Small Group Socialization Scale

Riddle, Bruce L.; Anderson, Cheryl; Martin, Matthew M.

doi:10.1177/104649640003100503

Cited by 16 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 38 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Strongly significant loadings (see Table 3) suggested adequate validity and reliability (Jöreskog & Sörbom, 1993). These encouraging results prompted us to investigate and confirm convergent and discriminant validity in relation to similar constructs in the literature, specifically LSI (Barker et al, 1992;Pearce et al, 2003) and SGSS (Riddle et al, 2000), and RSS (Anderson et al, 2001) scales. All subsequent analyses were performed on the covariance matrix of the refined data set using maximum likelihood within EQS 6.1.…”

Section: Measurementmentioning

confidence: 75%

“…CFA validated a sixitem measure (see Table 2). To demonstrate the uniqueness of the new TLE measurement model, the items were analyzed along with those of three existing listening scales: (a) LSI (Barker et al, 1992;Pearce et al, 2003), (b) SCS (Riddle et al, 2000), and (c) RSS (Anderson et al, 2001). Results demonstrate the convergent and divergent validity of the four unique listening constructs and their measurement models.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We investigated convergent and discriminant validity, which "involve the evaluation of measures against one another instead of against an external criterion" (Kline, 1998, p. 197). To demonstrate discriminant validity, the survey also included items from two existing listening scales: LSI (Barker et al, 1992;Pearce et al, 2003) and SGSS (Riddle et al, 2000). Finally, because the TLE construct captures a dimension of relationship quality, we also incorporated the items from the RSS (Anderson et al, 2001).…”

Section: Measurementmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The Listener Styles Profile (Watson, Barker, & Weaver, 1995), assesses an individual's predominant, preferred approach to listening: oriented to people, action, content, or time. The Small Group Socialization Scale (SGSS; Riddle, Anderson, & Martin, 2000) measures people's perceptions of the communication effectiveness of group socialization. And the Relational Satisfaction Scale (RSS; Anderson, Martin, & Riddle, 2001), looks at relational dynamics at the group level, but it does not measure listening environment.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Team Listening Environment (TLE) Scale: Development and Validation

Johnston

Reed

Lawrence

2010

Journal of Business Communication

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although past research has focused on the individual's ability to listen and on the broader concept of communication satisfaction, limited attention has been devoted to the listening environment. This article develops the construct and measurement of a new scale, Team Listening Environment (TLE). Team listening environment is defined as the individual's perception of behaviors demonstrating genuine attention and understanding by team members. This article investigates the individual perception of the listening environment within a variety of academic and professional contexts.Three studies were conducted for rigorous analysis of this latent construct using confirmatory factor analysis in the structural equation modeling function of EQS 6.1. Results suggest that TLE is a valid construct and a contributor to workplace commitment.

show abstract

Section: Measurementmentioning

confidence: 75%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Measurementmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Team Listening Environment (TLE) Scale: Development and Validation

Johnston

Reed

Lawrence

2010

Journal of Business Communication

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In this manner, team cohesion emphasizes an affective component in group processes (Mason & Griffin, 2002). Viewed as a perception of “we-ness” (Pavitt, 1998), cohesion is typically a result of perceived closeness among team members and relates positively with members’ socialization in small groups (Riddle, Anderson, & Martin, 2000) and team process and outcomes for team members (Hoegl, Ernst, & Proserpio, 2007; Stokes, 1983).…”

Section: Team Collaborationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Team Member’s Centrality, Cohesion, Conflict, and Performance in Multi-University Geographically Distributed Project Teams

Susskind

Odom-Reed

2016

Communication Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study examined team processes and outcomes among 12 multi-university distributed project teams from 11 universities during its early and late development stages over a 14-month project period. A longitudinal model of team interaction is presented and tested at the individual level to consider the extent to which both formal and informal network connections-measured as degree centrality-relate to changes in team members' individual perceptions of cohesion and conflict in their teams, and their individual performance as a team member over time. The study showed a negative network centralitycohesion relationship with significant temporal patterns, indicating that as team members perceive less degree centrality in distributed project teams, they report more team cohesion during the last four months of the project. We also found that changes in team cohesion from the first three months (i.e., early development stage) to the last four months (i.e., late development stage) of the project relate positively to changes in team member performance. Although degree centrality did not relate significantly to changes in team conflict over time, a strong inverse relationship was found between changes in team conflict and cohesion, suggesting that team conflict emphasizes a different but related aspect of how individuals view their experience with the team process. Changes in team conflict, however, did not relate to changes in team member performance. Ultimately, we showed that individuals, who are less central in the network and report higher levels of team cohesion, performed better in distributed teams over time.

show abstract

Socialization in Organizational Contexts

Ashforth¹,

Sluss²,

Harrison³

2008

International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology 2007, Volume 22

209

349

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The survival of an organization depends partly on its ongoing ability to integrate new members into the fold while simultaneously allowing if not encouraging organizational change. Organizational socialization is the process by which individuals become part of an organization's pattern of activities (Anderson, Riddle & Martin, 1999). This broad definition accommodates the impact of both the organization on the individual and the individual on the organization (the latter is often referred to as individualization or personalization), and-given that socialization is continuous-recognizes that individuals may be organizational newcomers or veterans.Why does socialization matter? First, because work contexts are complex, dynamic, designed for multiple purposes, and, for the newcomer, more or less novel, their meaning is inherently equivocal. As various perspectives (e.g., social learning theory, Bandura, 1977; social information processing theory, Salancik & Pfeffer, 1978; social comparison theory;Festinger, 1954) maintain, individuals socially construct meaning, giving particular weight to the views of credible people-in this case, veteran insiders. For example, Salzinger (1991) studied two cooperatives that specialized in domestic worker placement. In one, management regarded domestic work as stopgap work and provided no training. In the other, management regarded domestic work as a profession, provided training, and held supportive meetings where workers discussed their

show abstract

Small Group Socialization Scale

Cited by 16 publications

References 38 publications

Team Listening Environment (TLE) Scale: Development and Validation

Team Listening Environment (TLE) Scale: Development and Validation

Team Member’s Centrality, Cohesion, Conflict, and Performance in Multi-University Geographically Distributed Project Teams

Socialization in Organizational Contexts

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About