Volume 23 Issue 2 Article 4 August 2021 Welcome Aboard! Earning Your Place on the Crew Welcome Aboard! Earning Your Place on the Crew Patricia Meglich University of Nebraska at Omaha, USA, pmeglich@unomaha.edu Benjamin Thomas Radford University, Radford, USA Follow this and additional works at: https://www.ebrjournal.net/home Part of the Business Commons Recommended Citation Recommended Citation Meglich, P ., & Thomas, B. (2021). Welcome Aboard! Earning Your Place on the Crew. Economic and Business Review, 23(2). https://doi.org/10.15458/2335-4216.1009 This Original Article is brought to you for free and open access by Economic and Business Review. It has been accepted for inclusion in Economic and Business Review by an authorized editor of Economic and Business Review. ORIGINAL ARTICLE Welcome Aboard! Earning Your Place on the Crew Patricia Meglich a, *, Benjamin Thomas b a University of Nebraska at Omaha, USA b Radford University, Radford, USA Abstract AnimportantTMpracticetoimproveretentionofnewcomersisthesocializationprocessusedtoassimilatethem.We conducted two studies; an exploratory qualitative study followed by a survey-based study. Our results indicate a sub- stantial percentage of U.S. workers experience hazing as newcomers. Compared to newcomers who experience tradi- tional onboarding, hazed workers report higher turnover intentions and strain and lower levels of engagement; importantoutcomesforfirmsseekingtoreducethecostsanddisruptionsofearly-tenureturnover.LeadersofSMEsmay heed the call to provide a welcome mat rather than a gauntlet for new employees to run. Keywords: New employee hazing, New employee onboarding, Employee engagement, Turnover, Employee well-being JEL classification: M5, M54 Introduction O rganizations across the globe and across a spectrum of industries require high-quality talent to achieve success. Since organizational performance can be influenced by the talent management (TM) practices used to attract, ac- quire, deploy, and retain talent (Gallardo-Gal- lardo et al., 2020; Jiang & Messersmith, 2018), many organizations adopt TM practices aimed at improvingthequalityoftalentaswellasreducing thelikelihoodofcostly,unwantedturnover(Allen et al., 2010; Kim et al., 2017). Because employees' earliest time on the job poses the greatest risk of turnover (Choi & Fernandez, 2017; Hom et al., 2008;Welleretal.,2009),anymethodsthatreduce unwanted newcomer turnover can save organi- zations valuable resources and time. Candidates' and newcomers’ early interactions with their employers may especially impact their intentions to remain in the job or to leave. Consequently, exploring the very earliest tenure socialization experiences can inform actionable guidance for talent managers. The studies we present here focus on newcomer hazing, a potentially negative socialization practice that may influence newcomer decisions and behaviors. Socialization's vital impact on employee's acclima- tion(Cooper-Thomas&Anderson,2002),subsequent retention(Allen&Shanock,2013)andengagementat work (Albrecht et al., 2015) and its increasing fre- quencyin modern employees' lives (Campbell et al., 2012) makes this aspect of newcomer treatment an important avenue to explore and understand. The substantial body of research and policy on socializ- ation has focused primarily on best practices, implicitly assuming all socialization is positive and beneficial (Bauer et al., 2007; Saks et al., 2007). Evi- dence exists, however, that a substantial percentage of employees (25e75%; Thomas & Meglich, 2019; Josefowitz & Gadon, 1989) across occupational do- mains and ranks experience a different quality of newcomer experiencedworkplace hazing. Hazing oftenbringstomindprominent,egregiousinstances (Dickerson,2018)orheinousactsthatearnprominent coverage in the popular press. Relatively little research has investigated hazing in the workplace (Thomas & Meglich, 2019), with far more study Received 30 January 2020; accepted 2 April 2021. Available online 19 August 2021. * Corresponding author. E-mail address: pmeglich@unomaha.edu (P. Meglich). https://doi.org/10.15458/85451.1009 2335-4216/© 2021 School of Economics and Business University of Ljubljana. This is an open access article under the CC-BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons. org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/). devoted to its occurrence in academic or sports con- texts.Givenamajorityofworkersexperiencehazing on the job, scholars and leaders need to better un- derstand hazing than current research can inform. Because early employment experiences pose such important consequences to TM practices and orga- nizational outcomes, we initiated an investigation of workplace hazing to better inform scholarship and managementonthisarea. Leaders of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) may adopt one of two contradictory TM philosophies (Harney & Dundon, 2006; Lewis et al., 2020; Wilkinson, 1999). Those subscribing to the ‘small is beautiful’ (Schumacher, 2011) paradigm emphasize the flexibility of the small firm environ- ment to establish closer relationships between managers and workers. In the ‘small is beautiful’ perspective, managers would ostensibly be caring and interested in their employee's welfare and view TM as helpful in ensuring worker satisfaction and well-being and view the workplace more like a family than a disinterested corporation (Mallett & Wapshott, 2017). Conversely, the opposing para- digm, dubbed ‘bleak house’ (Rainnie, 1989; Sisson, 1993) approaches employees as a means of pro- duction to be exploited. Labor is a cost that man- agersperpetually seekwaystoreduce.TMpractices are therefore viewed through the lens of lowering costs, but not necessarily focused on improving the working conditions for employees. In either case, effective new employee socialization and incultura- tion may address underlying TM priorities as a means to improve management-employee re- lationshipsortoreducecostsofunwantedturnover. OnlyasmallpercentageofSMEshaveimplemented HR practices in a strategic manner (Cassell et al., 2002). While HRM has been studied extensively in larger organizations; there is far less research in the SME context, leaving many aspects of TM under- explored (Harney & Alkhalaf, 2021). Thus, we have little to draw on regarding existing onboarding and socialization of newcomers in SME firms. This research is perhaps more critical to SMEs and their leaders, because the formal, structured TM methods for new employees (e.g., onboarding, relationship-forming) in these enterprises often are less-developed, exhaustive, and systematized than in large-scale entities (Cassell et al., 2002). TM, in larger-scale groups, receives much greater re- sources (e.g., staff, expertise, specialization, money, time) within the organizational structure and workflow, because the volume of employees in the organization amplify the costs/benefits of TM de- cisions. In SMEs, comparatively, deliberate and exhaustive TM practices, like the onboarding, training, and socialization provided newcomers, typically take a more minimal, casual, and as- neededform.Asaresult,thenewcomerexperiences which are not formally enacted as part of TM merit greater consideration in SMEs (Pauli & Pocztowski, 2019; Zakaria et al., 2012). Moreover, SMEs’ work- forces are smaller, which increases the stakes of retainingorlosingany specificemployee.Thus,SME TM must consider the individual, exceptional instance of workplace experiences, whereas larger scale companies may be able to focus on the more commonplace, high-frequency instances. 1 Conceptual and theoretical underpinnings 1.1 Workplace hazing We adopt Cimino’s (2017) functional definition of hazing as “non-accidental, costly aspects of group induction activities that: (a) do not appear to be group relevant assessments/preparations, or (b) appear excessive in their application” (p. 135). Workplace hazing, then, consists of the purposeful demands placed on employees new to job roles which are not essential for work performance or which are excessively applied. Importantly, hazing differs from strategic HRM practices like onboard- ing and welcoming in its source and administration since leaders are often not involved in these amor- phous practices enacted by group members. Perhaps due to the paucity of research, sources frequently treat hazing interchangeably with bullying(Tofler,2016)orincivility(Herschovis,2011; Tepper, 2007). However, important differences distinguish these phenomena. Workplace bullying is the systematic targeting of a victim over a time period time that is intended to exclude the target from the workgroup (Bartlett & Bartlett, 2011; Einarsen et al., 2003). Bullying is often a relentless, ongoing series of abusive actions that persists with no end in sight that results in deleterious outcomes for targets (Nielsen & Einarsen, 2012). Incivility is “acting rudely or discourteously, without regard for others, in violation of norms for respect in social interactions.” (Andersson & Pearson, 1999). Inci- vility is often described as low-intensity mistreat- ment with ambiguous intent to harm the target (Schilpzand et al., 2016). Like bullying, incivility does not typically involve a fixed or anticipated conclusion; it can continue for a long duration without abatement. Conversely, workplace hazing can range in duration, intensity, and frequency but with an express purpose of including those who pass the gauntlet and separating out those who are ECONOMIC AND BUSINESS REVIEW 2021;23:100e114 101 deemed unfit or unworthy to join the group (Cimino, 2011, 2017; Østvik & Rudmin, 2001). 