User:McKennaRose/sandbox
Article Evaluation
[edit] | This is a user sandbox of McKennaRose. You can use it for testing or practicing edits. This is not the sandbox where you should draft your assigned article for a dashboard.wikiedu.org course. To find the right sandbox for your assignment, visit your Dashboard course page and follow the Sandbox Draft link for your assigned article in the My Articles section. |
The article we areOnboarding new employees: maximizing success
Madkinster (talk) 02:45, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
I believe we could fix a lot of the grammatical errors throughout the article, and also spruce up sentences, so they read more easily and accurately. A lot of sentences contain "" which I think we can avoid, or substitute out. One area I think needs improved, is Collective versus Individual Socialization. I also think we could add quite a bit to the Outcomes section. The section doesn't really specify the outcomes of Onboarding. I think we could add some short term and long term outcomes. McKennaRose (talk) 22:55, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
@McKennaRose: just checking to see if this is the sandbox you are using for organizational socialization? JButlerModaff (talk) 00:48, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
- Yes that is correct! McKennaRose (talk) 20:58, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
I think we could add information to a few of the sections of the article. For instance, in the introduction the tactics used for onboarding are briefly stated. I think that there should be sections for each of the examples they provide (formal meetings, lectures, videos, printed materials, computer-based orientations). The section about Van Maanen and Schein model should also have more detail. I also think that adding more statistics into the "outcomes" section about onboarding would be beneficial to prove that onboarding is efficient or not. It doesn't really go into much detail. Madkinster (talk) 16:49, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
I completely agree with what you both have said. I think it would be beneficial to have a more general introduction first and then go into different definitions and make all of sections more clear/cut and dry than they are now. One of the major additions I think we will have to make is adding in references to the page, i.e., when talking about all of the different organization socialization efforts. Sentence structure and grammar are minor but definitely need to be spruced up through out the page. Maybe this is too much, and we can talk about it later, but I feel it might be beneficial to mention like different socialization barriers or issues like social anxiety or cognitive issues, if y'all don't agree, totally fine, I just thought it might be helpful in general. Also I don't know if this is possible, but having the picture of "a model of onboarding," adopted by Bauer and Erdogan not be pictured how it is would make the page more ascetically pleasing. Jennaives (talk)
I think the article looks really good so far! I like the idea of socialization barriers, we could talk about cultural barriers and marginalized groups as well. And as for onboarding tactics, I think it would be good to have sections for the tactics because more elaboration would be helpful, but is there enough information without being redundant to make sections for each? Or should be have a section on tactics where we elaborate on them all? SymoneSine (talk) 01:25, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
Potential Changes
[edit]New employee characteristics
2nd and 3rd paragraphs reuse "proactive" and "information seeking" in a way that seems redundant
3rd and 4th repetition of framing in a positive litght seems redundant
Correct for gender neutrality (Complete)
Sentence structure: period after (2002)? (Complete)
New employee behaviors
Sentence explaining Miller and Jablin's typology flows uncomfortably and seems overdone, considering explanations of them are at the end of the article.
Organization socialization efforts
Clarify the info following Van Maanen are the six major tactical dimensions.
