ing the research directions in these issues of organizational socialization, Saks and Ashforth (1997) have summarized the theoretical perspective of The Importance of Interviews in Anticipatory Stage 173 https://doi.org/10.5771/0949-6181-2017-2-169 Generiert durch IP '54.70.40.11', am 10.12.2018, 10:38:44. Das Erstellen und Weitergeben von Kopien dieses PDFs ist nicht zulässig. four corps, namely: a) the model of socialization tactics (Van Maanen/Schein 1979); b) the uncertainty reduction theory (Berger/Calabrese 1975), as a variant of the communication theory (Falcione/Wilson 1988; Lester 1987), where the employees try to predict the behaviour of others in interaction through various forms of active and passive communication strategies in order to reduce uncertainty in the new workplace; c ) the social cognitive theory based on the optimistic concept of self-efficacy, which depends on the competence of personality, problem solving skills, coping with the requirements of the environment, and the standards of behaviour (Bandura 1986; 1997); and d) the cognitive and sense making theory (Louis 1980; Weick 1995), which explains the cognitive mechanisms of the rationalization of specific situations in the organization, the search for meaning in unclear circumstances and acting in accordance with one’s personal judgment and their own identity. Of course, this is by no means a complete list of research subjects regarding the organization – employees – socialization. The literature is supplemented by surveys conducted in transition and post-transition countries, i.e. countries which are still in the process of mastering the rules of operating in market conditions. Thus, Grazulis (2011) for example, studies the relation between organizational socialization and the level of employee’s loyalty in organizations of the Lithuanian public sector. This interesting study has shown that these organizations lack a systematic approach to the process of organizational socialization, which has resulted in low levels of employee’s loyalty. Another study (Claes/Hiel/Smets/ Luca 2006) conducted in Romania was focused on the influence of organizational socialization on job satisfaction. This study also included the characteristics of ethnic identity of Hungarians and Romanians employed in companies in Transylvania. Eisenschmidt (2008) has studied the importance of mentoring in the process of organizational socialization of both teachers and school management in Estonian schools. As indicated in her study, the level of success of professional and social socialization is higher if the individual is quick to adjust to the organization, as early as the induction year, and become familiar both with the culture and goals of the school, and colleagues they work with. Several different perspectives on studying organisational socialisation can be found in Serbian sources. Pržulj (2002), for example, analysed the question of organisational socialisation in the general context of human resources development, while Lojić (2011), highlights the important role of human resources management in the process of keeping track of, analysing and adapting the process of organisational socialisation. Janićijević (1997) discusses this question in in the context of accepting organisational culture, while Zimanji (2001 a) looks at it as a contributor to company transformation. Zimanji (2001 b), also studies the importance of mentoring in the process of organisational socialisation, using a four-phased model which consists of the initiation phase, upbringing phase, the separation phase and finally of redefining relationships. Djordjević-Boljanović and Pavić 174 Biljana Ratković Njegovan, Maja S. Vukadinović, Ljubica Duđak https://doi.org/10.5771/0949-6181-2017-2-169 Generiert durch IP '54.70.40.11', am 10.12.2018, 10:38:44. Das Erstellen und Weitergeben von Kopien dieses PDFs ist nicht zulässig. (2011) divided the process of socialisation of newly employed individuals into learning organisational standards, ways of behaving, values and opinions, as well as factors which influence employee performance and the way in which others in the organisation experience them. According to these authors, creating a good socialisation program is key to successful socialisation and it should generally be based on the following premises: a fair employment process, supplying necessary information, and evaluating the system through interviews at the end of the organisational