1.2 Content and consequences of workplace hazing In an early exploration of workplace hazing Jose- fowitz and Gadon (1989) labelled it one of the best- kept secrets of the workplace. Data from their in- terviews with over 1000 employees across job ranks and industries showed that 75% of new employees experienced hazing, leading 10% of those inter- viewed to quit their jobs. Inexplicably, little to no workplace research was published in the inter- vening three decades. Our literature review yielded few studies wherein hazing was a primary variable of interest studied in a professional setting. We found research on hazing in educational/university settings (Gershel et al., 2003; McCreary&Schutts,2019)andmilitary,orpara-mili- tary,settings(Kelleretal.,2015),althoughthesestudies arenotgeneralizableworkplacesettings.Hazingatthe U.S. Naval Academy was positively related to out- comes like psychological distress and intentions to quit (Groah, 2005).Østvik and Rudmin’s(2001)study of Norwegian military conscripts revealed hazing included physically aversive acts and derogatory nicknames.Inahealthcaresetting,Chang(2011)used a bullying scale to measure hazing and reported its positiverelationshiptoperceptionsofinjusticeamong medicalstudents.ThomasandMeglich’s(2019)cross- sectional study examined onlookers' reactions to re- portsofworkplace hazing,reporting25% ofsampled respondentshadexperiencedhazingatwork.Recent work by Mawritz et al. (2020) advances the study of workplacehazingandresultedinaworkplacehazing scale to measure the frequency of specific behaviors theydeemedtorepresentthehazingconstruct.While alaudableeffort,thescalemayoverlookthefullrange of hazing experiences as they adopted a ‘hazing is universallydegrading’perspective. 1.3 Theoretical frameworks Our working definition of workplace hazing in- volves irrelevant or excessive induction activities imposedonnewcomersbyexistinggroupmembers. We considered this phenomenon from two major theoretical frameworks, which address the induction element and the demands presented by hazing. Considering hazing as organizational socializ- ation, we draw on Van Maanen and Schein's (1979) theory of organizational socialization (TOS). Based on the relatively consistent empirical links between hazing and stress variables (e.g., strain; Groah, 2005), we drew from workplace stress literature, namely the challenge-hindrance stressor model (LePine et al., 2005) to explore the consequences of hazing's demands. We use these existing theories of socialization and stress to ground our discussion of workplace hazing. 1.3.1 Theory of organizational socialization Fundamentally, socialization transforms new- comers“fromorganizationoutsiderstoparticipating and effective members” (Feldman, 1981, p. 309). Workplace hazing is a form of socialization enacted by workgroups, often outside the knowledge, sanc- tion, and planning of organizational leadership that can serve three functions of organizational socializ- ation: (a) communicating group culture and norms, (b) testing and selection of newcomers to earn in- clusion, and (c) bonding group members through social identity mechanisms (Feldman, 1981; Van Maanen & Schein, 1979). Effective socialization communicates lessons of group culture to newcomers. Newcomers adjust to their social environment, perpetuating the group culture to avoid and reduce ostracism and tension (Van Maanen & Schein, 1979). Workplace hazing teaches group culture to newcomers, who must adapt to earn membership. Culture includes the unspoken rules of conduct in a workplace, which hazing communicates and enforces among new- comers, including the norms, power structures, and values of the group (Cimino, 2011; Josefowitz & Gadon, 1989). TheTOSholdssocializationismostsalientduring times of transition across the boundaries within an organization (Schein, 1971). Inclusion boundaries describe the continuum of members' importance and centrality to the group, with leaders and respected members anchoring one end and out- siders, ornewcomers,on theotherend.Newcomers who pass the tests laid out by important members earn inclusion and deeper group privileges like in- fluence and group secrets (Van Maanen & Schein, 1979). While formal employment arrangements often include officially designated probationary pe- riods and evaluations (e.g., first 90 days; De Corte, 1994) planned and administered by formal author- ities, coworkers often test (i.e. haze) newcomers during socialization (Van Maanen & Schein, 1979). Indeed, an employee's immediate workgroup often acts as the primary socializing agent (Anderson & Thomas, 1996; Korte, 2009). For newcomers who understand the unspoken boundaries of group membership and who success- fullycompletehazingdemands,hazingalsoservesto bond group members. Considerable research sup- ports people'sneedstobelong(Baumeister& Leary, 102 ECONOMIC AND BUSINESS REVIEW 2021;23:100e114 1995), relate (Ryan & Deci, 2000), and experience connection to a greater social whole (Maslow, 1968). Socialidentitytheorists(SIT)explainhowpeopleuse categorizations of social groups to satisfy this drive, by identifying with a group (Tajfel & Turner, 1985). Ashforth and Mael (1989) note that socialization fosters employees' developing identification with their workgroups. For groups who use socialization to teach and test newcomers, members come to identify and resemble the group's central character- istics as they gain inclusion (Hogg, 1996; Tajfel & Turner, 1985). Such identification, when successful, results in closer commitment and belongingness to the group, both to its membersand asa long-stand- ing entity extending beyond the composing mem- bers (Bergami & Bagozzi, 2000). Thus, we suggest hazing can amplify the binding processes of social identification, whereby passing the crucible of haz- ing results in greater identification and embedded- nesswiththegroup,aswellasgreaterpreferencefor the group's culture and characteristicsdeven including subsequently endorsing or engaging in hazing newcomers. 1.3.2 Challenge-hindrance stressor model Newcomers experience great stress early in their job roles (Nelson, 1987). Hazing, as a cost of group entry, adds to demands on newcomers. The chal- lengestressor-hindrancestressorframework(LePine et al., 2005) is therefore an appropriate lens through which to view hazing. Demands placed on em- ployees (i.e., stressors) are seen as either challenge- stressors(CeS),necessarystepstowardsprogressor achievements, or hindrance-stressors (HeS), un- necessary limitations or hurdles towards achieve- ments (Cavanaugh et al., 2000). Prolonged or severe stress responses can result in experiences of straindthe negative consequences of stress. Ac- cording to fundamental models of stress (Lazarus, 1991), not all external demands are perceived iden- tically across people; some employees may view so- cialization demands as challenges where others see hindrances. Extant literature on socialization in the challenge-hindrance framework indicates these learning experiences can operate as CeS and HeS, and consequently result in positive and negative outcomes like engagement, retention, and strain (LePine et al., 2005; Podsakoff et al., 2007), with complex interactions between environmental stressors and individual variables affecting the ap- praisals of these stressors as challenges or hin- drances (Edwards et al., 2014; Lazarus, 1991). Socialization, then, can present both types of stressors, although more beneficial socialization ex- periences have been categorized as CeS( Ellis et al., 2015). The costs of hazing appear unnecessary, irrelevant, or excessive (Cimino, 2017), which aligns better with HeS. However, hazing as a form of so- cialization, also communicates and serves as a proving ground for newcomers to demonstrate the necessaryattributesforearningmembershipintothe group (Cimino, 2011), which better matches the concept of CeS. Because hazing occurs in various forms, ranging from the clearly egregious (Dick- erson, 2018) to relatively minor (Rumpff, 2019), and employees themselves present a similar variety of individual dispositions relevant to stress appraisal and responses,therelationshipbetween hazing and stress isnoteasilypredicted. 1.4 Research questions Lacking substantial empirical evidence of the common experiences of workplace hazing and the outcomes linked to it, neither researchers nor practitioners can meaningfully identify, predict, or respond to instances of hazing in workplaces. Although some workplace hazing demands are certainly harmful (Dickerson, 2018), it is empirically unclearif all workplace hazing is harmful.Indeed,a functional or evolutionary perspective of behavior would indicatehazing's ubiquity doesserveagroup purpose (Cimino, 2011). The overall dearth of research leaves many open questions. We therefore undertook research to describe workplace hazing's content and consequences and were guided by the following research questions. Research Question 1: What are common hazing de- mands placed on workers? Research Question 2: In what occupational settings does hazing occur? Research Question 3: How do workers recognize the end of hazing? Research Question 4: How does hazing relate to employee stress? 