervention engaged students in a series of activities in which they identified personally valuable goals (hope), generated multiple pathways to reach the goals (self-efficacy), identified potential obstacles and resources needed to overcome them (optimism), and anticipated and addressed setbacks (resiliency).

PsyCap can be developed among adults, including younger adults in college settings, and relates positively to job performance. In job settings PsyCap has also been shown to mediate the relationship between supportive organizational climate and performance. In a study of insurance employees (N = 163) and a study of high-tech manufacturing engineers and technicians (N = 170), Luthans, Norman, et al. (2008) proposed a supportive climate might produce the positive environment necessary for PsyCap to thrive. Supportive climate was a self-reported measure of participants’ perceptions of supportive aspects of their organizational climate. Using Sobel tests for mediating effects, results confirmed that PsyCap mediated the relationship between supportive climate and performance among both insurance employees (z = 2.23, p < .05) and manufacturing engineers (z = 2.83, p < .01). Outcomes indicated employees who perceive their organization’s climate is supportive are likely to have higher levels of PsyCap, which in turn positively impacts their performance.

With regard to RQ1, multiple studies by Luthans and colleagues suggest that PsyCap positively relates to newcomer adjustment outcomes of job performance, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment. Most studies of PsyCap have focused on work-related outcomes of all employees, not the subpopulation of newcomers experiencing their first professional job. By applying PsyCap to newcomer adjustment through a supportive climate (Luthans, Norman, et al., 2008) and strategic interventions (Luthans, Avey, & Patera, 2008), newcomers may be better equipped to handle challenges and take initiative to gather the necessary information and support during organizational entry to achieve success as a new working professional.

How Do Proactive Behaviors Relate to Newcomer Adjustment Outcomes?

Organizational entry is a challenging experience for newcomers, especially traditionally aged college graduates. In addition to the ambiguity new graduates feel upon gaining independence they may also feel they have little control over their daily lives due to the uncertainties of a new job (Ashford & Black, 1996). Regaining feelings of control and subsequent professional success increasingly involves the use of proactive behaviors (Ashford & Black, 1996; Crant, 2000). Crant (2000) defined proactive behavior as “taking initiative in improving current circumstances or creating new ones; it involves challenging the status quo rather than passively adapting to present conditions” (p. 436).

Utilizing proactive behaviors is one way for newcomers to actively influence their own adjustment success. Proactive behaviors help newcomers gain the information and develop the relationships necessary to effectively accomplish their jobs and fit with the organization. Ashford and Black (1996) proposed that newcomers who were more proactive would also be more successful in their adjustment to the organization within the first year of employment. The proactive behaviors identified as advantageous in the newcomer adjustment process were sensemaking (information seeking and feedback seeking), relationship building (general socializing, networking, and building relationships with one’s boss), negotiating job changes, and positive framing. Over the past decade, researchers have linked proactive behaviors to prominent newcomer adjustment outcomes such as job performance, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment.

Engaging in proactive behaviors help newcomers achieve their maximum job performance potential within the first year of employment. In a study of MBA graduates employed as practicing managers (N = 69), Ashford and Black (1996) assessed proactive behaviors 6 months after entry and self-reported job performance 12 months after entry to demonstrate the relationship between proactive behaviors and performance. The researchers found that job performance had a strong correlation with building relationships with one’s boss (ESz_r = .63), a moderate correlation with positive framing (ESz_r = .42), and a small correlation with information seeking (ESz_r = .22) and feedback seeking (ESz_r = .23). Overall, proactive behaviors explained 33% of the variance in job performance 12 months after entry, indicating that newcomers who engaged in proactive behaviors perform moderately better than their peers.

