FEATURE ARTICLE 891

The Impact of Buddying

on Psychological Capital
and Work Engagement:
An Empirical Study
of Socialization in the
Professional Services
Sector
By
Neelam Nigah
Ann J. Davis
Scott A. Hurrell

This article reports on a study investigating the impact of new employees’ satisfaction with buddying
on work engagement and explores the role of psychological capital in mediating this relationship.
The study took place within a professional services organization wherein data were collected from 78
graduate newcomers in receipt of buddying. Satisfaction with buddying was found to have a positive
relationship to both work engagement and psychological capital. The satisfaction with the buddy/work

Correspondence to: Ann J. Davis, Work and Organizational Psychology Group, Aston Business School, Aston University, Aston Triangle, Birmingham, B4 7ET,
+44 (0)121 2043261 (phone), +44 (0)121 2043327 (fax), a.j.davis@aston.ac.uk.

Published online in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com)

© 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. • DOI: 10.1002/tie.21510
892 FEATURE ARTICLE

engagement relationship was fully mediated by psychological capital, providing support for Saks &
Gruman’s (2011) socialization resources theory. The results underscore the valuable role buddying
can play as part of organizational socialization from a positive organizational behavior perspective.
The research contributes to the growing evidence that positively oriented human resource practices
can develop personal resources of newcomers within organizations. Recommendations are made for
how the organization can improve and build upon this resource, thus developing the psychological
capital of newcomers. © 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Introduction

T
he first few months in a new job can be a critical
determinant of an employee’s long-term success
within an organization (Schermerhorn, 1993).
Van Maanen and Schein (1979, p. 211) described effec-
tive organizational socialization as “the process by which
an individual acquires the social knowledge and skills
necessary to assume an organizational role.” Socializa-
tion can enable the organization to foster positive and
context-appropriate attitudes toward work and the work
environment, and help newcomers to come “to appreci-
ate the values, abilities, expected behaviors, and social
knowledge essential for assuming an organizational role”
(Louis, 1980, pp. 229–230). The “on-boarding” process
(Bauer & Elder, 2006) can be at once exciting and daunt-
ing, and for the organization sets the framework for the
future organizational career of the new recruit.
The socialization process to date has been seen as a
function primarily of learning—acquiring and assimilat-
ing knowledge and information that typify group and
organizational membership. The organization provides
information and knowledge that the newcomer uses to
understand what is expected of them. This reduces their
uncertainty (uncertainty reduction theory; Falcione &
Wilson, 1988; Miller & Jablin, 1991) and enables the
newcomer to adjust to the organizational context. Thus,
learning mediates the relationship between socialization
processes and adjustment (Allen, McManus, & Russell,
1999; Ashforth, Sluss, & Harrison 2007; Cooper-Thomas
& Anderson, 2002).
Recently, however, Saks and Gruman (2011) have
reexamined the concept of organizational socialization
through the lens of positive organizational behavior.
Rather than adopting a cognitive-learning approach
based in uncertainty reduction, Saks and Gruman instead
posit that organizational socialization develops newcom-
ers’ psychological capital (Luthans, Youssef, & Avolio,
2007), which becomes a job resource, enhancing the
The socialization process to
date has been seen as a func-
tion primarily of learning—
acquiring and assimilating
knowledge and information
that typify group and orga-
nizational membership.
individual’s abilities to achieve work goals. This concept
is derived from the Job Demands–Resources model as
outlined by Demerouti and colleagues (Bakker & Demer-
outi, 2007; Demerouti, Bakker, Nachreiner, & Schaufeli,
2001). Job resources have been shown to predict positive
work outcomes such as work engagement, extra role per-
formance, and commitment. In line with this argument,
therefore, Saks and Gruman propose a socialization
resources theory (SRT), whereby socialization resources
develop psychological capital, leading to positive social-
ization outcomes. This article presents a test of this
model, using the socialization technique of buddying in a
large professional services organization.
First, we expand upon the role and significance of
organizational socialization in contemporary organiza-
tions. From there, we move on to explore buddying as a
socialization technique. Finally, we propose and test the
SRT model, examining the impact of buddying as a social-
ization mechanism on the development of psychological