2 Method 2.1 The two studies To fill in the incomplete picture of workplace hazing attributes and outcomes, we proceeded first with a qualitative study to uncover normative data on the characteristics of hazed employees’ experi- ences. This was followed by a survey study looking more deeply at outcomes of socialization processes. In both Studies 1 and 2 we used Amazon Mechan- ical Turk (MTurk) to recruit participants. We spe- cifically sought diverse respondent groups in both studies rather than a more limited group of ECONOMIC AND BUSINESS REVIEW 2021;23:100e114 103 organizations or job roles (such as military or health-care settings). We acknowledge Amazon MTurkdoesnotprovideasamplewhichisperfectly representativeof the American workforce, however, MTurkhasreceivedsupportasarecruitmentsource for organizational science research (Buhrmester et al., 2011; Goodman et al., 2013; Woo et al., 2015). Moreover, the ethical and practical challenges of recruiting hazed employees, which we detail below, justify the use of a tool to cast a broader recruiting net. 2.2 Study 1: descriptions of workplace hazing 2.2.1 Sample and measures We recruited respondents (minimum of 19 years old, living in the United States, currently employed with minimum six months work experience) who hadbeenhazedatwork,whichwedefinedas“being required to perform or complete embarrassing, unreasonable,orunsafetasksbyotheremployeesin orderto ‘showyoutheropes’ormakeyou ‘payyour dues’ because you are new.” Respondents then completed a Qualtrics survey. The initial sample of 60 respondents was reduced by five respondents' data for careless or invalid responses. The resulting sample (N¼ 55) was comprised of mostly full-time employees (73%), almost equally men (51%) and women, rangingin agefrom 19to 56years old (M¼ 33.18; SD¼ 9.50 years). The majority of respondents were white (58%) although other groups were rep- resented(29%Asian,6%Black,4%AmericanIndian or Alaskan Native). Participants responded to a series of items for each of up to three different jobs where they had experienced hazing. For each job, participants pro- vided text-based responses to open-ended ques- tions asking for (a) the job title, (b) organization type, (c) their organizational rank in the job, (d) number of employees in the organization, (e) a description of the hazing they experienced, (f) durationofthehazing,and(g)signalthatthehazing had ended. An additional item was used to report their estimated stress level resulting from hazing (i.e., How much stress did this workplace hazing experience place upon you? 1e5 Likert-type scale; 1 ¼ None at all, 5¼ A great deal). 2.2.2 Data analysis and results We analyzed response data using qualitative and quantitative approaches. As prescribed by Braun and Clarke (2006), we used thematic analysis of the text-based responses to understand: (a) the context and content of workplace hazing (Research ques- tions1&2)and(b)signalsofhazing'send(Research question 3). We followed an inductive approach where only the semantically-derived data points were considered to code the hazing demands re- ported by respondents. We used basic descriptive methods to analyze quantitative data (Research question 4). Hazing was reported in an assortment of occu- pations (e.g., engineers, IT executives, carpenters, teachers, and laborers), companies (e.g., large ac- counting firms, local restaurants, and large re- tailers), and groups, ranging from 3-person companies to international retailers. Although entry-level employees were a plurality of re- spondents (41%), middle manager (29%), upper manager(17%)andfirst-levelsupervisor(13%)roles were also represented. We inductively identified three major themes among hazing experiences: (a) work-based hazing, directly targeting the newcomers’ competent per- formance of work, (b) person-focused hazing, the Fig. 1. a: Themes of workplace hazing demands 1 . b: Themes of signals hazing has ended 2 . 1 The entire sample (N¼ 55) provided, in total, 61 unique descriptions of instances of workplace hazing which were considered the data set for this thematic analysis. Each description was approximately 20 words in length. We identified 111 data extracts from this data set, based on an inductively generated (i.e., based on content and commonalities) coding system featuring 23 unique codes. Codes were then grouped into sub-themes and larger themes,independentlybyresearcherswho thencomparedthemes and sub-themes for overlap and inconsistencies. The resulting Figure displays thefinal theme and sub-themes structure into which codes were grouped, along with the representation of each theme among the 111 data extracts. 2 The entire sample (N¼ 55) provided, in total, 63 unique descriptions of instances of workplace hazing which were considered the data set for this thematic analysis. Each description was approximately 13 words in length. We identified 68 data extracts from this data set, based on an inductively generated (i.e., based on content and commonalities) coding system featuring 21 unique codes. Codes were then grouped into sub-themes and larger themes, independently by researchers who then compared themes and sub-themes for overlap and inconsistencies. 104 ECONOMIC AND BUSINESS REVIEW 2021;23:100e114 interpersonal mechanisms and intrapersonal con- sequences of hazing, and (c) exclusion, neglecting, excluding, or leaving the newcomer out of activities or social interactions. Fig. 1a displays these themes, and their representative proportion across all responses. Individual anecdotes of hazing spanned a variety of demands, in content, frequency, and duration. Workers reported relatively harmless demands (e.g., a professional dancer who had to complete a danceroutinewhileholdingablow-updolloragolf pro who had to roll like a log across a green) and more serious threats (e.g., employees waiting in sub-zero temperatures for a non-existent delivery, cook being purposefully misinformed on how to fry food, nearly resulting in a fire). Hazing experiences often included inclusion/exclusion, whether in the group (e.g., “I was just treated like an outsider until they trusted me”) or as a function of one's class membership (e.g., “I was called the Indian guy know-it-all”). Demands of hazing often exemplified these inclusion boundary passages, where em- ployees were not exposed to pranks or egregious strains, but simply required to do tasks below their status, skill-level, or work for which they were purposefully uninformed until they were deemed worthy of inclusion and status in the group. We identified three major themes that signaled hazing's end: (a) workgroup-initiated ends, (b) hazee-initiated ends, and (c) personnel-based ends. Fig. 1b displays themes, and proportions of repre- sentation in responses. Empirically, workplace hazing ended, on average, about 10 weeks into the new job role (M¼ 9.65 weeks; SD¼ 14.35 weeks). Finally, when asked to recall the stress created by the hazing, respondents reported an elevated level of stress overall. A one-sample t-test revealed the averagelevelofreportedstress(M¼3.89;SD¼1.12) associated with respondents' hazing experiences was significantly higher than the midpoint of the 5- point scale, t (54)¼ 5.92, p < .001, Cohen's d¼ 0.79. This relatively large effect size indicates these re- spondents retrospectively associated a great deal of stress with the workplace hazing they experienced. 2.2.3 Discussion of study 1 This study provided preliminary data on common workplace hazing themes and experiences, and uncoveredinformationonthesettingsandeffects of hazing. Primarily, hazing was not a terrible, disgusting pattern of harassing and bullying new- comers, although some instances were more severe. These narratives demonstrate how unexpectedly varied hazing demands can be for employees. Although hazing ended about 10 weeks after employees’ first days, newcomers experienced substantial variability in how long they had to earn their place through hazing. Finally, the high level of stress employees associated with their hazing experience raises concern about the consequences of this new employee experience during an already stressful time as a new employee (Nelson, 1987), reinforcing the need for a better understanding of this stress and its impacts on employees and TM practices. These results are consistent with TOS. This study inductively revealed exclusion and status differ- ences as themes common to hazing in line with the role of socialization transitioning newcomers along boundaries of inclusion in their workgroups (Van Maanen& Schein, 1979). In this same vein of group member centrality and SIT, our results also pro- vided evidence of the importance of group member similarity, where outsiders were hazed until they were seen as ‘one of us.’ The greater the perceived difference (gender, race, background, age, educa- tion,religion),themorethenewcomer'scompetence and personality fit are tested” (Josefowitz& Gadon, 1989, p. 24). In SMEs, where diversity may be less common or prioritized than in larger companies (Neuhaus & Schr€ oer, 2017), this element of group member (dis)similarity as a correlate of hazing may raise even more concern. 