Newcomers who engaged in proactive behaviors not only reported better job performance than their peers, they were also somewhat more satisfied with their jobs. Wanberg and Kammeyer-Mueller (2000) conducted a longitudinal study of formerly unemployed adult workers (N = 181) recently hired in a wide variety of jobs and occupational categories to determine the relationship between newcomers’ use of proactive behaviors and their job satisfaction during organizational entry. The researchers discovered moderate correlations between job satisfaction and information seeking (ESz_r = .35), feedback seeking (ESz_r = .38), positive framing (ESz_r = .38), and relationship building with one’s boss (ESz_r = .29). In total, proactive behaviors explained 28% of the variance in self-reported job satisfaction after an average of 56.4 days on the job. Similarly, Gruman, Saks, and Zweig (2006) found small to moderate correlations between job satisfaction and information seeking (ESz_r = .22), feedback seeking (ESz_r = .39), general socializing (ESz_r = .38), networking (ESz_r = .25), and relationship building with one’s boss (ESz_r = .40) among undergraduate management students (N = 140) after completing a 4-month full-time cooperative education (co-op) experience. The results indicated that newcomers, including young adults in undergraduate education, who frequently engaged in proactive behaviors were to a moderate degree more likely to be satisfied with their jobs than those who did not.

In addition to moderately better performance and higher job satisfaction, newcomers’ use of proactive behaviors helps them successfully adjust with increased commitment to the organization. In the study by Gruman et al. (2006) of undergraduate management students who completed a 4-month full-time cooperative education experience, the researchers found moderate correlations between organizational commitment and feedback seeking (ESz_r = .40), general socializing (ESz_r = .38), networking (ESz_r = .31), and relationship building with one’s boss (ESz_r = .48). Overall, use of proactive behaviors accounted for 29% of the variance in organizational commitment. The results suggested that when young adult newcomers engage in proactive behaviors, particularly in settings where they engage in individualized instruction, both the individual and the organization benefit.

In sum, studies by Ashford and Black (1996), Wanberg and Kammeyer-Mueller (2000), and Gruman et al. (2006) show that newcomers who engage more frequently in proactive behaviors may perform better, be more satisfied with their job, and be more committed to the organization. The correlation effect sizes were consistently moderate in magnitude and explained close to a third of the variance in these newcomer adjustment outcomes.

Coaching newcomers to engage in proactive behaviors early on in a new job is especially important because engaging in these behaviors enhances newcomer learning and adjustment outcomes more than participating in organization-driven socialization tactics. Ashforth, Sluss, and Saks (2007) examined the effects of proactive behaviors and organizational socialization tactics on newcomer learning related to socialization by longitudinally analyzing the entry experiences of business and engineering graduates employed full-time after graduation (N = 150). Learning was assessed in seven socialization content areas including technical, normative, organizational, political, referent, and appraisal. They found a medium positive correlation between learning and proactive behaviors (ESz_r = .44) and a smaller positive correlation between learning and organizational socialization tactics (ESz_r = .27), suggesting that newcomers learned more by engaging in proactive behaviors than by participating in organizational socialization tactics. The researchers also found that after 7 months on the job, compared with new employees who learned solely through organizational socialization tactics, new employees who engaged in more proactive behaviors had higher job performance (ESz_r = .37 vs. ESz_r = .19), greater job satisfaction (ESz_r = .32 vs. ESz_r = .21), and more connectedness to the organization (ESz_r = .31 vs. ESz_r = .21). According to the researchers, “newcomers acquired more content through active rather than passive means” (p. 459).

Unlike PsyCap, our review revealed no empirical evidence supporting or refuting the proposition that an intervention or supportive environment can increase individuals’ use of proactive behaviors during the newcomer adjustment process. However, Bandura’s (1997) research on social learning theory indicates that behaviors can be learned through modeling if attention, retention, reproduction, and motivation are present, making it likely that proactive behaviors can also be learned under these conditions. If proactive behaviors can be learned through modeling and observation, a strong likelihood exists that they can be also developed through effective interventions in a supportive environment.

For RQ2, consistent evidence exists across a variety of newcomer settings indicating that proactive behaviors positively relate to newcomer adjustment outcomes of job performance, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment. By frequently utilizing proactive behaviors during their first year of employment, newcomers, including recent college graduates, may learn critical information about job tasks, the organization, their performance, supervisors, and coworkers. This knowledge may help them overcome the challenges many newcomers face and enable their success.