Make "Collective versus Individual" conform to formatting. Eliminate "and so forth" and "etc"? Very ambiguous. (Complete)
Use of "discrete" under sequential vs random seems too formal. Easily confused with "discreet." (Complete)
Gender neutrality in investiture vs divestiture (Complete)
Fixed vs variable socialization missing word between "take" and "complete"? Flow with "processes gives"? Missing word between "associated" and "upwardly"? (Complete)
Employee adjustment
Under self-efficacy are "logical sense" and "unsurprisingly" necessary? (Complete)
Gender neutrality under social acceptance. (Complete)
Outcomes
Comma after "since" in last sentence (Complete)
Socialization in online organizations
"toorganizational" (Complete) Use of "we" (Complete)
SymoneSine (talk) 15:09, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
For one of the moderate changes in the article, I wanted to combine the sections Organization socialization efforts and Socialization tactics. Here, I will combine them and make minor edits as well. Organizations invest a great amount of time and resources into the training and orientation of new company hires. Organizations differ in the variety of socialization activities they offer in order to integrate productive new workers. Possible activities include their socialization tactics, like formal orientation programs, recruitment strategies, and mentorship opportunities. Socialization tactics, or orientation tactics, are designed based on an organization's needs, values, and structural policies. Some organizations favor a more systematic approach to socialization, while others follow a more "sink or swim" approach in which new employees are challenged to figure out existing norms and company expectations without guidance. Madkinster (talk) 15:27, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
- Outcomes
Historically, organizations have overlooked the influence of business practices in shaping enduring work attitudes and have underestimated its impact on financial success.[1] Employees' job attitudes are particularly important from an organization's perspective because of their link to employee engagement and performance on the job. Employee engagement attitudes, such as organizational commitment or satisfaction, are important factors in an employee's work performance. This translates into strong monetary gains for organizations. As research has demonstrated, individuals who are satisfied with their jobs and show organizational commitment are likely to perform better and have lower turnover rates. [1][2] Unengaged employees are very costly to organizations in terms of slowed performance and potential rehiring expenses. With the onboarding process, there can be short term and long term outcomes. Short term outcomes include: self-efficacy, role clarity, and social integration. Self-efficacy is the confidence a new employee has when going into a new job. Role clarity is the expectation and knowledge they have about the position. Social integration is the new relationships they form, and how comfortable they are in those relationships, once they have secured that position. Long term outcomes consist of organizational commitment, and job satisfaction. How satisfied the employee is after onboarding, can either help the company, or prevent it from succeeding.[3] copied from Onboarding
- Collective versus Individual socialization
Collective socialization refers to the process of taking a group of recruits who are facing a given boundary passage, and putting them through the same set of experiences together. Examples of this include, basic training or boot camp for a military organization, pledging for fraternities or sororities, education in graduate schools, and so forth. Socialization in the individual mode, allows newcomers to accumulate unique experiences separate from other newcomers. Examples of this process include, apprenticeship programs, specific internships, "on-the-job" training, etc.[4] copied from Onboarding McKennaRose (talk)
Tactics
[edit]Organizations invest a great amount of time and resources into the training and orientation of new company hires. Organizations differ in the variety of socialization activities they offer in order to integrate productive new workers. Possible activities include socialization tactics, formal orientation programs, recruitment strategies, and mentorship opportunities. Socialization tactics, or orientation tactics, are designed based on an organization's needs, values, and structural policies. Organizations either favor a systematic approach to socialization, or a "sink or swim" approach- in which new employees are challenged to figure out existing norms and company expectations without guidance.
Van Maanen and Schein model (1979)
[edit]John Van Maanen and Edgar H. Schein have identified six major tactical dimensions that characterize and represent all of the ways in which organizations may differ in their approaches to socialization.
Collective vs. Individual socialization
[edit]Collective socialization is the process of taking a group of new hires, and giving them the same training. Examples of this include: basic training/boot camp for a military organization, pledging for fraternities/sororities, and education in graduate schools. Individual socialization allows newcomers to experience unique training, separate from others. Examples of this process include but are not limited to: apprenticeship programs, specific internships, and "on-the-job" training. [4]
- Formal vs. Informal socialization
Formal socialization refers to when newcomers are trained separately from current employees within the organization. These practices single out newcomers, or completely segregate them from the other employees. Formal socialization is witnessed in programs such as police academies, internships, and apprenticeships. Informal socialization processes involve little to no effort to distinguish the two groups. Informal tactics provide a less intimidating environment for recruits to learn their new roles via trial and error. Examples of informal socialization include on-the-job training assignments, apprenticeship programs with no clearly defined role, and using a situational approach in which a newcomer is placed into a work group with no recruit role.[4]