socialisation process. Jovanović-Božinović/Kuljić/ Cvetkovski (2004) researched the goals of organisational socialisation, stating as their main goals the creation of a positive first impression, interpersonal acceptance, as well as the lowering of employee fluctuations, while Mašić et al. (2010) add to these goals the effectiveness and efficiency of doing the job. Conceptual challenges and affirmations of organizational socialization It can be concluded that there is an increasing scientific interest for developing the concept of employees' organizational socialization, but at the same time, this domain of human resources has been exposed to conceptual criticism. Namely, despite the different perspectives on the effectiveness of organizational socialization developed in a relatively short period of time, the concept itself is challenged for being descriptive and lacking deeper theoretical analyses (Sacks/ Ashforth 1997), partiality in research (Fisher 1986; Ostroff/Kozlowski 1992; Wanous/Colella 1989), which result in fragmented literature (Fisher 1986). The immanent multi-discliplinarity in the approach to this phenomenon should be added, which, along with management theory, includes sociology, social and industrial psychology, ethics, economics, medicine etc. All this prevents the field of organizational socialization from becoming structured as a discipline by defining its subjects and methods; thus, organizational socialization is seen either as a professional or scientific discipline. The criteria based on which the success of socialization would be evaluated are also unclear, as well as the possible level of contingency to be relied on in evaluating the implementation of socialization procedure. Some cases are dominated by behavioural criteria like learning behaviour, others by criteria of authoritarianism and fear which can be used for advancing organizational socialization only in reasonable manner. Also note the fact that most managers believe that by individuals’ socialization their personality can be significantly altered by changing the already formed opinions, adopted habits, ways of thinking and values, and establishing new modes of behaviour in favour of and for the needs of both company and its employees. However, the complementary nature of research areas and the epistemological settings of organizational socialization, where confrontation of various theoreti3. The Importance of Interviews in Anticipatory Stage 175 https://doi.org/10.5771/0949-6181-2017-2-169 Generiert durch IP '54.70.40.11', am 10.12.2018, 10:38:44. Das Erstellen und Weitergeben von Kopien dieses PDFs ist nicht zulässig. cal alternatives is possible, but not their elimination (intratheoretical interdependence) suggests that organizational socialization is a mature scientific discipline and it is continuously strengthening its paradigmatic status in terms of its basic constituents, i.e. subject specificity, theoretical foundations, research methods and numerous examples of their verification, and above all in terms of its functionality. However, some authors (Sachs/Ashforth 1997; Ostroff/Kozlowski 1992; Wanous 1992; Wanous/Colella 1989; Fisher 1986) suggest that, despite the existing normative framework, organizational socialization is still fragmented and studied from various perspectives, and that there is a lack of so-called "stage models'' (Wanous 1992), which would provide a reliable methodological base. In this sense, Cooper-Thomas and Anderson (2005) state the critical question, for which they believe it is neglected: is there any common basic pattern of organizational socialization, and is it possible to set a uniform model for organizational socialization? Establishing some scientific discipline with all its constituents is clearly a long and complex process, determined by gnoseological-epistemological frameworks, societal conditions and demands of the time. However, despite the various methodological doubts, we can say that in the theoretical field of organizational socialization we are already working on defining its subject which established its contents and the basic set of attributes, so that it has often been stated that it is a process through which individuals acquire knowledge about and adjust to their work context (Fisher 1986; Feldman 1981; Van Maanen/Schein 1979; Schein 1968), in one word "people processing" (Van Maanen 1978). Caplow (1964) explains that this is an organizationally directed