How Does PsyCap Relate to Proactive Behaviors?

According to our analysis of the literature, PsyCap and proactive behaviors share significant relationships with important newcomer adjustment outcomes. New employees with high levels of PsyCap have more psychological resources to utilize during transitional experiences (Luthans, Youssef, et al., 2007), and proactive behaviors allow newcomers to acquire the necessary information, feedback, support systems, job tasks, and positive perspectives to survive professional workforce entry (Ashford & Black, 1996). Because individuals with high PsyCap are confident (self-efficacy), have positive expectations (optimism), persevere toward goals (hope), and overcome adversity (resiliency), we hypothesize they may also be more proactive to ensure their success during newcomer adjustment.

In work contexts, PsyCap reveals itself through behaviors and actions, many of which proactively support newcomer adjustment. Though researchers have yet to assess the nature of relationships between PsyCap and specific proactive behaviors in workplace settings, two studies suggest that the two sets of individual states are positively interrelated. In their study of employees from a wide variety of organizations and jobs (N = 132), Avey, Wernsing, and Luthans (2008) demonstrated that individuals with high levels of PsyCap were likely to engage in more organizational citizenship (ESz_r = .47) and less deviant behaviors (ESz_r = -.58). Both organizational citizenship and less deviant behaviors are conceptually akin to proactive behaviors, particularly relationship building, and can be intentionally utilized by newcomer employees.

Providing additional support for the link between PsyCap and newcomers’ proactive behaviors is the positive relationship between self-efficacy, proactive behaviors, and newcomer adjustment outcomes found by Gruman et al. (2006). The researchers focused on the self-efficacy aspect of PsyCap among undergraduates completing a 4-month co-op experience. They found that students with high self-efficacy were more likely to engage in proactive behaviors than those with low self-efficacy. Specifically, self-efficacy had small to moderate positive correlations with networking (ESz_r = .33), feedback seeking (ESz_r = .29), information seeking (ESz_r = .22), general socializing (ESz_r = .46), and relationship building with one’s boss (ESz_r = .37). Further analysis revealed proactive behaviors fully mediated the relationship of self-efficacy and institutional socialization tactics with organizational commitment and partially mediated this relationship with job satisfaction. These results suggest that self-efficacy, a component of PsyCap, may be an important predictor of proactivity among young adults in workplace settings even when institutional socialization tactics are present.

In addressing RQ3, studies by Avey et al. (2008) and Gruman et al. (2006) provide initial evidence for a positive relationship between PsyCap and proactive behaviors. However, questions remain as to how these two factors interrelate with regard to specific newcomer adjustment outcomes such as job performance, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment among traditionally aged recent college graduates. Given that PsyCap represents psychological states that can impact behaviors, they may enable proactive behaviors. Without additional evidence to clarify the relationship, we offer that PsyCap and proactive behaviors are at least mutually reinforcing. Further research is needed to determine if newcomers with high levels of PsyCap are also likely to frequently engage in proactive behaviors during their first year in the professional workforce.

Discussion: A Model of Newcomer Adjustment

We presented evidence that PsyCap and proactive behaviors relate to newcomer adjustment outcomes and to each other. Previous research on newcomer adjustment (e.g., Ashford & Black, 1996; Wanberg & Kammeyer-Mueller, 2000) included proactive behaviors as a factor in the successful adjustment to the professional workforce. Our integrative literature review represents an attempt to connect newcomer adjustment, PsyCap, and proactive behaviors and to examine the implications of these relationships when the newcomers are traditionally aged recent college graduates. In Figure 1 we offer a model of relationships among these factors in the contexts of undergraduate education and employing organizations based on our analysis and synthesis of the literature. The ultimate goal of the newcomer adjustment process is for newcomers to become effective, satisfied, and committed members of the organization, and we propose that PsyCap and proactive behaviors are important individual factors that can make this outcome possible.

Figure 1.