- Sequential vs. Random socialization
Sequential socialization refers to the degree to which an organization provides identifiable steps for newcomers to follow during the onboarding process. Random socialization occurs when the sequence of steps leading to the targeted role are unknown, and the progression of socialization is ambiguous; for example, while there are numerous steps or stages leading to specific organizational roles, there is no specific order in which the steps should be taken.[4]
- Fixed vs. Variable socialization
This dimension refers to whether or not the organization provides a timetable to complete socialization. Fixed socialization provides a new hire with the exact knowledge of the time it will take to complete a given passage. For instance, some management trainees can be put on "fast tracks," where they are required to accept assignments on an annual basis, despite their own preferences. Variable techniques allow newcomers to complete the onboarding process when they feel comfortable in their position. This type of socialization is commonly associated with up-and-coming careers in business organizations; this is due to several uncontrollable factors such as the state of the economy or turnover rates which determine whether a given newcomer will be promoted to a higher level or not.[4]
- Serial vs. Disjunctive socialization
A serial socialization process refers to experienced members of the organization mentoring newcomers. One example of serial socialization would be a first-year police officer being assigned patrol duties with an officer who has been in law enforcement for a lengthy period of time. Disjunctive socialization, in contrast, refers to when newcomers do not follow the guidelines of their predecessors; no mentors are assigned to inform new recruits on how to fulfill their duties.[4]
- Investiture vs. Divestiture socialization
This tactic refers to the degree to which a socialization process either confirms or denies the personal identities of the new employees. Investiture socialization processes document what positive characteristics newcomers bring to the organization. When using this socialization process, the organization makes use of their preexisting skills, values, and attitudes. Divestiture socialization is a process that organizations use to reject and remove the importance of personal characteristics a new hire has; this is meant to assimilate them with the values of the workplace. Many organizations require newcomers to sever previous ties, and forget old habits in order to create a new self-image based upon new assumptions.[4]
Jones' model (1986)
[edit]Building on the work of Van Maanen and Schein, Jones (1986) proposed that the previous six dimensions could be reduced to two categories: institutionalized and individualized socialization. Companies that use institutionalized socialization tactics implement step-by-step programs, have group orientations, and implement mentor programs. One example of an organization using institutionalized tactics include incoming freshmen at universities, who may attend orientation weekends before beginning classes. Other organizations use individualized socialization tactics, in which the new employee immediately starts working on his or her new position and figures out company norms, values, and expectations along the way. In this orientation system, individuals must play a more proactive role in seeking out information and initiating work relationships.[5]
Formal orientations
[edit]Regardless of the socialization tactics used, formal orientation programs can facilitate understanding of company culture, and introduces new employees to their work roles and the organizational social environment. Formal orientation programs consist of lectures, videotapes, and written material. More recent approaches, such as computer-based orientations and Internets, have been used by organizations to standardize training programs across branch locations. A review of the literature indicates that orientation programs are successful in communicating the company's goals, history, and power structure.[6]
Recruitment events
[edit]Recruitment events play a key role in identifying which potential employees are a good fit for an organization. Recruiting events allow employees to gather initial information about an organization's expectations and company culture. By providing a realistic job preview of what life inside the organization is like, companies can weed out potential employees who are clearly a misfit to an organization; individuals can identify which employment agencies are the most suitable match for their own personal values, goals, and expectations. Research has shown that new employees who receive a great amount of information about the job prior to being socialized tend to adjust better.[7] Organizations can also provide realistic job previews by offering internship opportunities.
Mentorship
[edit]Mentorship has demonstrated importance in the socialization of new employees.[8][9] Ostroff and Kozlowski (1993) discovered that newcomers with mentors become more knowledgeable about the organization than did newcomers without. Mentors can help newcomers better manage their expectations and feel comfortable with their new environment through advice-giving and social support.[10] Chatman (1991) found that newcomers are more likely to have internalized the key values of their organization's culture if they had spent time with an assigned mentor and attended company social events. Literature has also suggested the importance of demographic matching between organizational mentors and mentees.[8] Enscher & Murphy (1997) examined the effects of similarity (race and gender) on the amount of contact and quality of mentor relationships.[11] What often separates rapid onboarding programs from their slower counterparts is not the availability of a mentor, but the presence of a "buddy," someone the newcomer can comfortably ask questions that are either trivial ("How do I order office supplies?") or politically sensitive ("Whose opinion really matters here?").[12] Buddies can help establish relationships with co-workers in ways that can't always be facilitated by a newcomer's manager.[13]