2.3 Study 2: comparing newcomer experiences Our second study explored workplace hazing as a newcomer socialization mechanism and stressor. Inconsistent evidence on the effects of hazing in- dicatesitmayleadtoundesirableoutcomes(Chin& Johnson, 2011), valued outcomes (Allan & Madden, 2009; Keating et al., 2005), or little to no conse- quencesat all(Østvik&Rudmin,2001).Wedrew on results of Study 1 to provide a first look at its pre- dictive effects on workplace outcomes relevant to socialization and stressors. Socialization experiences explain meaningful vari- ance in a number of valued employee outcomes like retention (Allen & Shanock, 2013) and engagement (Saks&Gruman,2011).Stressorscansimilarlyrelate toabroadspectrumofoutcomesforemployeeswhich varybasedontheappraisalofastressorasachallenge (CeS) or hindrance (HeS) (Podsakoff et al., 2007). Generally, CeS yield positive relationships with commitment(Podsakoffetal.,2007)andengagement (Schmittetal.,2015)whereasHeSrelatetooutcomes liketurnoverintentions(Schaubroecketal.,1989)and low engagement (Bakker& Sanz-Vergel, 2013). Both typesofstressorsrelatepositivelytostrainthrougha varietyofmechanisms(Ashforth&Mael,1989;Bauer ECONOMIC AND BUSINESS REVIEW 2021;23:100e114 105 et al., 2007) which captures the negative well-being consequences of experienced stress (Kahn & Byo- siere,1992). In Study 2 we explored three primary outcomes, demonstrated as relevant by previous socialization and stressor researchdturnover intentions, employee engagement, and employee strain. We presentnon-directional(i.e.,two-tailed)hypotheses, as this is exploratory research based on the incon- sistent, limited extant research on hazing's effects. Hypothesis 1. Reports of workplace hazing will relate to turnover intentions Hypothesis 2. Reports of workplace hazing will relate to employee engagement levels Because, relatively uniformly, evidence indicates socialization andstressorsevoke stress, andexisting research indicates hazing yields consistent links to stress outcomes we predicted: Hypothesis 3. Reports of workplace hazing will relate positively to reported employee strain levels Given that new employees broadly experience stress during the socialization phase (Nelson, 1987), weconsideredamoreconventional,organizationally sanctioned form of socialization as a relevant com- parison target to understand hazing's unique con- sequences. Specifically, we focused on onboarding, the strategic HRM process to orient and introduce new employees to their work environments and demands. Such onboarding efforts benefit em- ployeesandorganizationsbyinforming,welcoming, and guiding the newcomer (Klein & Heuser, 2008). Typical onboarding activities include touring the workspace, meeting with an HR representative, completing a formal orientation session, and being assigned a mentor (Klein et al., 2015). Because newcomers generally experience heightened stress, comparing the outcomes of onboarding and work- place hazing will provide a clearer picture of the uniqueeffectsofhazing,aboveandbeyondatypical new employee experience. Broadly, we expected different newcomer experiences for individuals who undergo traditional onboarding and those who un- dergohazing,whichwepredicttoobserveinreports of turnover, engagement, and strain levels: Hypothesis 4. Reports of turnover intentions will differforemployeeswhoarehazedcomparedtothose whoundergotraditionalorganizationalonboarding Hypothesis 5. Reports of engagement levels will differ for employees who are hazed compared to those who undergo traditional organizational onboarding Hypothesis 6. Reports of strain levels will differ for employees who are hazed compared to those who undergo traditional organizational onboarding 2.3.1 Sample and measures IncontrasttoStudy1,weobtainedresponsesonly from new employees, regardless of their experience with hazing to reduce volunteer bias issues possibly resulting from overtly recruiting hazed employees (Dillman et al., 2009) and reduce issues of memory- related confounds (Rindfleisch et al., 2008). Study 1 revealedsomeemployeesexperience hazing uptoa year after hire, whereas some classify new em- ployees as workers in the first 60e90 days of employment (Kammeyer-Mueller et al., 2013). Therefore,werecruitedonlypeoplewho hadbegun a job within the past six months. To better under- stand the effects of hazing, specifically, as a form of socialization and stressor, we used a quasi-experi- mental design (Grant & Wall, 2009). We collected data from two distinct groups, comprised of em- ployees similarly situated in the employee lifecycle. We recruited one group of employees who self-re- ported having experienced hazing at work, and another who self-reported having not experienced workplace hazing. This comparison group, rather, reported having experienced new employee onboarding (Klein & Heuser, 2008). This research began more than six months after data collection for Study 1 ended, and no MTurk workers from Study 1 were eligible to participate in thisstudy.Werecruitedpart-timeandfull-timeU.S. workers who had begun a new job within the past six months, minimum age of 19 years old, and cur- rentresidenceintheU.S.Respondentswereaskedif theyhadexperiencednewcomerhazingintheirnew job (i.e., “Full-time or existing group members demanding you complete irrelevant, embarrassing, unsafe, harsh, ridiculous, or unrealistic task re- quirementsbecauseyouareanewmember”).Those indicating they had experienced these demands were directed to a Qualtrics survey which included themeasuresdetailedbelow. Respondentswho met the qualifications but did not report hazing in their new job were directed to an alternate Qualtrics survey for the purposes of comparison. All re- spondents completed identical measures, excepting 106 ECONOMIC AND BUSINESS REVIEW 2021;23:100e114 the workplace hazing scale, and were paid $0.60 for their participation. Before testing hypotheses, we screened the data andremovedfiveparticipantsfromthehazedgroup and 11 from the comparison group since they failed all three attention check items included in the design. After checking the data for multivariate and univariate outliers as well as careless responses, an additional22participantsfromthehazedgroupand 32 participants from the comparison group were removed. Resulting group demographics (N¼ 200; N¼ 177) are provided below. Hazed employee group respondents (N ¼ 200) rangedinagefrom19to70yearsold(M¼29.49; SD ¼ 8.27 years), were primarily male (64%), full-time (84%) employees. A plurality of respondents in this group were white (43%; 38% Asian, 6% Black, 5% Latino, 4% American Indian or Alaska Native). 29% of respondents were entry-level employees, 25% wereintermediate(i.e.,non-managerial)employees, whereas 46% of respondents were at leastfirst-level managers or supervisors (20% middle managers). 72% of respondents had completed at least a 4-year degree, with only 5% having completed no college work at all. Comparatively, very little, if any, demographic differences existed between the hazed employee group and comparison employee group. Re- spondents (N ¼ 177) who did not report hazing rangedinagefrom19to68yearsold(M¼30.28; SD ¼ 9.45 years), were primarily male (60%), full-time (86%) employees. A plurality of respondents were white (40; 35% Asian, 7% Black, 6% Latino, 6% American Indian or Alaska Native). 23% of re- spondents were entry-level employees, 31% were intermediate (i.e., non-managerial) employees, whereas 47% of respondents were at leastfirst-level managers or supervisors (24% middle managers). 79% of respondents had completed at least a 4-year degree, with only 4% having completed no college work at all. Similarly, across all respondents, the majority of employees worked in relatively small to moderately sized workgroups, with 76% of em- ployees working in a group of 50 or fewer people. Excepting the first scale, all respondents, regard- less of their group (i.e., hazed or comparison), completed all outcome measures, which were pre- sented in random order to control for order effects. Only respondents in the hazed group responded to the 15-item Workplace Hazing Scale (WHS) 3 developed by Mawritz et al. (2020). Respondents indicatedhowfrequentlyinthecourseoftheirwork they experienced a number of hazing demands at the hands of coworkers (e.g., “Given unimportant tasks to complete”) using a 6-point Likert-type response scale (1¼ Never; 6¼ More than once daily). Estimatesofinternalconsistencywereexcellent(a¼ .94; 95% CI [.93, .95]). These respondents also responded to four items, similar to Study 1, asking more about their workplace hazing experiences, including (a) duration of hazing, (b) a qualitative descriptionoftheirhazingexperience,(c)theoverall frequency of hazing, and (d) the indication that hazing had ended. The third and fourth items were derived from Study 1, such that we generated a set of response options for each question based on common experiences reported in that earlier study. In addition to typical demographic questions, all respondents answered three questions about their own work history experiences with hazing, including (a) if they had ever been hazed at work, (b) if they had ever been in a workgroup that hazed new employees, and (c) their estimate of what per- centage of new employees are hazed at work every year. The last question addressed possible issues of social desirability because reporting estimates of others’ workplace hazing is less likely to activate impression management issues possibly raised by asking for self-reports of these experiences (Tour- angeau & Yan, 2007). All respondents completed a 4-item Turnover Intentions Scale (Wilson & Holmvall, 2013), including items like “I have spent time looking for another job” using a 4-point Likert-type response scale (1¼ Strongly Disagree; 4¼ Strongly Agree). Es- timates of internal consistency were good for both groups(a¼.88;95%CI[.85,.91]anda¼.89;95%CI [.86, .91]. All respondents completed the 9-item Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (Schaufeli et al., 2006), which includes items like “My job inspires me” using a 7-point Likert-type response scale (1 ¼ Strongly Disagree; 7 ¼ Strongly Agree). Estimates of internal consistency were excellent for both groups (a¼ .96; 95% CI [.96, .97] and a¼ .94; 95% CI [.92, .95]). All respondents completed the 12-item General Health Questionnaire (Goldberg et al., 1997), which required participants to indicate how frequently in their time on the new job, compared to usual, they have encountered a number of psychosomatic ex- periences (e.g., “Unhappy and depressed”) using a 3 We thank the authors for the use of this scale and note we cannot provide scale items as part of our submission, at their request. The manuscript is forthcomingin Human Relations.Labeledhazingcategoriesareprovidedinourmanuscript,butwecannotprovideitemwordingsaspartofouragreement with the authors for use of the scale. ECONOMIC AND BUSINESS REVIEW 2021;23:100e114 107 4-point Likert-type response scale (1 ¼ Less than Usual; 4¼ Much more than usual). For both groups, estimatesofinternalconsistencyweregood(a¼.88; 95% CI [.85, .91] and a¼ .91; 95% CI [.89, .93]). 