Model of newcomer adjustment for recent college graduates.

Although newcomer adjustment is a difficult process, particularly for recent college graduates entering the professional workforce, PsyCap and proactive behaviors may make the transition easier. Each newcomer entering the adjustment process is a unique individual. How newcomers react and proactively adjust to the transition depends in part on “who you are” and “who you are becoming,” that is, their PsyCap (Luthans, Youssef, et al., 2007, p. 20), and how they engage in proactive behaviors. New employees with high PsyCap have the confidence to succeed, the capability to set realistic goals, the ability to make positive attributions about their successes and failures, and the power to recover from setbacks. Similarly, because newcomers cannot learn and retain all the information, skills, and resources provided by employing organizations during orientation, engaging in proactive behaviors enables them to gather these essential components themselves (Wanberg & Kammeyer-Mueller, 2000). Engaging in proactive behaviors helps newcomers learn about their job tasks, the organization, and their performance and develop support systems to reduce uncertainty. Thus, if PsyCap and proactive behaviors are present, newcomers are more likely to be successful in their adjustment to the professional workforce.

The model also depicts the mutual relationship between PsyCap and proactive behaviors. Given that newcomers with high levels of PsyCap are confident, have positive expectations, persevere toward goals, and have resiliency to overcome adversity they may be more likely to engage in proactive behaviors to ensure their success during the adjustment period. Engaging in proactive behaviors provides the basis of learning through experience (Bandura, 1997). Experiencing positive outcomes as a result of engaging in proactive behaviors may heighten one’s confidence to accomplish job tasks and overcome difficulties, leading to positive expectations and persistence in achieving goals (Lunenburg, 2011). Thus, we propose PsyCap and proactive behaviors are mutually reinforcing, enabling newcomers to continuously invest in these individual attributes and achieve success during their first year of employment.

Because undergraduate education is invested in the success of its graduates, it is well positioned to support students in developing PsyCap while at college, thereby increasing the likelihood of graduates engaging in proactive behaviors as newcomers in an organization. HRD professionals in employing organizations can continue to promote learning that relates to PsyCap and proactive behaviors through formal and informal environmental supports and socialization tactics. The supports and interventions young adults receive during undergraduate education and new hire orientation and training may make their success as a newcomer more likely, and we offer implications for practice in both settings later in the article.

In summary, newcomers who develop PsyCap and engage in proactive behaviors may be more likely to achieve their maximum job performance potential while being satisfied with their job and committed to the organization within the first year of professional employment. A better understanding of how these factors characterize recent college graduates who are successful newcomers will enable undergraduate education faculty and student affairs educators to support students’ development of these characteristics prior to graduation and assist employing organizations to offer continued support and resources that increase the likelihood of successful adjustment.

Research Recommendations

This integrative literature review and resulting model serve as a first step in identifying interrelationships among the specific individual attributes of PsyCap and proactive behaviors that may play an important role in recent college graduates’ success as newcomers in the professional workforce. Empirical research is required to substantiate the model before practitioners can use it to design interventions that effectively develop these characteristics among college students and increase the likelihood of their success in the workplace. Until this point, studies of PsyCap in workplace contexts have involved employees of various ages and years of experience. Initially, empirical research focusing on newcomers who are traditionally aged recent college graduates is needed to describe how PsyCap, proactive behaviors, and newcomer adjustment interrelate among members of this population in various professional and workplace settings.

After the relationships and model are established, developing and assessing the effectiveness of targeted interventions for young adults in both undergraduate education and professional environments is a logical next step. During newcomers’ first year on the job HRD professionals could integrate an intervention similar to the PCI (Luthans et al., 2010) into formal and informal socialization tactics and assess its impact on individuals’ levels of PsyCap and proactive behaviors. In undergraduate institutions educators could conduct a similar intervention with college students in a Senior Year Experience, capstone course, or cocurricular experience. Longitudinal studies will be needed to assess the impact of early interventions during individuals’ undergraduate education on their adjustment to the professional workforce as newcomers and during the course of their professional careers.