process that prepares and qualifies individuals to occupy organizational positions, while Brim (1966) viewed socialization as the manner in which an individual learns that behaviour appropriate to his position in the group through interaction with others who hold normative beliefs about what his role should be and who reward or punish him for correct or incorrect actions. The interactive perspective takes more collaborative approach to developing a productive relationship between the individual and the organization beginning at the time of entry (Jones 1983; Ostroff/ Kozlowski 1992). This context also defines the attributes or characteristics of the process of organizational socialization as continuity of socialization over time, changes of attitudes, values and behaviours and as a multiple socialization process (Feldman 1976, 1980, 1988). Regarding the theoretical foundations of organizational socialization, although basically relying on the field of psychology, we have clear basic theoretical perspectives, summariz

中文翻译：

---

对组织社会化研究的贡献：预期阶段访谈的重要性

针对这些组织社会化问题的研究方向，Saks和Ashforth（1997）总结了《预期阶段173访谈的重要性》的理论观点https://doi.org/10.5771/0949-6181-2017-2-169 Generiert durch IP '54 .70.40.11'，am 10.12.2018，10:38:44。Das Erstellen和Weitergeben von Kopien死于PDF格式，而nichtzulässig。四个兵团，即：a）社会化策略的模型（Van Maanen / Schein 1979）；b）不确定性降低理论（Berger / Calabrese 1975），是交流理论的一种变体（Falcione / Wilson 1988； Lester 1987），其中，员工试图通过各种形式的主动和被动交流来预测他人在互动中的行为减少新工作场所不确定性的策略；c）基于自我效能感的乐观概念的社会认知理论，它取决于人格能力，解决问题的能力，对环境的要求以及行为标准（Bandura 1986； 1997）；d）认知和感觉制造理论（Louis 1980； Weick 1995），它解释了组织中特定情况的合理化，在不明确的情况下寻找意义并根据个人判断和自己的行为行事的认知机制。身份。当然，这绝不是关于组织（员工）和社会化的研究主题的完整列表。在过渡和过渡后国家进行的调查补充了文献资料，即 仍在掌握市场条件下运作规则的国家/地区。因此，例如Grazulis（2011）研究了立陶宛公共部门组织中的组织社会化与员工忠诚度之间的关系。这项有趣的研究表明，这些组织在组织社会化过程中缺乏系统的方法，从而导致员工的忠诚度较低。在罗马尼亚进行的另一项研究（Claes / Hiel / Smets / Luca 2006）关注组织社会化对工作满意度的影响。这项研究还包括特兰西瓦尼亚公司雇用的匈牙利人和罗马尼亚人的种族认同特征。Eisenschmidt（2008）研究了在爱沙尼亚学校的教师组织社会化和学校管理中导师制的重要性。如她的研究所示，如果个人早在入职之年就迅速适应组织，并熟悉学校的文化和目标以及同事，那么专业和社会社交的成功水平就更高。他们一起工作。在塞尔维亚的文献中可以找到关于组织社会化研究的几种不同观点。例如，Pržulj（2002）在人力资源开发的总体背景下分析了组织社会化的问题，而Lojić（2011）强调了人力资源管理在跟踪，分析和适应组织社会化的过程。Janićijević（1997）在接受组织文化的背景下讨论了这个问题，而Zimanji（2001 a）则将其视为公司转型的贡献者。Zimanji（2001 b），还使用四个阶段的模型研究了指导在组织社会化过程中的重要性，该模型包括启动阶段，养育阶段，分离阶段以及最后重新定义关系。Djordjević-Boljanović和Pavić174 BiljanaRatkovićNjegovan，MajaS.Vukadinović，LjubicaDuđakhttps://doi.org/10.5771/0949-6181-2017-2-169 Generiert durch IP '54 .70.40.11'，上午10.12.2018， 10:38:44。Das Erstellen和Weitergeben von Kopien死于PDF格式，而nichtzulässig。（2011年）将新员工的社会化过程分为学习组织标准，行为方式，价值观和观点，以及影响员工绩效的因素以及组织中其他人的体验方式。这些作者认为，创建良好的社交程序是成功进行社交的关键，并且通常应基于以下前提：公平的雇用过程，提供必要的信息以及在组织社交过程结束时通过访谈评估该系统。Jovanović-Božinović/Kuljić/ Cvetkovski（2004）研究了组织社会化的目标，并指出其主要目标是创造积极的第一印象，人际交往以及减少员工波动，而Mašić等人。（2010）增加了这些目标的有效性和效率。组织社会化的概念挑战和主张可以得出结论，发展员工组织社会化概念的科学兴趣在不断增长，但是与此同时，人力资源领域也受到了概念批评。就是说，尽管在相对较短的时间内就组织社会化的有效性提出了不同的观点，但该概念本身仍面临描述性和缺乏更深入的理论分析（Sacks / Ashforth 1997），研究偏见（Fisher 1986; Ostroff / Kozlowski 1992； Wanous / Colella 1989），这导致文献碎片化（Fisher 1986）。应对这种现象的方法应具有内在的多重差异性，其中应加上管理理论，包括社会学，社会和产业心理学，伦理学，经济学，医学等。所有这些都阻止了组织社会化领域的结构化。通过定义学科和方法进行纪律；因此，组织社会化被视为专业或科学学科。评估社会化成功与否的标准也不清楚，在评估社会化程序执行情况时可能依赖的应急水平也不清楚。在某些情况下，行为准则（例如学习行为，其他的则以威权主义和恐惧的标准为基础，只能以合理的方式用于推进组织社会化。还应注意一个事实，即大多数管理者认为，通过个人的社会化，可以通过改变已经形成的意见，所采用的习惯，思维方式和价值观以及建立有利于和满足双方需求的新的行为方式，来极大地改变其个性。公司及其员工。但是，研究领域的互补性和组织社会化的认识论背景是各种理论的对立面。预期阶段面试的重要性175 https://doi.org/10.5771/0949-6181-2017-2-169 Generiert durch IP '54 .70.40.11'，am 10.12.2018，10:38:44。Das Erstellen和Weitergeben von Kopien死于pdf格式的文件。可以选择其他替代方法，但不能消除它们（理论上的相互依存）表明组织社会化是一门成熟的科学学科，并且它在其基本构成方面不断增强其范式地位，即学科特异性，理论基础，研究方法和许多实例。他们的验证，尤其是在功能方面。但是，一些作者（Sachs / Ashforth 1997； Ostroff / Kozlowski 1992； Wanous 1992； Wanous / Colella 1989； Fisher 1986）建议，尽管存在现有的规范框架，但组织社会化仍然是分散的，并从各种角度进行了研究，并且存在缺乏所谓的“阶段模型”（Wanous 1992），这将提供可靠的方法论基础。Cooper-Thomas和Anderson（2005）提出了一个关键问题，他们认为这个关键问题被忽略了：组织社会化有没有共同的基本模式，是否有可能为组织社会化建立统一的模型？建立一门科学学科及其所有组成部分显然是一个漫长而复杂的过程，这取决于gnosisological-epememological框架，社会条件和时代要求。但是，尽管有各种方法上的疑问，我们可以说，在组织社会化的理论领域中，我们已经在定义其主题，该主题确立了其内容和基本属性集，因此经常有人说这是一个过程通过这种方式，个人可以获得有关其工作环境的知识并对其进行调整（Fisher 1986； Feldman 1981；Van Maanen / Schein 1979；Schein（1968），用一个词“人处理”（Van Maanen 1978）。Caplow（1964）解释说，这是一个组织指导的过程，可以使个人做好准备并具备担任组织职位的资格，而Brim（1966）则将社会化视为个体通过与他人互动来学习适合其在团队中的位置的行为的方式。谁对他的角色应该抱有规范的信念，以及对他的正确或不正确行为给予奖励或惩罚的人。互动的观点从进入之初就采取了更多的协作方式来发展个人与组织之间的生产性关系（Jones 1983； Ostroff / Kozlowski 1992）。这种情况也将组织社会化过程的属性或特征定义为社会化随时间的连续性，态度，价值观和行为的变化以及多元社会化过程（Feldman 1976，1980，1988）。关于组织社会化的理论基础，尽管基本依赖于心理学领域，但我们有清晰的基本理论观点，即摘要