2.3.2 Data analysis and results Because of the variety of workplace hazing in- stances we observed in Study 1, and the lack of extantresearchonworkplacehazing'scorrelates,we tested and present information on the overall scale score of workplace hazing (i.e., the arithmetic mean ofthe15-itemWHS)andthemeanscoresforeachof thefivecategoriesofhazing(i.e.,segregation,verbal abuse, task-related hazing, physical abuse, and testing). The scale authors provide these five cate- gories to conceptually group the scale's 15 items with three items in each category. We did not conduct a factor analysis on these items, because they likely present a formative, rather than reflec- tive, model of workplace hazing (Coltman et al., 2008) and we could not present the results of the factor analysis without revealing the items. We provide internal consistency estimates of each 3- item category subscale and inter-category correla- tionvaluesinTable2.Testingcategory-andoverall- scale level relationships is justified in our research to better illuminate the specific effects of different types of workplace hazing, given the qualitative differences of workplace hazing we observed in Study 1 (e.g., physical abuse and testing hazing are not interchangeable). To test the relationships of workplace hazing and its sub-categories, we proceeded in two steps. First, we examined the bivariate correlations between the three outcome variables and the six workplace hazing scores (i.e., overall workplace hazing score, each of five category scores). Any statistically sig- nificant correlations between a hazing score and an outcome then prompted us to determine the pre- dictive relationship of that hazing score, controlling for demographic variables. Thus, we conducted a series of hierarchical regressions, with relevant hazing scores entered in the second block, and de- mographic control variables (i.e., age, gender, edu- cation level, job level) entered in the first block to statistically account for alternative explanations of variance in outcomes. Descriptive statistics and correlations for relevant measured variables for both groups are presented in the top half of Table 1. We present correlations be- tweenworkplacehazingcategories,amongthehazed employee group, in the bottom half of Table 1. ReportsofworkplacehazingweresimilartoStudy1. Employeesfromabroadrangeofprofessionalsettings reportedexperiencingworkplacehazing,withavari- etyofhazingdemands.Formanyrespondents,items from the WHS exhaustively captured their hazing experiences. Temporally, 14% of the hazed sample reported their hazing had not yet ended, whereas othersstatedtheirhazinglastedabouteightweeks(M ¼ 7.69 weeks, SD¼ 6.61 weeks). In describing their hazing experiences overall, 6% of hazed respondents reporteditwasasingleinstance,36%indicatedithad occurred only a few times, while 44% indicated they hadbeenhazedmorethanjustafewtimes,and 14% reported it was very frequently experienced. Like Study1,manyhazedrespondentsdidnotexperience anovertendtohazing:16%reportedtheyknewhaz- ing had ended because another employee told them, 38% knew hazing had ended based on group-based norms and common knowledge on how things are done,and44%reportedtherewasnoclearendtothe hazing,butjustnoticedthehazingstopped. Regarding the prevalence of workplace hazing, the combined sample (N¼ 377; i.e., all respondents, hazed and non-hazed employees) indicate 66% of our overall sample had experienced hazing at work in a previous job, and 53% reported they had pre- viously worked with a group that hazed new em- ployees. Similarly, across respondents, estimates of new employee hazing were relatively high, such that respondents estimated about 53% of new em- ployees experience workplace hazing in a given year. Correlation and regression results relevant to the hypotheses are shown in Table 2. Hypothesis 1. Reports of workplace hazing will relate to turnover intentions Workplace hazing was positively related to re- ported turnover intentions, r ¼ .21, p ¼ .003. Four categories of workplace hazing were positively related to turnover - segregation (r¼ .15, p¼ .032), verbalabuse(r¼.26, p <.001),task-related(r¼.19, p¼ .007), and testing (r¼ .17, p ¼ .016). Thus, we conducted five hierarchical regression analyses to test how each of these hazing variables explained variance in turnover intentions, controlling for demographic differences. This analysis indicated that the overall hazing score (DR 2 ¼ .03, p¼ .014, b ¼ .19), verbal abuse (DR 2 ¼ .05, p¼ .001, b¼ .24), and task-related (DR 2 ¼ .03, p ¼ .015, b ¼ .18) explained variance in turnover intentions, control- lingfordemographicdifferences.Hypothesis1was supported. Hypothesis 2. Reports of workplace hazing will relate to employee engagement levels 108 ECONOMIC AND BUSINESS REVIEW 2021;23:100e114 Overall,workplacehazingreportsdidnotrelateto levels of employee engagement, r ¼ .09, p ¼ .190. Only the physical abuse category yielded a signifi- cant relationship to engagement (r¼ .23, p¼ .001). Thus,weconductedasinglehierarchicalregression, regressing employee engagement onto physical abuse, controlling for demographic variables. The resultsindicatephysicalabuseexplainedvariancein employee engagement, controlling for demographic differences,(DR 2 ¼.02,p¼.029,b¼.14).Hypothesis 2 was partially supported. Hypothesis 3. Reports of workplace hazing will relate to employee strain levels Workplace hazing was positively related to employee strain reports, r ¼ .31, p < .001. Each category of hazing was also positively related to employee strain, with correlation coefficients ranging from .18 to .31, and all coefficients were significant at or below p ¼ .011. Six consecutive regression analyses, to test the predictive effects of each hazing variable, controlling for demographic variables, indicated all hazing variables explained a significant portion of variance above and beyond demographic differences. DR 2 values ranged from .02 to .06, and b values ranged from .13 to .25, with all statistics significant at or below p ¼ .05. Hy- pothesis3wassupported.SeeTable2forallresults. Hypothesis 4. Reports of turnover intentions will differ for employees who are hazed compared to those who undergo traditional organizational onboarding Hypothesis 5. Reports of engagement levels will differ for employees who are hazed compared to those who undergo traditional organizational onboarding Hypothesis 6. Reports of strain levels will differ for employees who are hazed compared to those who undergo traditional organizational onboarding Differences in outcomes are shown in Fig. 2 for the two samples. Concisely, hazed employees re- ported significantly higher levels of turnover in- tentions, t (375) ¼ 4.14, p < .001, Cohen'sd¼ .43, lowerengagement,t(375)¼ 4.28,p<.001,Cohen's d ¼ .44 and higher strain, t (375) ¼ 3.15, p ¼ .002, Cohen'sd¼.33,comparedtoaverysimilargroupof new employees who did not report being hazed in the current job. Table 1. Descriptive statistics and bivariate correlations for measured variables for Hazed and Comparison Employee Groups. Variable MS DRange 1 23456 Hazed Employee Group a 1. Age 29.49 8.27 19e70 e 2. Work Group Size 67.05 148.12 1e1500 -.09 e 3. WHS c 3.32 1.13 1.00e5.67 -.22** .10 .94 4. Turnover Intent 2.78 0.80 1.00e4.00 -.10 .09 .21** .89 5. Engagement 4.58 1.39 1.00e7.00 -.18** .18*** -.09 .09 .96 6. Strain 2.49 0.68 1.00e4.00 -.30*** .11 .31*** .61*** .07 .91 Comparison Employee Group b 1.Age 30.28 9.45 19e68 e 2. Work Group Size 81.33 181.52 4e1500 -.07 e 3. 