copied from Onboarding Madkinster (talk) 21:48, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
Employee adjustment
[edit]Role clarity
[edit]Role clarity describes a new employee's understanding of their job responsibilities and organizational role. One of the goals of an onboarding process is to aid newcomers in reducing uncertainty, making it easier for them to get their jobs done correctly and efficiently. Because there often is a disconnect between the main responsibilities listed in job descriptions and the specific, repeatable tasks that employees must complete to be successful in their roles, it's vital that managers are trained to discuss exactly what they expect from their employees.[14] A poor onboarding program may produce employees who exhibit sub-par productivity because they are unsure of their exact roles and responsibilities. A strong onboarding program produces employees who are especially productive; they have a better understanding of what is expected of them. Organizations benefit from increasing role clarity for a new employee. Not only does role clarity imply greater productivity, but it has also been linked to both job satisfaction and organizational commitment.[15] copied from Onboarding Additions by SymoneSine
Self-efficacy
[edit]Self-efficacy is the degree to which new employees feel capable of successfully completing their fulfilling their responsibilities. Employees who feel they can get the job done fare better than those who feel overwhelmed in their new positions; researcher has found that job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and turnover are all correlated with feelings of self-efficacy.[16] Research suggests social environments that encourage teamwork and employee autonomy help increase feelings of competence; this is also a result of support from co-workers, and managerial support having less impact on feelings of self-efficacy. [17] Management can work to increase self-efficacy in several ways. One includes having clear expectations of employees, with consequences for failing to meet the requirements. Management can also offer programs to enhance self-efficancy by emphasizing the ability of employees to use their existing tools and skills to solve problems and complete tasks. [18] copied from Onboarding Additions by SymoneSine (talk) 05:38, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
Social acceptance
[edit]Social acceptance gives new employees the support needed to be successful. While role clarity and self-efficacy are important to a newcomer's ability to meet the requirements of a job, the feeling of "fitting in" can do a lot for one's view of the work environment and has been shown to increase commitment to an organization and decrease turnover.[16] In order for onboarding to be effective employees must help in their own onboarding process by interacting with other coworkers and supervisors socially, and involving themselves in functions involving other employees. [19] The length of hire also determines social acceptance, often by influencing how much an employee is willing to change to maintain group closeness. Individuals who are hired with an expected long-term position are more likely to work toward fitting in with the main group, avoiding major conflicts. Employees who are expected to work in the short-term often are less invested in maintaining harmony with peers. This impacts the level of acceptance from existing employee groups, depending on the future job prospects of the new hire and their willingness to fit in. [20]
Identity impacts social acceptance as well. If an individual with a marginalized identity feels as if they are not accepted, they will suffer negative consequences. It has been show that when LGBT employees conceal their identities at work they are a higher risk for mental health problems, as well as physical illness. [21] [22] They are also more likely to experience low satisfaction and commitment at their job. [23] [24] Employees possessing disabilities may struggle to be accepted in the workplace due to coworkers' beliefs about the capability of the individual to complete their tasks. [25] Black employees who are not accepted in the workplace and face discrimination experience decreased job satisfaction, which can cause them to perform poorly in the workplace resulting in monetary and personnel costs to organizations. [26]
copied from Onboarding
Additions by SymoneSine (talk) 05:38, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
Antecedents of Success
[edit]Employee and Supervisor Relationships
[edit]Foste & Botero (2012) research found that having positive communication and relationships between employees and supervisors is important for worker morale. The way in which a message is delivered affects how supervisors develop relationships and feelings about employees. When developing a relationship evaluating personal reputation, delivery style, and message content all played important factors in the perceptions between supervisors and employees. Yet, when supervisors were assessing work competence they primarily focused on the content of what they were discussing or the message. Creating interpersonal, professional relationships between employees and supervisors in organizations helps foster productive working relationships. Additions by jennaives 09:40, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
Evaluation of existing references
[edit]I'm going to go through and add URLs to the citations via hyperlink. Thoughts?- Good idea, I can help you with that (like do the rest if you want)!
Reference 1: Confirmed. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/285000696_Organizational_socialization_The_effective_onboarding_of_new_employees
Reference 2: PR page on a software website promoting own onboarding programs. Not a reliable source.
Reference 3: Confirmed. http://webuser.bus.umich.edu/sja/pdf/ProactiveOrgEntry.pdf
Reference 4: Confirmed. https://carlsonschool.umn.edu/sites/carlsonschool.umn.edu/files/faculty/publications/Kammeyer-Mueller%20and%20Wanberg%202003.pdf
Reference 5: Confirmed. No public access.
Reference 6: Confirmed. http://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/getting-new-hires-up-to-speed-quickly/
Reference 7: Confirmed.
Reference 8: Confirmed.