Thunderbird International Business Review Vol. 54, No. 6 November/December 2012 DOI: 10.1002/tie
 The Impact of Buddying on Psychological Capital and Work Engagement: An Empirical Study of Socialization in the Professional Services Sector 893
capital (Luthans, Youssef, & Avolio, 2007) and work
engagement (Schaufeli, Salanova, Gonzalez-Romá, &
Bakker, 2002) from a positive psychological perspective.
In line with Saks and Gruman’s work, we hypoth-
esize that buddying affects work engagement through its
impact on the individual’s psychological capital, which
serves as a job resource. We test whether psychological
capital mediates the socialization–engagement relation-
ship, as an SRT model would predict. Absence of such
mediation would provide stronger support for the uncer-
tainty reduction approach prominent in the literature to
date.
Organizational Socialization and Work
Engagement
Organizational socialization has been defined as the pro-
cess by which newcomers to an organization make the
transformation from outsiders to participating members
(Bauer, Bodner, Erdogan, Truxillo, & Tucker, 2007;
Feldman, 1976). This newcomer adjustment process has
become increasingly frequent as organizational tenure
has declined and, at least until the beginning of the
global financial crisis in 2008, the proportion of “new
hires” has increased. In the United States, for example,
Rollag, Parise, and Cross (2005) identified that 25 per-
cent of all workers have been with their company for less
than a year, and statistics from the Department of Labor
indicate a median tenure for individuals between the ages
of 25 and 34 as only 3.1 years (Bureau of Labor Statistics,
2010). In the United Kingdom in 2010, 45 percent of
employees had been working in the same firm for 5 years
or less (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and
Development [OECD], 2011).
While mobility has been a dominant theme in labor
market research since the early 1980s, it comes at a cost
both to the individual and the employer. Employers
incur costs directly through recruitment, and indirectly
through the costs of suboptimal performance, until
new hires come fully onboard. In the United Kingdom,
for example, the Chartered Institute for Personnel and
Development (CIPD, 2011) estimated direct recruitment
costs as, on average, £7,500 for senior managerial posts
and nearly £2,500 for other roles.
In terms of the costs of increased mobility to individu-
als, new starters invest heavily in socialization processes
through their attempts at sense making within the orga-
nization (Louis, 1980). Socialization into new organiza-
tions also implies cognitive, affective, and behavioral
demands of employees in the creation of an appropriate
organizational (social) identity (Ashforth & Mael, 1989;
DOI: 10.1002/tie
Tajfel & Turner, 1979) in order to maintain positive self-
esteem and well-being (Grieve & Hogg, 1999; Haslam,
Jetten, Postmes, & Haslam, 2009; Van Dick, Wagner,
Stellmacher, & Christ, 2004). As the majority of turnover
occurs among new employees (Advisory, Conciliation and
Arbitration Service [ACAS], 2010), identifying effective
socialization practices should be a priority for both the
organization and the employee, the former experienc-
ing reduced turnover costs and the latter a more rapid
adjustment to the new workplace and a better sense of
well-being and self-esteem.
In recent years, the positive psychology movement
has refocused attention on human strengths and positive
psychological capacities (Aspinwall & Staudinger, 2003;
Luthans, 2002; Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000). Tak-
ing a positive organizational behavior (POB) agenda,
effective socialization would strive to value individuals’
strengths and recognize their active role in developing
positive capacities in both themselves and the organiza-
tion. Socialization that results in engaged employees,
rather than merely knowledgeable ones, may better
reflect the needs of contemporary organizations as well as
benefitting the individuals themselves. Here, we focus on
work engagement as a positive outcome of effective social-
ization, work engagement having been shown to be pre-
dictive of employee well-being (Schaufeli, Bakker, & Van
Rhenen, 2009) and organizational performance (Harter,
Schmidt, & Hayes, 2002; Luthans, Avolio, Walumbwa, &
Li, 2005; Schaufeli, Bakker, & Salanova, 2006).
Socialization that results in
engaged employees, rather
than merely knowledge-
able ones, may better reflect
the needs of contemporary
organizations as well as
benefitting the individuals
themselves.
Thunderbird International Business Review Vol. 54, No. 6 November/December 2012
894 FEATURE ARTICLE
Work engagement signifies a sense of psychological
presence when performing an organizational role. It is
a concept closely linked to what Csikszentmihalyi (1991)
refers to as “flow”—a sensation of acting with total involve-
ment and a lack of consciousness about the “self.” Engage-
ment is, however, construed as a more permanent state
of being than an affective experience associated with a
particular activity or event. Engaged workers perform bet-
ter due to the positive emotions, good health, and ability to
mobilize resources associated with this cognitive state (Bak-
ker & Demerouti, 2008; Bakker, Van Emmerik, & Euwema,
2006; Salanova, Agut, & Peiró, 2005). Some of the most
compelling evidence for the organizational performance
effects of work engagement is provided in diary studies
carried out by Xanthopoulou and colleagues (Xanthopou-
lou, Bakker, Demerouti, & Schaufeli, 2007; Xanthopoulou,
Bakker, Heuven, Demerouti, & Schaufeli, 2008), who
demonstrated an association between higher levels of work
engagement and higher objective financial returns.
Schaufeli, Salanova, Gonzalez-Romá and Bakker
(2002) offer an explanation of how engagement at work
can lead to performance gains and enhanced well-being.
They identified the underlying dimensions of work-
related engagement to be vigor, dedication, and absorp-
tion. People experiencing vigor at work will show high
levels of energy and mental resilience, a willingness to
invest effort, and persistence in the face of difficulties.
Those experiencing dedication will be strongly involved
in their work and experience a sense of pride, enthusi-
asm, significance, and inspiration. Absorption is charac-
terized by being fully concentrated and deeply engrossed
in one’s work. This interpretation of work engagement
has received much attention throughout Western psy-
chology, and is central to the model of job resources that
shows how availability of resources such as social sup-
port, performance feedback, and autonomy are exclusive
predictors of subsequent work engagement (Schaufeli
& Bakker, 2004). Socialization techniques that generate
work-related engagement therefore can be expected to
demonstrate a range of benefits, both individually and
organizationally.
While a POB perspective suggests that engaged
employees can unlock their personal capabilities and
potential, it should not be forgotten that there is an
alternative view on organizational socialization. Those
coming from a labor process perspective within sociology,
for example, talk of how organizations may use cultural
inculcation techniques (such as socialization) as a form
of normative control (Ray, 1986). Ray argues that such
control seeks to exert the organizational order as a hege-
monic and potentially exploitative system. Others have
Thunderbird International Business Review Vol. 54, No. 6 November/December 2012
also questioned, for example, whether all organizational
citizenship behaviors (OCBs; seen as a positive outcome
of engagement) are truly voluntary or whether these
may become “compulsory” (Vigoda-Gadot, 2007). Such
compulsory OCBs may occur in part, because of the exer-
tion of normative pressure from management (Coyle-
Shapiro, Kessler, & Purcell, 2004). Such pressures may be
transmitted during initial organizational entry when the
“expected behaviors” of a particular role (Louis, 1980,
pp. 229–230) are communicated during organizational
socialization. Notwithstanding these valid criticisms,
there remains potential for organizational socialization to
provide mutual benefits to organizations and employees
via work engagement, which may be achieved through a
number of different tactics and resources.
Socialization Tactics and Buddying
The activities undertaken by organizations to socialize
newcomers can be considered either in terms of the
approach adopted or the techniques used. Van Maanen
and Schein (1979) developed an influential typology of
socialization tactics, dependent on the extent to which
the techniques adopted could be construed as collective
or individual; formal or informal; sequential or random
(depending on whether discrete and identifiable steps
to reach a particular role are identified by the organiza-
tion); fixed or variable (as regards the time taken to com-
plete socialization); serial (where strong organizational
role models are used) or disjunctive (where no such role
models exist); and investiture (where the suitability of
an individual’s existing characteristics are promoted)
or divestiture (where “undesirable” characteristics of
individuals are identified and changed). Institutionalized
tactics (Jones, 1986), for example, represent a collective,
formalized, sequential, fixed, and serial process, aimed
primarily at uncertainty reduction through providing
structured, fixed information to guide behavior. Such
institutionalized tactics are particularly good at produc-
ing a “custodial” role orientation, where the organiza-
tion’s prevailing norms are identified with and accepted
(Van Maanen & Schein, 1979). However, newcomers
may have differing needs in terms of the uncertainty with
which they can cope, the information they require, and
whether they are expected to engage in active change
and innovation (Van Maanen & Schein, 1979). Differing
socialization tactics are therefore suitable for different
roles.
In this article, we are focusing on one particular
socialization tactic: buddying. Typically, buddy schemes
provide newcomers with a contact within the organiza-
tion with whom they can develop a professional but
DOI: 10.1002/tie
 The Impact of Buddying on Psychological Capital and Work Engagement: An Empirical Study of Socialization in the Professional Services Sector 895
informal relationship (Williams, 2006). The buddy is of a
similar level as the newcomer, typically just having a little
more organizational experience than the newcomer.
While the pairing is formally assigned, the development
of that relationship may take many forms, and this unique
relationship between peers is designed to provide support
during the phase of newcomer adjustment (Bauer et al.,
2007). In Van Maanen and Schein’s typology, it would
classify as an individual, more or less formal, random,
variable, serial investiture tactic. It is conceptualized here
as a job resource that facilitates organizational socializa-
tion (Feldman, 1976).
Buddy schemes are popular across occupational sec-
tors and are advocated among HR practitioners (CIPD,
2009). However, there is little academic research avail-