4. Turnover Intent 2.41 0.90 1.00e4.00 -.34*** .12 .88 5. Engagement 5.11 1.00 1.89e7.00 .04 .09 .08 .96 6. Strain 2.26 0.78 1.00e3.67 -.37*** .13 .65*** .21** .88 Descriptive Statistics for, and bivariate correlations between, measured predictor variables for Hazed Employee Group Variable M SD Range 7 8 9 10 11 12 7.WHS a 3.32 1.13 1.00e5.67 .94 8. Segregation 3.68 1.27 1.00e6.00 .82*** .87 9. Verbal Abuse 3.33 1.40 1.00e6.00 .88*** .75*** .90 10. Task Related Hazing 3.66 1.25 1.00e6.00 .79*** .65*** .61*** .84 11. Physical Abuse 2.57 1.57 1.00e6.00 .77*** .44*** .59*** .45*** .91 12. Testing 3.37 1.38 1.00e6.00 .87*** .62*** .70*** .63*** .64*** .89 Note Internal Consistency estimates are displayed in the diagonal. *p < .05;**p < .01;***p < .001. a N¼ 200. b N¼ 177. c Workplace Hazing Scale. ECONOMIC AND BUSINESS REVIEW 2021;23:100e114 109 2.3.3 Discussion of study 2 TheresultsofStudy2furtherclarifythepictureof workplace hazing we developed in Study 1. Across all respondents, our results align with limited existing estimates of workplace hazing's preva- lenced50-70% of our overall sample had experi- enced hazing at work or been part of a group that hazed new members, even if they did not engage in hazing directly. Moreover, our results indicate that hazing seems to last about eight weeks, primarily involves multipledalthough not typically high-fre- quencydencounters and does not always feature a clear cessation. Importantly, our results offer a first look at the predictive effects of workplace hazing for new em- ployees. Overall, workplace hazing does not yield extraordinarily strong relationships with turnover intentions, engagement, or strain. The relationships we uncovered, however, aligned broadly with our predictions, wherein hazing presents a stressor to employeesdsuchthatwemostconsistentlyobserved hazing's relationships with strain, the negative con- sequences of stressor exposure. In general, hazing was related to negative outcomes (turnover in- tentionsand strain) and yielded little relationship to positive outcomes (engagement). Physical abuse hazing's positive relationship with engagement and insignificant relationship with turnover intentions, albeitsurprising,alsosupportthenotionofhazingas a challenge. Comparing the effects of hazing cate- gorieslikephysicalabuseortestingwithaspectslike verbal abuse or task-related hazing indicates not all hazingseemstooperateinthesameway,althoughall categories relate to strain, supporting the role of different categories of hazing as challenge or hin- drance stressors. Interestingly, segregation hazing 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Turnover Intentions Engagement Strain Hazed Employees Comparison Group Fig. 2. Reported levels of turnover intentions, engagement, strain for hazed and comparison new employees. Table 2. Incremental predictive relationships between workplace hazing factors, and measured organizational outcomes. Outcome Turnover Intentions Engagement Strain r DR 2 b r DR 2 b r DR 2 b Hazing .21** .03** .19*** .09 .00 -.01 .31*** .05*** .24*** Segregation .15* .02 .13 -.02 .01 -.08 .18* .02* .13* Verbal Abuse .26*** .05*** .24*** -.02 .01 -.11 .31*** .06*** .25*** Task-related Hazing .19** .03* .18* .03 .00 -.04 .25*** .04** .20** Physical Abuse .11 .01 .07 .23*** .02* .14* .27*** .03* .18* Testing .17* .02 .14 .13 .00 .03 .26*** .03* .18* Note N¼ 200. *p < .05;**p < .01;***p < .001. Regression results shown for predictor above and beyond demographic characteristics (e.g., age, gender, employee status, job level) entered in first block of hierarchical regression (estimates of first block not shown for space). Predictors were entered individually in the second block of a regression, such that, other than a first block of demographic charac- teristics, only one predictor was tested in the model. 110 ECONOMIC AND BUSINESS REVIEW 2021;23:100e114 yielded the weakest relationships with outcomes, although ourresultsindicatesegregation and exclu- sion are quite common forms of hazing employees. Ratherthanauniformlydetrimentalsetofcorrelates, our results indicate workplace hazing relates in complexwaystooutcomesofinterest. Of note are the comparative outcomes for em- ployees who experienced competing forms of newcomer socialization. Respondents who under- went a hazing process reported higher turnover intentions and strain and lower engagement than those who underwent a traditional onboarding process. This highlights the differing socialization processes and how newcomers may respond to alternative inculturation methods. 3 Discussion The combined results of these two studies show that hazing is a common form of new employee socialization (over50%of our respondents)acrossa diverse range of industries, occupations, and occupational levels. Hazing demands occur along a spectrum from seemingly harmless to more severe. The descriptions of hazing demands we report do not exhaust the means by which groups may haze new members but reveal some common themes in the content of hazingdexclusion, work-based haz- ing, and personal affrontsdand the structure in duration and termination of hazing. Although our results indicate hazing ends within 8e10 weeks on the job, the broad range of hazing's duration af- firms such induction activities more typically end based on newcomers earning inclusion in the eyes of group members, rather than a set schedule. In line with TOS, when hazing ends, then, depends not on time, but on proving oneself to the group, often without an overt message or rite signaling its end. Our results indicate while both onboarding and hazing result in strain for new employees, hazing is especially stressful, and we found some evidence of its positive relationship to turnover intentions and engagement. This aligns with a perspective of workplace hazing as a stressor presented to new employees, who already face a relatively stressful experience of transition (Nelson, 1987). The com- parison group of onboarded employees reported significantly lower levels of strain than the hazed employee group which indicates hazing places additional demands on newcomers. The emerging research on hazing's utility to group members enacting it (Cimino, 2011; Cimino et al., 2019) al- ludes to the conflict between the needs of the indi- vidual and his/her group. Socialization requires newcomers to adjust to their group's demands and although such adjustment may not benefit the in- dividual in the long run, it serves the longevity and survival of the group (Van Maanen& Schein, 1979). Our findings confirm that the newcomer experi- ence involves potentially negative consequences and that even organizationally-administered onboarding is not without some downside (Ellis et al., 2015). However, when hazing is incorporated into the socialization process, the new employee may experience even greater stress which may lead to an early exit from the firm. In line with TOS (Schein, 1971), few moments in the employee life- cycle are as critical to long-term success than the early days when the new employee is learning how theorganizationtrulyoperatesandwhattheculture is like (Allen & Shanock, 2013). Missteps by orga- nizations in this formative transition time may lead to undesirable outcomes. SMEs that value employee tenure and engage- ment would do well to review their indoctrination processes to determine how healthy and welcoming these early encounters are for the newcomer. Discovering that hazing may lead to early-tenure turnover and lower engagement provides organi- zation leaders with evidence of the importance of a welcoming new employee socialization process. SME leaders who subscribe to the ‘small is beauti- ful’ philosophy may recognize that rolling out the welcome mat may lead to positive, productive re- lationships between managers and their employees and lead to better organization outcomes (Lewis et al., 2020). Those who emphasize cost reduction may determine that retaining recently-hired employees is a less costly way to ensure that sufficient talent is available to meet the organization's production de- mands. Thus, asking new employees to run the gauntlet of hazing rather than onboarding them in welcome fashion may result in high rates of early- tenure turnover and serve to increase costs and render profits elusive (Bauer et al., 2007). 3.1 Limitations and future directions We acknowledge the limitations of our sample. Amazon MTurk-derived samples, while more representative than those derived from single or- ganizations(Buhrmesteretal.,2011;Goodmanetal., 2013;Wooetal.,2015),donotperfectlyrepresentthe American workforce. Knowledge-based vocations, for example, were over-represented and blue-collar workers were underrepresented in our sample. Our samplesofhazed employeesmayhave posedissues ofrangerestriction.Thatis,employeeswhosuffered the most severe effects of hazing may have left their ECONOMIC AND BUSINESS REVIEW 2021;23:100e114 111 jobs quickly, and therefore did not qualify (i.e., they were not employed) for our studies. Our cross-sectional design precludes any causal conclusions. We followed recommendations (Spec- tor, 2019) for conducting cross-sectional research, specifically by statistically accounting for individual differences as other explanations of variance in outcomes and by including analyses based on a quasi-experimental design. We also conducted tests to explore the effects of common method bias (CMB), namely Harman's single factor test (Pod- sakoff et al., 2003), which did not reveal any evi- dence of CMB, such that a single factor did not explain a majority of the variance (40%) in a factor analysis of all measured variables. We acknowledge thepossibilityofCMBinourresearchandassertthe ethical issues of conducting a true experiment to study the causal effects of workplace hazing limits the possibility of such work. We further acknowledge the presence of con- founds and possible third variables we did not measure or control for. Future research may consider using an outcome reported by a different source (e.g., friend/family member's observations of strain) rather than relying only on self-report, or on accessing a sample of employees prior to their first dayatwork,inordertomeasurelongitudinaleffects ofhazing(e.g.,pre-hazinglevelsofvariablesv.post- hazing levels of variables). We tested the effects of hazing, broadly, and its more specific categories. Although this provides an initial picture of the effects of specific hazing activ- ities,wealsoacknowledgeitmultipliesthestatistical tests we conducted. The majority of our predictions were non-directional, and we conducted only the statistical tests, and more specific analyses (e.g., hi- erarchical regression) justified to address those predictions based on evidence we possessed. Primarily, this research provides a description of workplacehazingandsomeofitsrelevantcorrelates, and we hope future research can use this exploration to test more focused questions and predictions on workplace hazing. Additionally, the intriguing com- parisons with standard onboarding offer future re- searchersavenuestoexplorerelativetothedifferences betweenbenignonboardingandmorenoxioushazing asanewemployeesocializationprocess. 