Organizational Benefits of Onboarding Contingent Workers: an Anchoring Model Approach

Abstract

Organizations rarely invest in contingent employees, at least relative to the human resources efforts commonly afforded to permanent workers -but should they? Traditional social exchange theory suggests that motivation and loyalty should be difficult to cultivate in short-term, fixed-term relationships like contingent employment. However, a novel social exchange model (i.e., the anchoring model) suggests that socioemotional exchange relationships can develop quickly in response to highly salient "anchoring events." We position employee onboarding as a positive anchoring event that can quickly and durably drive contingent workers' socioemotional exchange in the form of work engagement, self-reported task performance, and intent to return to the employing organization. Specifically, we develop and test a temporally grounded process model based on the three proposed stages of the anchoring model. Our model was supported across two studies, an initial cross-sectional evaluation of the basic model within a heterogenous sample of contingent workers (n = 121), followed by a three-wave evaluation of the more detailed process model among an organizational sample of seasonal workers (n = 378). Findings provide evidence that the anchoring model, including the expanded framework developed here, explains contingent workers' attitudinal and behavioral responses to human resources initiatives in a way that traditional organizational theories have not fully achieved. Finally, recommendations for effectively managing contingent workers, through onboarding as well as through other efforts such as training and development, are also discussed.

The organizational psychology of gig work: An integrative conceptual review.

“…Just how many platform workers depend on gigs for their primary earning remains an open question. Estimates range from 22% (Schor, 2020) to 56% of gig workers (Smith, 2016). It would be useful to understand the types of individuals who take gigs with high dependence, as this may allow us to develop tools and societal safeguards for protecting vulnerable workers.…”

“…There are established measures for assessing the utility of training and development activities that could be applied to investigate when training opportunities for gig workers could be cost effective, such as low-cost training or training for workers with reoccurring gig contracts in a single firm (e.g., Carretero-Gómez & Caberra, 2015; Chochard & Davoine, 2011). For example, Smith et al (2022) find that effective onboarding—a training-like human resources practice that helps newcomers adapt to their work and organization culture—among contingent workers actually increases their task performance and intent to return. Likewise, there may also be ways to avoid legal challenges, such as through better contracting or perhaps restricting some developmental programs to gig workers.…”

A proposed research agenda concerning supervisor training for newcomer organizational socialization

“…Moreover, globalization has accelerated and increased the number of people entering and exiting organizations. Organizations, consequently, benefit when new members reach their performance potential quickly and remain in the organization performing efficaciously (Smith et al , 2021). Postolache (2017) reported that new employees encountering effective organizational socialization were 58% more likely to work for the organization in excess of three years.…”

Onboarding Learning Modalities and the Relationships with Onboarding Experience, Locus of Control, Self-Efficacy, and Employee Engagement

“…Studies have illustrated that employee-related outcomes are related to the employee's experience in onboarding; these include job performance (Ashford & Blac, 1996;Bauer et al, 2007;Caldwell & Peters, 2018;Saks & Gruman, 2018;Smith et al, 2021;Wiseman et al, 2022), turnover intention (Bauer et al, 2007;Beaver & Hutchings, 2005;Gupta et al, 2018;Meyer & Bartels, 2017;Narayansany & Isa, 2021;Pratiwi et al, 2018;Smith et al, 2021), employee satisfaction (Ashford & Black, 1996;Bauer et al, 2007;Bauer & Erdogan, 2011;Cable et al, 2013), employee motivation and engagement (Cable et al, 2013;Chillakuri, 2020;Jeske & Olson, 2021;Mahmood et al, 2022;Petrilli et al, 2022;Saks & Gruman, 2018), burnout (Frögéi et al, 2022, organization-based self-esteem (Frögéli et al, 2022;Gardner et al, 2021), and organizational commitment (Beaver & Hutchings, 2005;Meyer & Bartels, 2017;Sharma & Stol, 2020). Additionally, research has explored how locus of control and work-related self-efficacy is impacted by onboarding, as well as the intervening role these characteristics play on the relationship between onboarding and other outcomes (Chen et al, 2016;Domene, 2012;Gangai et al, 2016;Gupta et al, 2018;Judge & Bono, 2001;König et al, 2010;…”

“…Research has found that new employee onboarding, when effective, is correlated to an employee's job performance (Ashforth et al, 2007;Bauer et al, 2007;Smith et al, 2021;Wiseman et al, 2022). For example, in their study of newly onboarded salespeople at a furniture retailer chain, Wiseman et al (2022) In addition to job performance, research has found that turnover intention and organizational commitment are correlated with onboarding (Beaver & Hutchings, 2005;Gupta et al, 2018;Meyer & Bartels, 2017;Narayansany & Isa, 2021;Sharma & Stol, 2020;Smith et al, 2021).…”