Although quantitative studies provide a solid base, researchers need to utilize various methodologies to fully describe interrelationships among PsyCap, proactive behaviors, and newcomer adjustment in different contexts. We encourage researchers to apply qualitative methodologies to complement existing quantitative studies. Qualitative methodologies can capture in-depth meaning and holistic complexity in relationships and their interactions (Creswell, 1998) that quantitative approaches cannot. Qualitative studies can make explicit the voices of individuals in describing how PsyCap and proactive behaviors influence their newcomer adjustment experiences. A synthesis of information from the what and why of quantitative research with the how of qualitative will enable educators to better understand the newcomer adjustment process and provide direction in designing ways to develop undergraduate students’ capacities and behaviors for transfer to the professional workforce.

Implications for Practice

HRD professionals responsible for new employee orientation, instructional design to optimize productivity among new hires, and longer-term employee development have opportunities to work with undergraduate educators toward a common goal of preparing traditionally aged college students to succeed in the professional workforce. Educators are interested in whether or not graduates from their institutions are ready and able to manage the requirements of their chosen job, organization, and career (Geroy, 1990). They have a vested interest in working with employing organizations to prepare students for their impending transition from the educational environment to the world of work (Holton, 1995; Luthans, Youssef, et al., 2007). PsyCap, consisting of self-efficacy, hope, optimism, and resiliency, and proactive behaviors, such as sensemaking, relationship building, and positive framing are qualities that educators in undergraduate education should intentionally foster among students to assist with newcomer adjustment because of their relationship to job performance, satisfaction, and organizational commitment (Ashford & Black, 1996; Gruman et al., 2006; Luthans, Norman, et al., 2008).

Unlike dispositions, that are innate, students can more readily develop their state-like psychological capacities and behaviors (Gruman et al., 2006; Luthans, Youssef, et al., 2007). Faculty and student affairs educators could utilize academic experiences, cocurricular programming, and services like career counseling to increase students’ awareness of the issues surrounding newcomer adjustment (Wood, 2004), motivating them to enhance their PsyCap and repertoire of proactive behaviors prior to entering the professional workforce. Student affairs educators could use experiential activities and simulations in Senior Year Experience courses and career development programming to develop students’ PsyCap and proactive behaviors, while undergraduate faculty could integrate similar activities into academic capstone and advanced courses specific to a discipline of study (Holton, 1995; Luthans, Avey, & Patera, 2008).

Through collaboration with undergraduate educators, HRD professionals can promote students’ transfer of PsyCap qualities and proactive behaviors from the college setting to the newcomer adjustment process. HRD professionals are ideally positioned to inform students about context-specific proactive behaviors that are most appropriate for a given job, organization, or career track. HRD professionals and educators can work together to design in-class and on-site activities such as problem solving scenarios or role-playing that afford students opportunities to develop PsyCap attributes and practice proactive behaviors in low-risk settings. In the workplace, HRD professionals can continue to offer supports for developing PsyCap and proactive behaviors specifically targeted to young adult newcomers who are recent college graduates. New hire orientation programs could be customized for recent college graduates to include topics and activities related to PsyCap attributes and proactive behaviors. In addition, young adult newcomers may benefit more from an orientation that spans their entire first year (Ferri-Reed, 2010) rather than the customary short-term orientation that occurs at the beginning of employment. Another approach could involve matching newcomers with mentors who have high PsyCap and can model appropriate proactive behaviors. Mentoring can be an effective newcomer socialization tactic (Ostroff & Kozlowski, 1993) and positively relates to less experienced employees’ job satisfaction, job performance, and organizational commitment (Allen, Eby, Poteet, Lentz, & Lima, 2004; Thurston, D’Abate, & Eddy, 2012).

Capitalizing on the expertise and resources of educators in both undergraduate education and organizational settings to enhance young adults’ PsyCap and proactive behaviors may result in a better prepared, more satisfied, and more committed workforce (Gruman et al., 2006).