able on the effects or effectiveness of buddying. Although
mentioned briefly in descriptive terms (Evans, 2006),
there is little evidence of what buddying schemes achieve
or how they may achieve it. Their ongoing popularity
may, therefore, arise more from their minimal cost than
from any specific evidence base. From a POB perspective,
however, it is important to examine the impact of buddy-
ing on effective socialization. Buddying emphasizes less
the provision of information to the new starter (although
this is likely to be a component of the relationship), being
more a supportive socialization tactic that allows the
individual an active role in the socialization process. Dur-
ing economically testing times, buddying may therefore
prove to be a cost-effective socialization resource.
While the evidence on the impact of buddying is
limited, it is reasonable to draw on evidence relating to
the comparable practice of mentoring. Mentoring is a
supportive relationship between an experienced mentor
and a junior protégé (Kram, 1985), with responsibility
on the mentor to provide support, direction, and feed-
back regarding career plans and personal development
(Russell & Adams, 1997). Peer mentoring, where more
experienced colleagues act as mentors for less experi-
enced colleagues at the same professional level, provides
career-related and psychosocial support (Pullins, Fine, &
Warren, 1996) and is thus very similar to buddying. There
is some limited evidence of the value of peer mentoring
for newcomer socialization (e.g., Allen et al., 1999) and
rather more evidence of the positive impact of mentor-
ing more generally on job attitudes (Dreher & Ash, 1990;
Koberg, Boss, Chappell, & Ringer, 1994), turnover inten-
tions (Viator & Scandura, 1991), and turnover behavior
(Lankau & Scandura, 2002). Buddying therefore is a spe-
cific form of peer mentoring, distinguished by the new-
comer status of the protégé and its socialization rather
than career development function (Murray, 1991).
DOI: 10.1002/tie
Buddying therefore is poten-
tially a socialization tactic
that can create positive work
attitudes if the newcomer is
satisfied with the buddying
relationship.
The quality of the mentoring relationship is central
to its effectiveness. Ragins, Cotton, and Miller (2000)
observed significant positive associations between satis-
faction with the mentor and job attitudes, specifically job
satisfaction, organizational commitment, organization-
based self-esteem, and procedural justice. Significantly,
satisfaction with a mentor accounted for more variance
in work attitudes than the mere presence of a mentor.
Buddying therefore is potentially a socialization tactic
that can create positive work attitudes if the newcomer
is satisfied with the buddying relationship. As it was pro-
posed above, from a POB perspective, that socialization
could increase work engagement, it is thus hypothesized:
Hypothesis 1: Satisfaction with buddying will be positively asso-
ciated with work engagement.
Psychological Capital Creation and Work Engagement
With the potential positive effect of buddying on work
engagement discussed, the processes through which this
may occur require attention. Primarily, organizational
socialization has been viewed as a cognitive-learning pro-
cess (Fisher, 1986) as new starters seek, or are provided
with, information about the norms, values, tasks, and
roles expected of them (Ashforth et al., 2007), in order
to reduce uncertainty (Falcione & Wilson, 1988). This
uncertainty reduction theory (URT) approach argues
that socialization can “increase the predictability of inter-
actions between (the new starters) themselves and others
within the new organization” (Bauer et al., 2007, p. 708)
and generally helps new starters to make sense of their
new surroundings and their own role within them (Louis,
1980). In response to this approach, organizations focus
on providing information to new hires, primarily via
Thunderbird International Business Review Vol. 54, No. 6 November/December 2012
896 FEATURE ARTICLE
orientation and training, and through the interactions
with role models, mentors, and leaders. This information
provision, from which the newcomer proceeds to make
sense of their new situation, has been proposed to be at
the heart of socialization (Ashforth et al., 2007). Research
by Bauer et al. (2007) reveals information seeking to
have positive associations with job satisfaction, organi-
zational commitment, intentions to remain, and actual
performance.
In today’s climate, simply knowing about how to
behave as implied by the current dominant approach
to socialization may be insufficient. Recently, Saks and
Gruman (2011) have argued that this information trans-
mission and assimilation perspective undervalues the
individuals’ strengths and underestimates their active
role in developing positive capacities, in both themselves
and the organization.
Saks and Gruman (2011) draw on the job demands–
resources (JD-R) model as well as the POB construct
of psychological capital to provide an alternative inter-
pretation of how socialization operates: SRT. The JD-R
model divides the work environment into demands and
resources. Job demands require sustained effort, which
may incur cost to the individual in physical, emotional, or
psychological terms. Job resources, however, refer to the
physical, psychological, social, or organizational aspects
of the job that can be functional in achieving work goals;
reducing job demands; and stimulating personal growth,
learning, and development (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007;
Demerouti et al., 2001). Job resources can themselves be
motivational, but they also buffer workers from the nega-
tive effects of job demands. Saks and Gruman propose
that socialization generates job resources for the new-
comer specifically in the form of psychological capital.
Psychological capital has emerged recently from the
study of POB as “an individual’s positive psychological
state of development and is characterised by: (1) having
confidence to take on and put in the necessary effort to
succeed at challenging tasks (self-efficacy); (2) making
a positive attribution about succeeding now and in the
future (optimism); (3) persevering toward goals and,
when necessary, redirecting paths to goals in order to
succeed (hope); and (4) when beset by problems and
adversity, sustaining and bouncing back and even beyond
to attain success (resilience)” (Luthans, Youssef, et al.,
2007, p. 3). Psychological capital therefore refers to the
individual motivational propensities that accrue through
the positive psychological constructs of efficacy, opti-
mism, hope, and resilience (see Figure 1).
Luthans, Avolio, Avey, and Norman (2007) found
significant positive relationships between psychological
Thunderbird International Business Review Vol. 54, No. 6 November/December 2012
FIGURE 1 A Schematic Model of Psychological Capital
Efficacy/Confidence
Believing in one’s ability to
mobilize cognitive resources to
obtain specific outcomes
Hope
Having the willpower and
pathways to attain one’s goals
Positive
Psychological Capital
Optimism
Having the explanatory style
that attributes positive events to
internal, permanent, and pervasive
causes
Resilience
Having the capacity to bounce
back from adversity, failure or
even seeming overwhelming
positive changes
Source: Luthans & Youssef, 2004
capital and the performance and satisfaction of employ-
ees. They also provide compelling evidence that the
composite factor of psychological capital may be a better
predictor of outcomes than the four individual facets.
The combined power of these four “personal resources”
(Xanthopoulou et al., 2007) has been shown to be associ-
ated with higher levels of work engagement (Avey, Wer-
nsing, & Luthans, 2008) and organizational commitment
(Luthans, Norman, Avolio, & Avey, 2007), and lower
levels of absenteeism (Avey, Patera, & West, 2006). The
availability of these personal resources during newcomer
socialization may thus play an important role in buffering
potentially negative outcomes, such as the “reality shock”
of unmet expectations (Major, Kozlowski, Chao, & Gard-
ner, 1995). Within our model, which focuses on work
engagement, it is therefore proposed that:
Hypothesis 2: Psychological capital will be positively associated
with work engagement.
Connecting Buddying, Psychological Capital,
and Work Engagement
Saks and Gruman (2011) propose a series of mechanisms
through which social support as a socialization resource
enhances components of psychological capital as a per-
sonal resource. The vicarious modeling (of the buddy by
the new starter) generating self-efficacy while developing
realistic attributions of the workplace through interaction
DOI: 10.1002/tie
 The Impact of Buddying on Psychological Capital and Work Engagement: An Empirical Study of Socialization in the Professional Services Sector 897
with the buddy serves to develop optimism. Furthermore,
the encouragement of achievement and provision of
emotional support by the buddy engender hope and
resilience, respectively. In this way buddying is thought to
initiate a motivational process that leads to higher work
engagement during newcomer adjustment. As reported
earlier, research on mentoring reveals that the quality
rather than the presence of the relationship is important
to achieving positive outcomes. Therefore, we propose
that satisfaction with buddying is expected to be positively
related to psychological capital:
Hypothesis 3: Satisfaction with buddying will be positively asso-
ciated with psychological capital.
The preceding discussion describes the basis for
expecting direct relationships between buddying, psy-
chological capital, and work engagement, arising from
Saks and Gruman’s 2011 suggestion. However, the ques-
tion still remains as to whether the uncertainty reduc-
tion hypothesis or the socialization resources hypothesis
provides the better explanation of these relationships.
Buddying does potentially enable information seeking,
as noted earlier, retaining an uncertainty reduction func-
tion (Falcione & Wilson, 1988; Lester, 1987). Saks and
Gruman’s SRT model, however, suggests that psycho-
logical capital would partially mediate the relationships
between socialization resources and socialization out-
comes. In their model, socialization resources are broadly
drawn to encompass orientation training and task charac-
teristics as well as social support and leadership. Likewise,
socialization outcomes are more widely drawn than is the
case here, including job satisfaction, organizational com-
mitment, turnover, and performance. Here, we limit our
focus to buddying as a primary (but not exclusive) sup-
portive socialization resource enabling work engagement
through the development of psychological capital. In
line with SRT, we propose that psychological capital will
partially mediate the socialization resource–socialization
outcome relationship:
Hypothesis 4: Psychological capital will partially mediate the
relationship between satisfaction with buddying and work
engagement.
Research Model
Since a resourceful environment is associated with higher