Reference 9: Confirmed. http://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1026&context=busadmin_fac
Reference 10: Confirmed. No public access.
Reference 11: Confirmed. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/24187188_Perceived_Overqualification_and_Its_Outcomes_The_Moderating_Role_of_Empowerment
Reference 12: Confirmed. No public access.
Reference 13: Confirmed. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/245823962_Curiosity_and_the_pleasures_of_learning_Wanting_and_liking_new_information
Reference 14: Confirmed. NPA.
Reference 15: Incomplete Citation. Beyer, J. M., & Hannah, D. R. (2002). Building on the past: Enacting established personal identities in a new work setting. Organizational Science, 13, 636–652. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/234021341_Building_on_the_Past_Enacting_Established_Personal_Identities_in_a_New_Work_Setting
Reference 16: Confirmed. NPA.
Reference 17: Confirmed. NPA.
Reference 18: Confirmed. NPA.
Reference 20: Confirmed. NPA.
Reference 21: Confirmed. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/12418139_Predictors_and_Outcomes_of_Proactivity_in_the_Socialization_Process
Reference 22: Confirmed. NPA.
Reference 23: Confirmed. NPA.
Reference 24: Confirmed. NPA.
Reference 25: Confirmed. https://www.shrm.org/foundation/ourwork/initiatives/resources-from-past-initiatives/Documents/Onboarding%20New%20Employees.pdf
Reference 26: Confirmed. NPA.
Reference 27: Confirmed. http://faculty.haas.berkeley.edu/chatman/papers/34_MatchingPeopleOrgs.pdf
Reference 28: Confirmed. NPA.
Reference 29: Confirmed. NPA.
Reference 30: Confirmed. NPA.
Reference 31-33: Confirmed.
Reference 34: Confirmed. Questionable credibility. https://www.td.org/Publications/Magazines/TD/TD-Archive/2012/09/New-Hire-Onboarding-Common-Mistakes-to-Avoid
Reference 35: Confirmed. NPA.
Reference 36: Confirmed. NPA.
Reference 37: Confirmed. http://utm.edu/staff/mikem/documents/jobsatisfaction.pdf
Reference 38: Confirmed. NPA.
Reference 39: Confirmed. NPA.
Reference 40: Confirmed. NPA.
Reference 41: Confirmed. NPA.
Reference 42: Confirmed. NPA.
Reference 43: Confirmed. NPA.
Reference 44: Confirmed. NPA.
Reference 45: Confirmed. NPA.
Reference 46: Confirmed. http://hr.gsu.edu/files/2014/03/Onboarding-Book-Executive-Summary-Vonnegut.pdf
Reference 47: Confirmed. NPA.
Reference 48: Questionable. Is not scholarly. http://www.economist.com/node/7170443
Reference 49: Questionable. NPA.
Reference 50: Questionable. Not Scholarly. https://www.ft.com/content/19975256-1af2-11de-8aa3-0000779fd2ac
Reference 51: Questionable. Not scholarly. NPA. Error with date values.
Reference 52: Questionable. Not scholarly. NPA.
Reference 54: Confirmed. NPA.
Reference 55: Confirmed. NPA.
Reference 56: Confirmed.
Reference 56: Confirmed. NPA.
Reference 57: Confirmed. NPA.
Reference 58: Confirmed. NPA.
Reference 59: Confirmed. NPA.
Reference 60: Confirmed. http://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/reinventing-employee-onboarding/
Reference 61: Confirmed. NPA.
Reference 62: Confirmed. NPA.
Notes by Madkinster (talk) 05:58, 9 November 2017 (UTC) Reference 34: NPA, can't assess credibility further Reference 48: Not a scholarly article, but seems credible Reference 50, 51, 52: Questionable sources. NPA. How do we assess further?
- ^ a b Saari, L. M. & Judge, T. A. (2004). Employee attitudes and job satisfaction. Human Resource Management, 43, 395–407.
- ^ Ryan, A. M., Schmit, M. J., & Johnson, R. (1996). Attitudes and effectiveness: Examining relations at an organizational level. Personnel Psychology, 49, 853–882.
- ^ Bauer, T.N. (2007). "Onboading new employees: maximizing success". SHRM foundation's effective practice guidelines series: 1-37.