Conclusion

Employing organizations expect recent college graduates to make a seamless transition from undergraduate education to the professional workforce (SHRM, 2012; The Conference Board, 2006). Unfortunately, due to graduates’ high expectations, uncertainty about their organizational role, lack of experience in professional settings, and insufficient transition preparation in educational institutions, successful adjustment to the professional workforce may not happen for every newcomer (Geroy, 1990). In this integrative literature review we introduce two factors, PsyCap and proactive behaviors, that show promise in better understanding the ways newcomers can actively impact their own organizational entry and professional transition. Because new employees with high PsyCap have more self-efficacy, hope, optimism, and resiliency to utilize during transitional experiences (Luthans, Youssef, et al., 2007), they may engage in proactive behaviors to acquire the necessary information, feedback, and support to survive the newcomer phase (Ashford & Black, 1996).

If educators in undergraduate education and employing organizations are to have a profound impact on the success of newcomers who are recent college graduates, they will need to collaborate to design and deliver effective methods of developing students’ PsyCap and promoting use of proactive behaviors during entry into the professional workforce. By doing this, graduates will leave college with not only a diploma, but also with the essential psychological capacities and behaviors to achieve success during their first year of professional employment.

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.

Notes

Author Biographies

Rachel E. Klemme Larson is a PhD Candidate in the Department of Educational Leadership, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT. She is currently employed with Career Service at College of Business Administration, University of Nebraska–Lincoln.

Alexandra A. Bell is an Associate professor in the Adult Learning Program, Department of Educational Leadership, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT.

References

Abbasi

S. M.

Hollman

K. W.

(2000). Turnover: The real bottom line. Public Personnel Management, 29, 333-342.

Allen

D. G.

(2006). Do organizational socialization tactics influence newcomer embeddedness and turnover? Journal of Management, 32, 237-256.

Allen

D. G.

(2008). Retaining talent: A guide to analyzing and managing employee turnover. Alexandria, VA: SHRM Foundation.

Allen

T. D.

Eby

L. T.

Poteet

M. L.

Lentz

Lima

(2004). Career benefits associated with mentoring for protégés: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(1), 127-136.

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.

Saks

A. M.

(2007). Socialization tactics, proactive behavior, and newcomer learning: Integrating socialization models. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 70, 447-462.

Aud

Hussar

Kena

Bianco

Frohlich

Kemp

Tahan

(2011). The condition of education 2011 (NCES 2011-033). U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Avey

J. B.

Wernsing

T. S.

Luthans

(2008). Can positive employees help positive organizational change? Impact of psychological capital and emotions on relevant attitudes and behaviors. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 44, 48-70.

10.

Bandura

(1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: Freeman.

11.

Bauer

T. N.

(2010). Onboarding new employees: Maximizing success. Alexandria, VA: SHRM Foundation.

12.

Bauer

T. N.

Bodner

Erdogan

Truxillo

D. M.

Tucker

J. S.

(2007). Newcomer adjustment during organizational socialization: A meta-analytic review of antecedents, outcomes, and methods. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 707-721.

13.

Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor. (2012, July). Number of jobs held, labor market activity, and earnings growth among the youngest baby boomers: Results from a longitudinal survey. Retrieved from www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/nlsoy.pdf

14.

Cohen

(1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

15.

Crant

J. M.

(2000). Proactive behavior in organizations. Journal of Management, 26, 435-462.

16.

Creswell

(1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

17.

Davis

(2010). Moving to greener pastures: Up to 60% of high-performing employees plan to leave their organizations within the next year, research finds. Employee Benefit News, 24(15), 18.

18.

Evans

N. J.

Forney

D. S.

Guido

F. M.

Patton

L. D.

Renn

K. A.

(2009). Student development in college: Theory, research, and practice (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

19.

Falcione

R. L.

Wilson

C. E.

(1988). Socialization processes in organizations. In Goldhaber

G. M.

Barnett

G. A.

(Eds.), Handbook of organizational communication (pp. 151-169). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

20.