levels of positive affective states (Schaufeli & Bakker,
2004), it is thought that satisfaction with the job resource
of buddying will be associated with increased positive out-
comes for the individual and organization. According to
SRT (Saks & Gruman, 2011), a resourceful environment
DOI: 10.1002/tie
FIGURE2 Mediation Model Linking Satisfaction With
Buddying to Psychological Capital and Work Engagement
Satisfaction with buddying
+ (H1)
Work engagement
+ (H3) + (H2)
Psychological capital
H4 Mediation effect
(operationalized through satisfaction with buddying) will
activate personal resources of efficacy, hope, optimism,
and resilience (psychological capital), which lead to
heightened work engagement. Nonmediation of the satis-
faction with the buddying/work engagement relationship
by psychological capital would offer support for URT
rather than the SRT approach proposed here. The model
is illustrated in Figure 2.
Method
Company Background
The research was conducted within the UK division of
an international professional services organization where
buddying has been policy virtually from the company’s
inception in 2002. The company delivers employment
programs to people who are long-term unemployed,
those with health conditions, and single parents, aiming
to support individuals into suitable, lasting employment.
Newcomers to the company are introduced to a buddy
on their first day of work and advised that this person
is assigned to them for any informal support they might
need as a newcomer to the organization.
Sample
The sample consisted of 188 graduate employees who
had started work within the preceding 12 months, and
each of which had been allocated a buddy on joining
the company. Participants were based within one of sev-
eral office locations throughout the United Kingdom.
They were approached by e-mail to complete the online
questionnaire.
A total of 78 surveys were returned, yielding a
response rate of 41%. Complete data were retrieved due
to a function on the electronic survey alerting respon-
dents to any missing data before submission. The sample
consisted of 45 females (58 percent) and 33 males (42
percent), who were all employed at the same nonmana-
gerial level by the company. The majority of respon-
dents (74 percent) were aged in their 20s. The average
Thunderbird International Business Review Vol. 54, No. 6 November/December 2012
898 FEATURE ARTICLE
The sample is broadly
representative of the poten-
tial population eligible for
the study in terms of gender
balance, age, and tenure.
organizational tenure of the sample was 7 months (SD =
3.8 months). The sample is broadly representative of the
potential population eligible for the study in terms of
gender balance, age, and tenure.
Measures
Satisfaction With Buddy
Newcomer satisfaction with a buddying relationship was
measured by a four-item scale labeled “Satisfaction with
buddy.” This was an adapted version of the “Satisfaction
With Mentor” scale by Ragins and Cotton (1999), with
the word mentor replaced by buddy. A sample item reads
“My buddy is someone I am satisfied with,” measured on
a seven-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, to 7 =
strongly agree), higher values representing greater sat-
isfaction with the buddying partnership. An established
definition of buddying was used to introduce the survey
to ensure participants held a common understanding of
the term: “A buddy is defined as a formal contact assigned to
you at the point of starting work with the company, who is avail-
able for any support you may need as a newcomer to the organiza-
tion.” The coefficient alpha for the scale was .89.
Work Engagement
Work engagement was measured using the shortened
9-item version of the 17-Item Utrecht Work Engagement
Scale (Schaufeli, Salanova, Gonzalez-Romá, & Bakker,
2002). It has been shown to have high levels of cross cultural
validity (Schaufeli, Martínez, Marques Pinto, Salanova, &
Bakker, 2002; Storm & Rothmann, 2003), and shares more
than 80 percent of its variance with the original longer ver-
sion (Schaufeli et al., 2006). The scale assesses the three
dimensions of work engagement, namely vigor (three items:
e.g., “At my work, I feel bursting with energy”), dedication
(three items: e.g., “I find the work that I do full of meaning
Thunderbird International Business Review Vol. 54, No. 6 November/December 2012
and purpose”), and absorption (three items: e.g., “Time
flies when I am working”). Participants were advised that
the statements were about how they feel at work, and were
instructed to indicate if they ever feel that way about their
job. Items were measured on a six-point frequency scale (0
= Never, to 6 = always/every day). Only the results for the
composite scale are reported here, the scale achieving a
high level of internal consistency (a = .93).
Psychological Capital
Psychological capital is also a composite measure derived
from the Psychological Capital Questionnaire (PCQ)
developed by Luthans, Avolio, Avey, and Norman (2007).
It assesses self-efficacy (six items: e.g., “I feel confident
helping to set targets/goals in my work area”), hope (six
items: e.g., “There are lots of ways around any problem”),
optimism (six items: e.g., “I approach this job as if every
cloud has a silver lining”), and resilience (six items: e.g.,
“I feel I can handle many things at a time at this job”).
Again response choices are given on a six-point Likert-
type scale (1 = strongly disagree to 6 = strongly agree).
To facilitate statelike framing, respondents were asked to
describe how they think about themselves right now. While
each of the subscales demonstrate adequate reliability
(alpha self-efficacy .93; hope .91; optimism .77; and resil-
ience .84), the overall composite score is reported here,
for which the calculated alpha coefficient was .95.
Control Variables
Two control variables were considered: organizational ten-
ure in months (synonymous with the duration of buddying
relationship) and gender. The nature of the sample meant
that occupation and rank were consistent. T-tests indicated
that gender was unrelated to all variables in the model, sup-
porting previous research (e.g., Schaufeli et al., 2006), and
so was excluded from the analysis. Tenure was retained.
Procedure
The scales and measures described above were combined
into the “Experience of Work Survey.” An invitation
e-mail was sent to an HR representative at the organiza-
tion, who then forwarded it to employees who met the
inclusion criteria. In order to ensure that respondents
had a clear understanding of the buddying scheme, a
summary was provided as to how they had been assigned a
buddy when they started work. Survey data were collected
anonymously and automatically via a spreadsheet, which
was later imported into SPSS for analysis.
In addition, interviews were carried out with an HR
representative and four employees in receipt of buddying
in order to provide a qualitative context for the study.
DOI: 10.1002/tie
 The Impact of Buddying on Psychological Capital and Work Engagement: An Empirical Study of Socialization in the Professional Services Sector 899
Results
The buddying system within the organization is seen
as “normal practice” to assist the orientation of new
employees. The formal procedure for matching a
buddy with a newcomer is undertaken by the local man-
ager with the stipulation that the buddy should have at
least 12 months’ experience within their job role. Little
formal advice on how the buddying relationship should
be managed is given to managers or the job incumbent
who acts as the buddy. Company policy identifies the
role of the buddy as being one of providing support to
enable the new starter to become familiar and comfort-
able in their role. In practice, this was reported to range
from providing job-related information (in line with the
URT interpretation of socialization) through to sugges-
tions on where to go for lunch and acting as a sounding
board for the new starter to discuss their thoughts and
feelings with a trusted organizational insider, represent-
ing more of a job resource. Indeed, the interviews with
employees suggested that newcomers found talking to
their buddy more comfortable than approaching their
manager or unknown colleagues about thoughts and
feelings.
Descriptive statistics for the key variables are included
in Table 1. Tenure was positively correlated with both
work engagement (r = .268, N = 78, p < .05) and psycho-
logical capital (r = .281, N = 78, p < .05), which suggests
that these cognitive–affective states may build over time
within the organizational environment.
The results here demonstrate significant associations
between satisfaction with buddy and both psychological
capital and work engagement, and between psychologi-
cal capital and work engagement. The particularly strong
relationship between psychological capital and work
TABLE 1 Descriptive Statistics and Correlations
Mean SD 1 2 3 4
1. Tenure 7.05 3.8
2. Satisfaction 5.48 1.43 0.086 (0.89)
with buddy
3. Work 3.93 1.19 0.268* 0.298** (0.93)
engagement
4. Psychological 4.41 0.83 0.281* 0.241* 0.612**
capital
Means, standard deviations, internal consistencies (Cronbach’s alphas on
diagonal) and correlations among the variables (N = 78).
*p < .05.
**p < .01 (two tailed).
DOI: 10.1002/tie
The results here demon-
strate significant associa-
tions between satisfaction
with buddy and both psy-
chological capital and work
engagement, and between
psychological capital and
work engagement.
engagement raises some concern regarding whether
these represent two distinct constructs. Therefore, con-
firmatory factor analyses were carried out to establish
whether the three-factor measurement model in fact is
substantiated.
Results showed that the hypothesized three-factor
measurement model with satisfaction with buddy, psy-
chological capital, and work engagement as three sepa-
rate but correlated factors fit the data well (x 2 = 126.99,
df  =  62, p  < .001; x 2 / df = 2.05; CFI = .96; IFI = .94;
TLI  =  .96; RMSEA  = .06). Relative to this hypothesized
model, the fit of the alternative model where we set the
covariance between work engagement and psychological
capital factors to be equal to 1.0 was significantly worse
(x 2 =  635.21, df = 90, p  < .001; x 2 / df = 7.06; CFI = .64;
IFI = .62; TLI = .60; RMSEA = .19), as was that for a sec-
ond alternative model, in which we set the covariance
between the satisfaction with buddy and psychological
capital (x 2 = 1,004.58, df = 66, p < .001; x 2 /df = 15.22;
CFI = .20; IFI = .19; TLI = .03; RMSEA = .30). Finally, the fit
of the three-factor hypothesized model was also superior
to a model in which we set the covariance between work
engagement and satisfaction with buddy to be equal to
(0.95) 1.0 (x 2 = 1009.61, df = 66, p < .001; x 2 / df = 15.30; CFI = .34;
IFI = .34; TLI = .09; RMSEA = .31). These results thus pro-
vide support for the discriminant validity of the self-rated
employee constructs. Given this, hypotheses 1, 2, and 3
are supported. Moderate relationships between tenure
and both work engagement and psychological capital
Thunderbird International Business Review Vol. 54, No. 6 November/December 2012
900 FEATURE ARTICLE