- ^ a b c d e f g Van Maanen, J., & Schein, E. H. (1979). Toward a theory of organizational socialization. Research in Organizational Behavior, 1, 209–264.
- ^ Jones, G. R. (1986). Socialization tactics, self-efficacy, and newcomers' adjustments to organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 29, 262–279.
- ^ Bauer, T. N. (2010). Onboarding new employees: Maximizing success. SHRM Foundation’s Effective Practice Guideline Series.
- ^ Klein, H. J., Fan, J., & Preacher, K. J. (2006). The effects of early socialization experiences on content mastery and outcomes: A mediational approach. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 68, 96–115.
- ^ a b Chatman, J. A. (1991). Matching people and organizations: Selection and socialization in public accounting firms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36, 459–484.
- ^ Major, D. A., Kozlowski, S. W. J., Chao, G. T., & Gardner, P. D. (1995). A longitudinal investigation of newcomer expectations, early socialization outcomes, and the moderating effects of role development factors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 418–431.
- ^ Ostroff, C., & Kozlowski, S. W. J. (1993). The role of mentoring in the information gathering processes of newcomers during early organizational socialization. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 42, 170–183.
- ^ Enscher, E. A., Murphy, S. E., (1997). Effects of race, gender, perceived similarity, and contact on mentor relationships. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 50, 460–481.
- ^ Rollag, K; Parise, S.; Cross, R. (2005). "Getting New Hires Up to speed Quickly". MIT Sloan Management Review. 46 (2): 35–41.
{{cite journal}}:|access-date=requires|url=(help) - ^ Rollag, K; Parise, S.; Cross, R. (2005). "Gettin New Hires Up to Speed Quickly". MIT Sloan Management Review. 46 (2): 35–41.
{{cite journal}}:|access-date=requires|url=(help) - ^ Vernon, A. (2012). "New-Hire Onboarding: Common Mistakes to Avoid". T+D. 66 (9): 32–33.
{{cite journal}}:|access-date=requires|url=(help) - ^ Adkins, C. L. (1995). Previous work experience and organizational socialization: A longitudinal examination. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 839–862.
- ^ a b Kammeyer-Mueller, J. D., & Wanberg, C. R. (2003). Unwrapping the organizational entry process: Disentangling multiple antecedents and their pathways to adjustment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 779–794.
- ^ Jungert, T., Koestner, R. F., Houlfort, N., & Shattke, K. (2013). Distinguishing Source of Autonomy Support in Relation to Worker's Motivation and Self-Efficacy. The Journal of Social Psychology, 153:6, 651-666.
- ^ Stajkovic, A. D., & Luthans, F. (1998). Self-efficacy and work-related performance: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 124(2), 240-261.
- ^ Bauer, T. N. (2010). Onboarding new employees: Maximizing success. SHRM Foundation’s Effective Practice Guideline Series
- ^ Rink, F. A., & Ellemers, N. (2009). Temporary versus permanent group membership: how the future prospects of newcomers affect newcomer acceptance and newcomer influence. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35(6), 764-775.
- ^ Frable, E. S. D., & Platt, L., & Hoey, S. (1998). Concealable Stigmas and Positive Self-Perceptions: Feeling Better Around Similar Others. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(4), 909-922.
- ^ Cole, S. W., Kemeny, M. E., Taylor, S. E., & Visscher, B. R. (1996). Elevated Physical Health Risk Among Gay Men Who Conceal Their Homosexual Identity. Health Psychology, 15(4), 243-251.
- ^ Griffith, K. H., & Hebl, M. R. (2002). The Disclosure Dilemma for Gay Men and Lesbians: "Coming Out" at Work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(6), 1191-1199.
- ^ Newheiser, AK., Barreto, M., & Tiemersma, J. (2017). People Like Me Don't Belong Here: Identity Concealment is Associated with Negative Workplace Experiences. Journal of Social Issues, 73(2), 341-358.
- ^ Mclaughlin, M. E., Bell, M. P., & Stringer, D. Y., (2004). Stigma and Acceptance of Persons With Disabilities. Group and Organization Management, 29(3), 302-333.
- ^ Deitch, E. A., Barksy, A., Butz, R. M., Chan, S., Breif, A. P., & Bradly, J. C. (2003). Subtle yet significant: The existence and impact of everyday racial discrimination in the workplace. Human Relations, 56(11), 1299-1324.