Feldman

D. C.

Brett

J. M.

(1983). Coping with new jobs: A comparative study of new hires and job changers. Academy of Management Journal, 26, 258-272.

21.

Ferri-Reed

(2010). The keys to engaging millennials. Journal for Quality & Participation, 33(1), 31-33.

22.

Fournier

Payne

(1994). Change of self construction during the transition from university to employment: A personal construct psychology approach. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 67, 297-314.

23.

Gardner

J. N.

(1999). The senior year experience. About Campus, 4, 5-11.

24.

Geroy

G. D.

(1990). Exceptional students in transition to the world of work: A business view of the issue. Guidance and Counseling, 6(2), 33-40.

25.

Griffin

A. E. C.

Colella

Goparaju

(2000). Newcomer and organizational socialization tactics: An interactionist perspective. Human Resource Management Review, 10, 453-474.

26.

Gruman

J. A.

Saks

A. M.

Zweig

D. I.

(2006). Organizational socialization tactics and newcomer proactive behaviors: An integrative study. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 69, 90-104.

27.

Henscheid

J. M.

(2008). Institutional efforts to move seniors through and beyond college. New Directions for Higher Education, 144, 79-87.

28.

Higher Education Research Institute. (2010, August 22). The American freshman: National norms for fall 2009. Los Angeles: University of California at Los Angeles.

29.

Holton

E. F.

III (1995). College graduates’ experiences and attitudes during organizational entry. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 6, 59-78.

30.

Jacobs

R. L.

Park

(2009). A proposed conceptual framework of workplace learning: Implications for theory development and research in human resource development. Human Resource Development Review, 8(2), 133-150.

31.

Jones

G. R.

(1986). Socialization tactics, self-efficacy, and newcomers’ adjustment to organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 29, 262-279.

32.

Justice

E. M.

Dornan

T. M.

(2001). Metacognitive differences between traditional-age and nontraditional-age college students. Adult Education Quarterly, 51, 236-249.

33.

Larson

Luthans

(2006). Potential added value of psychological capital in predicting work attitudes. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 13(2), 75-92.

34.

Leibowitz

Z. B.

Schlossberg

N. K.

Shore

J. E.

(1991). Stopping the revolving door. Training and Development Journal, 45(2), 42-50.

35.

Light

(2010, May 25). Careers: More workers start to quit. Wall Street Journal, D.6-D.6.

36.

Lipsey

M. W.

Wilson

D. B.

(2001). Practical meta-analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

37.

Louis

M. R.

(1980). Surprise and sense-making: What newcomers experience in entering unfamiliar organizational settings. Administrative Science Quarterly, 25, 226-251.

38.

Lunenburg

F. C.

(2011). Self-efficacy in the workplace: Implications for motivation and performance. International Journal of Management, Business, and Administration, 14(1), 1-6.

39.

Luthans

Avey

J. B.

Avolio

B. J.

Peterson

S. J.

(2010). The development and resulting performance impact of positive psychological capital. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 21(1), 41-67.

40.

Luthans

Avey

J. B.

Patera

J. L.

(2008). Experimental analysis of a web-based training intervention to develop positive psychological capital. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 7, 209-221.

41.

Luthans

Avey

J. B.

Clapp-Smith

(2008). More evidence on the value of Chinese workers’ psychological capital: A potentially unlimited competitive resource? International Journal of Human Resource Management, 19, 818-827.

42.

Luthans

Avolio

B. J.

Avey

J. B.

Norman

S. M.

(2007). Positive psychological capital: Measurement and relationship with performance and satisfaction. Personnel Psychology, 60, 541-572.

43.

Luthans

Avolio

B. J.

Walumbwa

F. O.

(2005). The psychological capital of Chinese workers: Exploring the relationship with performance. Management and Organization Review, 1, 249-272.

44.

Luthans

Norman

S. M.

Avolio

B. J.

Avey

J. B.

(2008). The mediating role of psychological capital in the supportive organizational climate—Employee performance relationship. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29, 219-238.

45.