suggested its retention as a control variable in subsequent between satisfaction with buddy and work engagement
mediation analysis. (b  = .55, p < .001). Hypothesis 4 had suggested only
partial mediation; however, this fully mediated effect
Mediation Analysis provides potentially stronger support for the role of psy-
Mediation analysis was performed to address Hypoth- chological capital in the socialization process.
esis  4, based on Baron and Kenny’s (1986) four-step
approach. The three initial criteria regarding relation- Discussion
ships between predictor (satisfaction with buddying),
outcome (work engagement), and mediator (psychologi- The current investigation sought to address the ques-
cal capital) variables were met (see above). The media- tion of whether buddying, used as part of induction
tion model presented in Figure 2 was therefore tested for newcomers within organizations (CIPD, 2009), is
while controlling for tenure. Regression analysis revealed associated with positive work-related outcomes for the
a direct positive relationship between satisfaction with individual. It was proposed that satisfaction with bud-
buddy and work engagement (b = .28, p = .012) and dying would positively relate to work engagement. This
between satisfaction with buddy and psychological capi- relationship was hypothesized to be partially mediated
tal (b = .22, p = .047). As psychological capital was also by a third variable, psychological capital, which repre-
positively associated with work engagement (b = .58, p < sents personal resources of efficacy, hope, optimism,
.001), the relationships between the variables were con- and resilience. The data collected and the mediation
sistent with the model and appropriate for the proposed analysis carried out reveal full mediation, which merits
mediation analysis. further discussion.
Table 2 shows the stages of the regression model pro- In line with previous research, employees in the cur-
posed here. The overall model is significant (F = 16.96, rent study who reported more satisfaction with the job
p < .001). The control variable of tenure is significantly resource of buddying reported greater levels of work
associated with work engagement (step 1); however, its engagement and psychological capital. This supports
contribution decreases with the addition of the predic- the theoretical proposition that job resources have moti-
tor variables, suggesting that explanation cannot be vational potential for employees, within this context at
restricted to the effect of tenure alone. While satisfac- least, and demonstrates the resourceful nature of bud-
tion with buddy significantly increases the proportion dying during newcomer induction. Job resources are
of variance accounted for in work engagement (step 2), thought to be predictors of work engagement (Schaufeli
when psychological capital is entered in step 3 the direct & Bakker, 2004), and the current report offers support
association between satisfaction with buddy and work for their importance during organizational socialization
engagement becomes nonsignificant (b = .16, p > .05). (Feldman, 1976). Furthermore, evidence of a positive
Psychological capital thus fully mediates the relationship gain spiral, as observed by Avey et al. (2008), was found
since psychological capital was positively associated with
work engagement.
TABLE 2 Standardized Regression Coefficients In terms of socialization theory, the research pre-
for Predictor Variables for Work Engagement sented here offers support for Saks and Gruman’s (2011)
conceptualization of socialization as providing a job
Variables B SE B p Adj R2 Adj R2 Δ resource that creates psychological capital, leading to
Step 1 .060 positive outcomes for employees in terms of work engage-
Tenure 0.27 0.11 .018
ment (SRT). While Saks and Gruman proposed partial
mediation of socialization resources on positive individ-
Step 2 .125 .065
ual and organizational outcomes by psychological capital,
Tenure 0.24 0.11 .025 the data here demonstrate full mediation. We suggest this
Satisfaction with buddy 0.28 0.11 .012 is due to the social rather than informational nature of
Step 3 .383 .258 buddying in developing employees’ personal resources.
Tenure 0.10 0.09 n/s Causality cannot, of course, be determined from a regres-
Satisfaction with buddy 0.16 0.09 n/s sion but the relationships support Saks and Gruman’s
Psychological capital 0.55 0.10 < .001 proposed mechanism within SRT. These results sug-
gest that for the socialization tactic of buddying, SRT is
All criteria and predictors are standardized. a better explanation of the process at work than URT