4 Conclusions These studies add to the nascent stream of research on workplace hazing and offer contex- tual and content details from those who have experienced it. Viewed through the theoretical lenses of socialization and stress, we explored important organizational outcomes e turnover, engagement, and strain e and found that work- place hazing can result in some detrimental ef- fects for new employees. We also found that traditional onboarding, while also resulting in stress for newcomers, is a less-stressful newcomer socialization process for employees. The current research showed that workplace hazing is frequentlyencounteredinabroadrangeofwork environments to workers at all levels within or- ganizations and occupations. Because much remains to learn about this social- ization process, we look forward to continued investigation of its attributes and outcomes, and believe future efforts will benefit from our theoret- ical and empirical foundations laid here. Conflict of interest statement The authors whose names are listed immediately below certify that they have NO affiliations with or involvement in any organization or entity with any financial interest (such as honoraria; educational grants; participation in speakers’ bureaus; member- ship, employment, consultancies, stock ownership, or other equity interest; and expert testimony or patent-licensing arrangements), or non-financial interest (such as personal or professional relation- ships,affiliations,knowledgeorbeliefs)inthesubject matter or materials discussed in this manuscript. References Albrecht, S. L., Bakker, A. B., Gruman, J. A., Macey, W. H., & Saks, A. M. (2015). Employee engagement, human resource management practices and competitive advantage: An inte- gratedapproach.Journal of Organizational Effectiveness, 2,7e35. Allan,E.J.,&Madden,M.(2009).Hazinginview:Collegestudentsat risk: Initial findings from the national study of student hazing. Diane Publishing. Allen,D.G.,Bryant,P.C.,&Vardaman,J.(2010).Retainingtalent: Replacing misconceptions with evidence-based strategies. Academy of Management Perspectives, 24(2), 48e64. Allen, D. G., & Shanock, L. R. (2013). Perceived organizational support and embeddedness as key mechanisms connecting socialization tactics to commitment and turnover among new employees. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34, 350e369. Anderson, N., & Thomas, H. D. C. (1996). Work group socializ- ation. In M. A. West (Ed.), Handbook of work group psychology. Chichester. Brisbane. Andersson, L. M., & Pearson, C. M. (1999). Tit for tat? The spiraling effect of incivility in the workplace. Academy of Management Review, 24(3), 452e471. Ashforth, B. E., & Mael, F. (1989). Social identity theory and the organization. Academy of Management Review, 14(1), 20e39. Bakker, A. B., & Sanz-Vergel, A. I. (2013). Weekly work engage- mentandflourishing:Theroleofhindranceandchallengejob demands. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 83, 397e409. Bartlett, J. E., & Bartlett, M. E. (2011). Workplace bullying: An integrative literature review. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 13,69e84. 112 ECONOMIC AND BUSINESS REVIEW 2021;23:100e114 Bauer, T. N., Bodner, T., Erdogan,B., Truxillo, D. M., & Tucker, J. S. (2007). Newcomer adjustment during organizational so- cialization: A meta-analytic review of antecedents, outcomes, and methods. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 707e721. Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desireforinterpersonalattachmentsasafundamentalhuman motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 497e529. Bergami, M., & Bagozzi, R. P. (2000). Self-categorization, affective commitment and group self-esteem as distinct aspects of so- cial identity in the organization. British Journal of Social Psy- chology, 39(4), 555e577. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psy- chology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3,77e101. Buhrmester, M., Kwang, T., & Gosling, S. D. (2011). Amazon's mechanical Turk: A new source of inexpensive, yet high- quality, data? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6,3e5. Campbell, B. A., Ganco, M., Franco, A. M., & Agarwal, R. (2012). Who leaves, where to, and why worry? Employee mobility, entrepreneurship and effects on source firm performance. Strategic Management Journal, 33,65e87. Cassell, C., Nadin, S., Gray, M., & Clegg, C. (2002). Exploring human resource management practices in small and medium sized enterprises. Personnel Review, 31(5/6), 671e692. Cavanaugh,M.A.,Boswell,W.R.,Roehling,M.V.,&Boudreau,J. W. (2000). An empirical examination of self-reported work stress among US managers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 65e74. Chang, G. C. (2011). The hidden curriculum: Hazing and professional identity (Doctoral dissertation). Seattle Pacific University. Chin, J. W., & Johnson, J. (2011). Making the team: Threats to health and wellness within sport hazing cultures. The Inter- national Journal of Health, Wellness and Society, 1,29e38. Choi,S.,&Fernandez,B.J.(2017).AnoteonUSworkerturnover. Oxford Bulletin of Economics& Statistics, 79(2), 276e289. Cimino, A. (2011). The evolution of hazing: Motivational mecha- nisms and the abuse of newcomers. Journal of Cognition and Culture, 11(3e4), 241e267. Cimino, A. (2017). Defining hazing: Why popular definitions are misleadingandcounterproductive. Journal for Higher Education Management, 32, 135e148. Cimino,A.,Toyokawa,,W.,Komatsu,M.,Thomson,R.,&Gaulin, S. J. C. (2019). Cross-cultural and cross-organizational evi- dence for an evolved hazing motivation. Evolutionary Psychol- ogy, 17,1e10. Coltman, T., Devinney, T. M., Midgley, D. F., & Venaik, S. (2008). Formative versus reflective measurement models: Two appli- cationsofformativemeasurement. Journal of Business Research, 61, 1250e1262. Cooper-Thomas, H., & Anderson, N. (2002). Newcomer adjust- ment: The relationship between organizational socialization tactics, information acquisition and attitudes. Journal of Occu- pational and Organizational Psychology, 75, 423e437. De Corte, W. (1994). Utility analysis for the one-cohort selection- retention decision with a probationary period. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 402e411. Dickerson, C. (2018). Hazing humiliation, terror: Working while female in federal prison. The New York Times. https://www. nytimes.com/2018/11/17/us/prison-sexual-harassment- women.html. (Accessed 1 October 2019). Dillman, D. A., Smyth, J. D., & Christian, L. M. (2009). Internet, mail, and mixed-mode surveys: The tailored design method (3 rd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Edwards, B. D., Franco-Watkins, A. M., Cullen, K. L., Howell, J. W.,&Acuff,R.E.,Jr.(2014).Unifyingthechallenge-hindrance and sociocognitive models of stress. International Journal of Stress Management, 21(2), 162e185. Einarsen, S., Hoel, H., Zapf, D., & Cooper, C. (Eds.). (2003). Bullying and emotional abuse in the workplace: International per- spectives in research and practice. London: Taylor& Francis Inc. Ellis,A.M.,Bauer,T.N.,Mansfield,L.R.,Erdogan,B.,Truxillo,D. M., & Simon, L. S. (2015). Navigating uncharted waters: Newcomer socialization through the lens of stress theory. Journal of Management, 41, 203e235. Feldman, D. C. (1981). The multiple socialization of organization members. Academy of Management Review, 6, 309e318. Gallardo-Gallardo,E., Thunnissen,M., & Scullion,H. (2020).TM: Context matters. International Journal of Human Resource Man- agement, 31(4), 457e473. Gershel, J. C., Katz-Sidlow, R. J., Small, E., & Zandieh, S. (2003). Hazing of suburban middle school and high school athletes. Journal of Adolescent Health, 32, 333e335. Goldberg, D. P., Gater, R., Sartorius, N., Ustun, T. B., Piccinelli, M.,Gureje,O.,&Rutter,C.(1997).Thevalidityoftwoversions of the GHQ in the WHO study of mental illness in general health care. Psychological Medicine, 27, 191e197. Goodman, J. K., Cryder, C. E., & Cheema, A. (2013). Data collection in a flat world: The strengths and weaknesses of Mechanical Turk samples. Journal of Behavioral Decision Mak- ing, 26, 213e224. Grant, A. M., & Wall, T. D. (2009). The neglected science and art of quasi-experimentation: Why-to, when-to, and how-to advice for organizational researchers. Organizational Research Methods, 12(4), 653e686. Groah, J. S. (2005). Treatment of fourthclass midshipmen: Hazing and itsimpactonacademic andmilitaryperformance;andpsychological and physical health (Master’s thesis). Monterey, CA: Naval Postgraduate School. Accession number ADA435757. Harney, B., & Alkhalaf, H. (2021). A quarter-century review of HRMinsmallandmedium-sizedenterprises:Capturingwhat we know, exploring where we need to go. Human Resource Management, 60(1), 5e29. Harney, B., & Dundon, T. (2006). Capturing complexity: Devel- oping an integrated approach to analysing HRM in SMEs. Human Resource Management Journal, 16(1), 48e73. Herschovis, M. S. (2011). Incivility, social undermining, bullying… oh my!: A call to reconcile constructs within workplace aggression research. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 32, 499e519. Hogg, M. A. (1996). Social identity, self-categorization, and the smallgroup.InE.H.Witte,&J.H.Davis(Eds.), Understanding group behavior, Vol. 2: Small group processes and interpersonal relations (pp. 227e253). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Hom, P. W., Roberson, L., & Ellis, A. D. (2008). Challenging conventional wisdom about who quits: Revelations from corporate America. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(1), 1e34. Jiang, K., & Messersmith, J. (2018). On the shoulder of giants: A meta-review of strategic human resource management. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 29(1), 6e33. Josefowitz,N.,&Gadon,H.(1989).Hazing:Uncoveringoneofthe best-kept secrets of the workplace. Business Horizons, 32, 22e26. Kahn,R.L.,&Byosiere,P.(1992).Stressinorganizations.InM.D. Dunette, J. M. R. Hough, & H. C. Triandis (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 4, pp. 517e650). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. Kammeyer-Mueller, J., Wanberg, C., Rubenstein, A., & Zhaoli, S. (2013). Support, undermining, and newcomer socialization: Fitting in during the first 90 days. Academy of Management Journal, 56, 1104e1124. Keating, C. F., Pomerantz, J., Pommer, S. D., Ritt, S. J., Miller, L. M., & McCormick, J. (2005). Going to college and unpacking hazing: A functional approach to decrypting initiation prac- tices among undergraduates. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 9, 104e126. Keller, K. M., Matthews, M., Hall, K. C., & Mauro, J. A. (2015). Hazing in the US armed forces: Recommendations for hazing pre- vention policy and practice. Rand Corporation. Kim, S., Tam, L., Kim, J.-N., & Rhee, Y. (2017). Determinants of employee turnover intention. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 22(3), 308e328. Klein, H. J., & Heuser, A. E. (2008). The learning of socialization content: A framework for researching orientating practices. In Research in personnel and human resources management (pp. 279e336). Emerald Group Publishing Limited. ECONOMIC AND BUSINESS REVIEW 2021;23:100e114 113 Klein, H. J., Polin, B., & Leigh Sutton, K. (2015). Specific onboarding practices for the socialization of new employees. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 23(3), 263e283. Korte, R. F. (2009). How newcomers learn the social norms of an organization: A case study of the socialization of newly hired engineers. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 20, 285e306. Lazarus, R. S. (1991). Progress on a cognitive-motivational-rela- tional theory of emotion. American Psychologist, 46, 819e834. LePine, J. A., Podsakoff, N. P., & LePine, M. A. (2005). A meta- analytic test of the challenge stressorehindrance stressor framework: An explanation for inconsistent relationships among stressors and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 48, 764e775. Lewis, D., Manolchev, C., Pursell, L., Hodgins, M., Hogan, V., & Mannix-McNamara, P. (2020). The SME paradox? Investi- gating ill-treatment behaviours in small and medium-sized enterprises in Ireland. International Small Business Journal, 38(8), 746e767. Mallett, O., & Wapshott, R. (2017). Small business revivalism: Employmentrelationsinsmallandmedium-sizedenterprises. Work, Employment& Society, 31(4), 721e782. Maslow,A.H.(1968).Towardapsychologyof being.NewYork:Van Nostrand. Mawritz, M. B., Capitano, J., Greenbaum, R. L., Bonner, J. M., & Kim,J.(2020).Developmentandvalidationoftheworkplacehazing scale. forthcoming: Human Relations. McCreary,G. R., & Schutts, J. W. (2019). Why hazing? Measuring the motivational mechanisms of newcomer induction in col- lege fraternities. Journal of Cognition and Culture, 19(3e4), 343e365. Nelson, D. L. (1987). Organizational socialization: A stress perspective. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 8(4), 311e324. Neuhaus, S., & Schr€ oer, A. (2017). Corporate social responsibility and diversity in small and medium enterprises (SMEs) in the engineering and production sector. In K. Hansen, & C. Seierstad (Eds.), Corporate social responsibility and diversity management (pp. 173e189). Switzerland: Springer. Nielsen, M. B., & Einarsen, S. (2012). Outcomes of exposure to workplace bullying: A meta-analytic review. Work & Stress, 26(4), 309e332. Østvik, K., & Rudmin, F. (2001). Bullying and hazing among Norwegian army soldiers: Two studies of prevalence, context, and cognition. Military Psychology, 13,17e39. Pauli, U., & Pocztowski, A. (2019). TM in SMEs: An exploratory studyofPolishcompanies.EntrepreneurialBusiness&Economics Review, 7(4), 199e218. Podsakoff, N. P., LePine, J. A., & LePine, M. A. (2007). Differential challenge stressor-hindrance stressor relationships with job at- titudes,turnoverintentions,turnover,andwithdrawalbehavior: Ameta-analysis.JournalofAppliedPsychology,92,438e454. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879e903. Rainnie, A. (1989). Industrial relations in small firms: Small isn't beautiful. London: Routledge. Rindfleisch, A., Malter, A. J., Ganesan, S., & Moorman, C. (2008). Cross-sectional versus longitudinal survey research: Con- cepts, findings, and guidelines. Journal of Marketing Research, 45, 261e279. Rumpff, T. (2019). Hard knocks. Training camp with the Oakland raiders [television series] (Director). New York, NY: HBO. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and thefacilitationofintrinsicmotivation,socialdevelopment,and well-being. American Psychologist, 55,68e78. Saks,A.M.,&Gruman,J.A.(2011).Gettingnewcomersengaged: The role of socialization tactics. Journal of Managerial Psychol- ogy, 26, 383e402. Saks,A.M.,Uggerslev,K.L.,&Fassina,N.E.(2007).Socialization tacticsandnewcomeradjustment:Ameta-analyticreviewand test of a model. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 70, 413e446. Schaubroeck, J., Cotton, J. L., & Jennings, K. R. (1989). Anteced- ents and consequences of role stress: A covariance structure analysis. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 10,35e58. Schaufeli, W. B., Bakker, A. B., & Salanova, M. (2006). The mea- surement of work engagement with a short questionnaire: A cross-national study. Educational and Psychological Measure- ment, 66, 701e716. Schein, E. H. (1971). The individual, the organization, and the career: A conceptual scheme. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 7, 401e426. Schilpzand, P., De Pater, I. E., & Erez, A. (2016). Workplace inci- vility:Areviewoftheliteratureandagendaforfutureresearch. Journalof OrganizationalBehavior,37(S1),S57eS88. Schmitt, A., Ohly, S., & Kleespies, N. (2015). Time pressure pro- motes work engagement. Journal of Personnel Psychology, 14, 28e36. Schumacher, E. F. (2011). Small is beautiful: A study of economics as if people mattered. New York: Random House. Sisson, K. (1993). In search of human resource management. British Journal of Industrial Relations, 31(2), 201e210. Spector, P. E. (2019). Do not cross me: Optimizing the use of cross-sectional designs. Journal of Business and Psychology, 34, 125e137. Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1985). The social identity theory of intergroup behaviour. In S. Worchel, & W. G. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 7e24). Chicago, IL: Nelson-Hall. Tepper, B. J. (2007). Abusive supervision in work organizations: Review, synthesis, and research agenda. Journal of Manage- ment, 33, 261e289. Thomas, B. J., & Meglich, P. (2019). Justifying new employees' trialsbyfire:Workplacehazing. Personnel Review, 48,381e399. Tofler, I. R. (2016). Bullying, hazing, and workplace harassment: The nexus in professional sports as exemplified by the first NFL wells report. International Review of Psychiatry, 28, 623e628. Tourangeau, R., & Yan, T. (2007). Sensitive questions in surveys. Psychological Bulletin, 133, 859e883. Van Maanen, J., & Schein, E. H. (1979). Toward a theory of organizational socialization. In B. M. Staw (Ed.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 1, pp. 209e264). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Weller, I., Matiaske, W., Holtom, B. C., & Mellewigt, T. (2009). Level and time effects of recruitment sources on early voluntary turnover. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(5), 1146e1162. Wilkinson, A. (1999). Employment relations in SMEs. Employee Relations, 21(3), 206e217. Wilson, N. L., & Holmvall, C. M. (2013). The development and validation of the incivility from customers scale. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 18, 310e326. Woo, S. E., Keith, M., & Thornton, M. A. (2015). Amazon Me- chanical Turk for industrial and organizational psychology: Advantages, challenges, and practical recommendations. In- dustrial and Organizational Psychology, 8, 171e179. Zakaria, N., Zainal, S. R. M., & Nasurdin, A. M. (2012). Investi- gating the role of human resource management practices on the performance of SME: A conceptual framework. Journal of Global Management, 3(1), 74e92. 114 ECONOMIC AND BUSINESS REVIEW 2021;23:100e114