Luthans

Youssef

C. M.

Avolio

B. J.

(2007). Psychological capital: Developing the human competitive edge. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

46.

Määttä

Nurmi

Majava

(2002). Young adults’ achievement and attributional strategies in the transition from school to work: Antecedents and consequences. European Journal of Personality, 16, 295-312.

47.

Major

D. A.

Kozlowski

S. W.

Chao

G. T.

Gardner

P. D.

(1995). A longitudinal investigation of newcomer expectations, early socialization outcomes, and the moderating effects of role development factors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 418-431.

48.

Morrison

E. W.

(1993). Newcomer information seeking: Exploring types, modes, sources, and outcomes. Academy of Management Journal, 36, 557-589.

49.

National Association of Colleges and Employers (NACE). (2012). Job outlook 2013. Bethlehem, PA: NACE.

50.

T. W.

Feldman

D. C.

(2007). The school-to-work transition: A role identity perspective. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 71, 114-134.

51.

Ostroff

Kozlowski

S. W. J.

(1993). The role of mentoring in the information gathering processes of newcomers during early organizational socialization. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 42, 170-183.

52.

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP. (2006). Driving the bottom line: Improving retention [white paper]. Retrieved from http://www.pwc.com/en_US/us/hr-saratoga/assets/saratoga-improving-retention.pdf

53.

Reicherts

Pihet

(2000). Job newcomers coping with stressful situations: A micro-analysis of adequate coping and well-being. Swiss Journal of Psychology, 59, 303-316.

54.

Saks

A. M.

Ashforth

B. E.

(2000). The role of dispositions, entry stressors, and behavioral plasticity theory in predicting newcomers’ adjustment to work. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21, 43-62.

55.

Saks

A. M.

Ashforth

B. E.

(2002). Is job search related to employment quality? It all depends on the fit. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 646-654.

56.

Saks

A. M.

Uggerslev

K. L.

Fassina

N. E.

(2007). Socialization tactics and newcomer adjustment: A meta-analytic review and test of a model. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 70, 413-446.

57.

Schuh

J. H.

Jones

S. R.

Harper

S. R.

, & Associates. (2010). Student services: A handbook for the profession (5th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

58.

Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM). (2012). 2012 Employee job satisfaction and engagement. Retrieved from http://www.shrm.org/LegalIssues/StateandLocalResources/StateandLocalStatutesandRegulations/Documents/12-0537%202012_JobSatisfaction_FNL_online.pdf

59.

Swanson

R. A.

Holton

E. F.

III (2009). Foundations of human resource development (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.

60.

The Conference Board; Partnership for 21st Century Skills; Corporate Voices for Working Families; & Society for Human Resource Management (The Conference Board). (2006). Are they really ready to work? Employers’ perspectives on the basic knowledge and applied skills of new entrants to the 21st century U.S. workforce. Retrieved from http://www.shrm.org/research/surveyfindings/documents/are%20they%20really%20ready%20to%20work%20survey%20report.pdf

61.

Thurston

P. W.

D’Abate

C. P.

Eddy

E. R.

(2012). Mentoring as an HRD approach: Effects on employee attitudes and contributions independent of core self-evaluations. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 23(2), 139-165.

62.

Torraco

R. J.

(2005). Writing integrative literature reviews: Guidelines and examples. Human Resource Development Review, 4, 356-367.

63.

Van Maanen

Schein

E. H.

(1979). Toward a theory of organizational socialization. In Staw

B. M.

(Ed.), Research in organizational behavior (pp. 19-36). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

64.

Wanberg

C. R.

Kammeyer-Mueller

J. D.

(2000). Predictors and outcomes of proactivity in the socialization process. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 373-385.

65.

Wanous

J. P.

Poland

T. D.

Premack

S. L.

Davis

K. S.

(1992). The effects of met expectations on newcomer attitudes and behaviors: A review and meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 288-297.

66.

Wood

F. B.

(2004). Preventing postparchment depression: A model of career counseling for college seniors. Journal of Employment Counseling, 41, 71-79.