Thunderbird International Business Review Vol. 54, No. 6 November/December 2012 DOI: 10.1002/tie
 The Impact of Buddying on Psychological Capital and Work Engagement: An Empirical Study of Socialization in the Professional Services Sector 901
(Falcione & Wilson, 1988; Miller & Jablin, 1991), which
focuses only on the collection of workplace information
by the new starter in order to reduce uncertainty over
how to perform successfully in the organization and job.
The findings thus offer support for a POB approach,
interpreting buddying as a socialization resource, rather
than a cognitive-learning approach.
Conclusions
The process of organizational entry is a critical time
for attitude formation (Mestre, Stainer, & Stainer, 1997;
Schermerhorn, 1993) and can impact on long-term atti-
tudes and potentially behavioral intentions (Vandenberg
& Self, 1993). This mediation effect indicates how psy-
chological capital can be activated by resourceful work
environments, leading to work engagement. In the present
study, employees who experienced effective and satisfying
buddying relationships also reported higher levels of per-
sonal resources in relation to their work, an observation
also found by Xanthopoulou et al. (2007) when examin-
ing job resources related to feedback and development.
This has implications for organizations since engagement
with work can directly impact on revenue figures, objec-
tive managerial evaluations, and customer satisfaction
(Harter et at., 2002). Furthermore, employees who are
more engaged at work may also report greater subjective
well-being (Schaufeli, Salanova, Gonzalez-Romá, & Bakker,
2002, 2009). Therefore, since the job resource of buddying
can impact on engagement at work, it has the potential to
make significant contributions to individual and organi-
zational success. Data collected in the course of this study
demonstrated a significant negative relationship between
work engagement and turnover intention, which provides
some support for this proposition.
Although buddying practices are popular (CIPD,
2009; Williams, 2006), the lack of rigorous investigation
has led to ambiguity concerning the possible outcomes
for organizations and the individuals within them. This
paper has provided empirical evidence to support the
use of buddying as part of newcomer induction since sig-
nificant associations with heightened positive cognitive–
affective states of work engagement and psychological
capital were found within this context. There is also the
potential that these positive states generate benefit to the
organization. Within a culture of careerism (Feldman &
Weitz, 1991), positive attitudes and states can be vital for
retaining talent. The more satisfied employees are with
buddying as a job resource, the more likely they are to
have a fulfilling and positive work related state of mind.
Furthermore, this paper has observed mediation effects
DOI: 10.1002/tie
The current report has pro-
vided empirical evidence
to support the use of bud-
dying as part of newcomer
induction since significant
associations with heightened
positive cognitive–affective
states of work engagement
and psychological capital
were found within this
context.
of personal (psychological) resources on work engage-
ment, first demonstrated by Xanthopoulou et al. (2007)
in relation to job resources such as coaching and profes-
sional development opportunities. To this list we can now
tentatively add buddying. Further research is needed,
however, to establish a direct link to organizational per-
formance although Harter et al. (2002) have indicated a
link to financial performance.
The process of newcomer socialization can help to
build a strong employment relationship that transcends
the temptations to switch employers, as offered by
careerist cultures (Feldman & Weitz, 1991). The process
of buddying provides a mechanism for achieving these
outcomes. Employees who have more personal resources
in the form of psychological capital may also be in a stron-
ger position when confronted with the dynamic, global
environmental contexts of modern workplaces (Luthans,
Youssef, & Avolio, 2007), and so may offer organizations a
source of strength during times of recession.
Although the current model supported SRT rather
than URT, this does not mean that uncertainty reduction
has no role in organizational socialization but rather that
this may be best provided by routes other than buddying,
Thunderbird International Business Review Vol. 54, No. 6 November/December 2012
902 FEATURE ARTICLE
for example, the more formal and institutionalized
socialization tactics identified by Van Maanen and Schein
(1979) and Jones (1986). It is, of course, also possible
that the creation of psychological capital also aids in
the reduction of uncertainty, but that this is not directly
related to buddying. Care does also need to be taken
to ensure that organizational socialization is not simply
used to exert normative control (Ray, 1986) or to alter
the effort bargain in the workplace by encouraging com-
pulsory citizenship behaviors (Coyle-Shapiro et al., 2004;
Vigoda-Gadot, 2006). Nevertheless, the usefulness of bud-
dying in increasing individuals’ personal resources within
a particular organizational context remains.
Managerial Implications
From a strategic human resource perspective, the results
raise a number of important issues regarding the way in
which organizations can encourage supportive buddying
relationships. Investment that strengthens the potential of
buddying so that positive outcomes are amplified or sub-
ject to positive cumulative gain spirals (Hakanen, Perho-
niemi, & Toppinen-Tanner, 2008) is recommended, and
following Kompier (2003) in order to be comprehensive,
this should be a multilevel strategy. On an individual level,
this could include providing training for buddies on inter-
personal skills or emotional intelligence (Goleman, 1998),
improving manager awareness of potentially positive out-
comes, and implementing feedback/evaluation processes
that help improve the internal validity of this resource.
At an organizational level, human resource management
strategy would need to encourage an organizational cul-
ture that supports peer mentoring through buddying.
For example, an emphasis on team performance (where
teams are made up of several buddying dyads) may foster
collaboration between peers (Allen et al., 1999).
Since the effectiveness of mentoring relationships lie
along a continuum (Levinson, Darrow, Klein, Levinson, &
McKee, 1978; Ragins et al., 2000), it is recommended that
organizations invest in developing the potential of buddy-
ing relationships. This could involve offering guidance to
employees acting as a buddy, so that they can anticipate
the support needs of newcomers. This may help activate
the personal resources that form psychological capital,
thus strengthening the likelihood that effective buddying
will increase work engagement and reduce turnover.
In the international HR literature, shadowing and
buddying with returning expatriates is commonly held
up as good practice for new international assignees. The
parallels are apparent, and the potential implications for
expatriate success significant.
Thunderbird International Business Review Vol. 54, No. 6 November/December 2012
Limitations and Future Research
Clearly, the nature of the study (cross-sectional, question-
naire) raises criticisms regarding the direction of causal-
ity; does satisfaction with buddying increase psychological
capital or are individuals with higher psychological capi-
tal likely to be most sympathetic towards and appreciative
of a workplace buddy? Might those more engaged at
work also be more likely to report higher levels of psycho-
logical capital? Although tentative causal links are made
based on the theoretical grounding of SRT, it is possible
that the relationships operate in the opposite direction
or are indeed reciprocal. Further longitudinal research
is needed to investigate these challenges to the valid-
ity of the model. Additionally, further qualitative work
investigating newcomer experiences of buddying could
also help to uncover whether the identified relationships
operate as causal mechanisms in the manner hypoth-
esized. The contextual discussions which accompanied
this study, however, suggested that newcomers were more
comfortable approaching their buddy with thoughts
and feelings rather than their manager or unknown col-
leagues suggesting a buddying—psychological capital
directionality rather than vice versa.
The use of a cross-sectional survey raises concerns
about common method variance, and socially desirable
responding. The promise of anonymity and the high
reliability of each scale reduced concern over these arti-
facts (Spector, 1987). While independent ratings of work
engagement might be suggested, the nature of this con-
struct makes such measurement problematic. Indepen-
dent assessment of the quality of the buddy relationship
might be a more promising route, as would longitudinal
studies of the development of the buddying relationship
and psychological capital. The tentative proposal for-
warded in the conclusion that psychological capital may
also aid individuals in being able to reduce uncertainty
could also be examined in future research.
The absence of an identifiable control group poses
problems for the validity of the study. Is it the buddying
relationship that affects engagement and psychological
capital, or merely the continued experience of life in
the organization, which could itself increase individual
psychological resources? In this particular context, no
appropriate comparison group was available as all new
entrants are assigned a buddy. Future work may wish to
explore whether tenure is a reasonable proxy for satisfac-
tion with the buddy relationship in activating psychologi-
cal capital and building work engagement. Nevertheless,
any significant effects of tenure on work engagement
were removed in this study when adding satisfaction with
DOI: 10.1002/tie
 The Impact of Buddying on Psychological Capital and Work Engagement: An Empirical Study of Socialization in the Professional Services Sector 903

samples would enhance understanding of the nature

Future work may wish to
explore whether tenure is a
reasonable proxy for sat-
isfaction with the buddy
relationship in activating
psychological capital and
building work engagement.
buddying. Additional qualitative investigation may also
serve to further uncover the antecedents of work engage-
ment and psychological capital.
Future research could also incorporate more of the
perspective of the buddy. The ways in which buddies were
utilized and the dynamics of the buddying relationships
were not explored, and a holistic explanation of the bud-
dying relationship would require such follow-up.
The sample size for this study, while substantial,
remains relatively small and consisted of employees
within the United Kingdom. Larger and more diverse
and effectiveness of this practice. There is also the issue
of context, and while buddying has been found to have
positive relationships in this professional services environ-
ment for new graduate recruits, further research in other
contexts is needed to establish whether and how these
relationships play out in different environments. It is also
conceivable that the particular context may also be more
conducive to work engagement because of the nature
of professional service work. Furthermore, the context
may also be more suitable for buddying as a socializa-
tion resource. Custodial role orientations, associated
with more structured and institutionalized socialization
tactics (Van Maanen & Schein, 1979), may not have been
encouraged in this organization, for example. Further in-
depth research to clarify the exact nature of the realized
relationships is thus required, as argued earlier.
The role of psychological capital in reducing uncer-
tainty, as a further step, could also be examined in future
research. There is also much potential to examine the
“crossover effects” or emotional contagion (Westman,
2001) of cognitive–affective states within buddy dyads,
and future research should examine whether positive gain
spirals (Hakanen et al., 2008) of work engagement and
psychological capital occur during newcomer socializa-
tion. Finally, while this study provides some initial support
for the SRT model, testing a wider range of socialization
resources (e.g., formal orientation training) and socializa-
tion outcomes (e.g., job satisfaction and performance)
would serve to clarify the relative power of the SRT and
URT explanations of organizational socialization.

Neelam Nigah has achieved a diverse career portfolio as a scientist practitioner. Neelam has practiced as a coach,
trainer, and applied researcher, with her most recent assignments focusing on human–computer interaction in
health care. She has undertaken academic research projects with Aston Business School and Imperial College,
London.

Ann J. Davis is currently head of the Work & Organisational Psychology Group at Aston University. Ann has exten-
sive experience in consulting, teaching, and researching individual and organizational effectiveness and individual
well-being. A chartered psychologist as well as chartered member of CIPD in the United Kingdom, her research
interests focus on the construction and enactment of the employment relationship, primarily from the employee
perspective. Her work sits at the crossover between occupational psychology and human resource management.
She is currently exploring the process through which individuals come to identify with their employing organization,
and the relationships between organizational commitment, identification, and work engagement.

DOI: 10.1002/tie Thunderbird International Business Review Vol. 54, No. 6 November/December 2012
904 FEATURE ARTICLE
Scott A. Hurrell is a lecturer in work and employment studies in the Institute for Socio-Management, University of
Stirling, and Stirling Management School’s convenor for undergraduate studies. Scott’s research interests include
skills and work organization; recruitment, selection and socialization; labor market issues; and fairness at work.
Scott is currently developing research looking at employees’ experiences of and attitudes toward employers’ use of
social networking sites within recruitment and the employment relationship.
References
Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service (ACAS). (2010). Recruit-
ment and induction. London, England: ACAS.
Allen, T. D., McManus, S. E., & Russell, J. E. A. (1999). Newcomer
socialization and stress: formal peer relationships as a source of support.
Journal of Vocational Behavior, 54, 453–470.
Aspinwall, L. G., & Staudinger, U. M. (Eds.). (2003). A psychology of
human strengths: Fundamental questions and future directions for a posi-
tive psychology. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Ashforth, B. E., & Mael, F. (1989). Social identity theory and the organi-
zation. Academy of Management Review, 14, 20–39.
Ashforth, B. E., Sluss, D. M., & Harrison, S. H. (2007). Socialization in
organizational contexts. International review of industrial and organiza-
tional psychology (pp. 1–70). Chichester, England: Wiley.
Avey, J. B., Patera, J. L., & West, B. J. (2006). Positive psychological capi-
tal: A new approach for understanding absenteeism. Journal of Leader-
ship and Organizational Studies, 13, 42–60.
Avey, J. B., Wernsing, T. S., & Luthans, F. (2008). Can positive employ-
ees help positive organizational change? Impact of psychological capital
and emotions on relevant attitudes and behaviors. Journal of Applied
Behavioral Science, 44, 48–70.
Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2007). The job demands–resources
model: State of the art. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22, 309–328.
Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2008). Towards a model of work
engagement. Career Development International, 13, 209–223.
Bakker, A. B., Van Emmerik, H., & Euwema, M. C. (2006). Crossover
of burnout and engagement in work teams. Work and Occupations,
33, 464–489.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable
distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and
statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
51, 1173–1182.
Bauer, T. N., Bodner, T., Erdogan, B., Truxillo, D. M., & Tucker, J. S.
(2007). Newcomer adjustment during organizational socialization: A
meta-analytical review of antecedents, outcomes and methods. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 92, 707–721.
Bauer, T. N., & Elder, E. (2006). Onboarding newcomers into organiza-
tions. Presentation at the Society for Human Resource Management
Annual Meeting, Washington, DC.
Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2010). Employee tenure in 2010. US Depart-
ment of Labor USDL-10-1278.
Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD). (2009).
Induction. Retrieved June 16, 2009, from http://www.cipd.co.uk/
subjects/recruitment/induction/induction.htm
Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD). (2011).
Resourcing and talent planning annual survey report 2011. London,
England: Author.
Cooper-Thomas, H., & Anderson, N. (2002). Newcomer adjust-
ment: The relationship between organizational socialization tactics,
information acquisition and attitudes. Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology, 75, 423–437.
Coyle-Shapiro, J. A-M., Kessler, I., & Purcell, J. (2004). Exploring orga-
nizationally directed citizenship behavior: Reciprocity or “it’s my job”?
Journal of Management Studies, 41, 85–106.
Thunderbird International Business Review Vol. 54, No. 6 November/December 2012
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1991). Flow: The psychology of optimal experi-
ence. New York, NY: Harper Perennial.
Demerouti, E., Bakker, A. B., Nachreiner, F., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2001).
The job demands–resources model of burnout. Journal of Applied Psy-
chology, 86, 499–512.
Dreher, G. F., & Ash, R. A. (1990). A comparative study of mentoring
among men and women in managerial, professional, and technical posi-
tions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 539–546.
Evans, J. (2006, November). Buddy politic. People Management Mag-
azine. Retrieved March 2, 2009, from http://www.cipd.co.uk/NR/
rdonlyres/8C081158-31D8-4E14-A1FB-98C2C274A88F/0/pma06defra.pdf
Falcione, R. L., & Wilson, C. E. (1988). Socialization processes in orga-
nizations. In G. M. Goldhaber & G. A. Barnett (Eds.), Handbook of
organizational communication. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Feldman, D. C. (1976). A contingency theory of socialization. Adminis-
trative Science Quarterly, 21, 433–452.
Feldman, D. C., & Weitz, B. A. (1991). From the invisible hand to the
gladhand: Understanding a careerist orientation. Human Resource
Management, 30, 237–258.
Fisher, C. D. (1986). Organizational socialization: An integrative review.
In K. M. Rowland & G. R. Ferris (Eds.), Research in personnel and
human resources management. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Goleman, D. (1998). Working with emotional intelligence. New York,
NY: Bantam Books.
Grieve, P. G., & Hogg, M. A. (1999). Subjective uncertainty and inter-
group discrimination in the minimal group situation. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 926–940.
Haslam, S. A., Jetten, J., Postmes, T., & Haslam, C. (2009). Social iden-
tity, health and well-being: An emerging agenda for applied psychology.
Applied Psychology—An International Review, 58, 1–23.
Hakanen, J. J., Perhoniemi, R., & Toppinen-Tanner, S. (2008). Positive gain
spirals at work: From job resources to work engagement, personal initiative
and work unit innovativeness. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 73, 78–91.
Harter, J. K., Schmidt, F. L., & Hayes, T. L. (2002). Business-unit-level
relationships between employee satisfaction, employee engagement,
and business outcomes: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology,
87, 268–279.
Jones, G. R. (1986). Socialization tactics, self-efficacy, and newcomers’
adjustments to organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 29,
262–279.
Koberg, C. S., Boss, R.W., Chappell, D., & Ringer, R. C. (1994). Corre-
lates and consequences of protégé mentoring in a large hospital. Group
and Organization Management, 19, 219–239.
Kompier, M. (2003). Job design and well-being. In M. J. Schabracq, J. A.
M. Winnubst, & Cooper, C. L. (Eds.), The handbook of work and health
psychology (pp. 429–454). Chichester, England: Wiley.
Kram, K. E. (1985). Mentoring at work: Developmental relationships in
organizational life. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman.
Lankau, M., & Scandura, T. A. (2002). An investigation of personal
learning in mentoring relationships: Content, antecedents, and conse-
quences. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 779–790.
Lester, R. E. (1987). Organizational culture, uncertainty reduction, and
the socialization of new organizational members. In S. Thomas (Ed.),
Culture and communication: Methodology, behavior, artefacts, and
institutions (pp. 105–113). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
DOI: 10.1002/tie
 The Impact of Buddying on Psychological Capital and Work Engagement: An Empirical Study of Socialization in the Professional Services Sector 905
Levinson, D. J., Darrow, G. N., Klein, E. B., Levinson, M. H., & McKee, B.
(1978). The seasons of a man’s life. New York, NY: Knopf.
Louis, M. R. (1980). Surprise and sense making: What newcomers expe-
rience in entering unfamiliar organizational settings. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 25, 226–251.
Luthans, F. (2002). The need for and meaning of positive organiza-
tional behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23, 695–706.
Luthans, F., Avolio, B. J., Avey, J. B., & Norman, S. M. (2007). Psycho-
logical capital: Measurement and relationship with performance and
job satisfaction. Personnel Psychology, 60, 541–572.
Luthans, F., Avolio, B. J., Walumbwa, F. O., & Li, W. (2005). The psy-
chological capital of Chinese workers: Exploring the relationship with
performance. Management and Organization Review, 1, 247–269.
Luthans, F., Norman, S. M., Avolio, B. J., & Avey, J. B. (2007). The
mediating role of psychological capital in the supportive organizational
climate–employee performance relationship. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 29, 219–238.
Luthans, F., & Youssef, C. M. (2004). Human, social, and now positive
psychological capital management: Investing in people for competitive
advantage. Organizational Dynamics, 33, 143–160.
Luthans, F., Youssef, C. M., & Avolio, B. J. (2007). Psychological capital,
developing the human competitive edge. Oxford, England: Oxford
University Press.
Major, D. A., Kozlowski, S. W., Chao, G. T., & Gardner, P. D. (1995).
A longitudinal investigation of newcomer expectations, early socializa-
tion outcomes, and the moderating effects of role development factors.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 418–431.
Mestre, M., Stainer, A., & Stainer, L. (1997). Employee orientation—the
Japanese approach. Employee Relations, 19, 443–456.
Miller, V. D., & Jablin, F. M. (1991). Information seeking during organi-
zational entry: Influences, tactics, and a model of the process. Academy
of Management Review, 16, 92–120.
Murray, M. (1991). Beyond the myths and magic of mentoring: How
to facilitate an effective mentoring program. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-
Bass.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).
(2011). Employment by job tenure intervals–persons. Retrieved Novem-
ber 7, 2011, from Stats.oecd.org.
Pullins, E. B., Fine, L. M., & Warren, W. L. (1996). Identifying peer men-
tors in the sales force: An exploratory investigation of willingness and
ability. Journal of Academy of Marketing Science, 24, 125–136.
Ragins, B. R., & Cotton, J. (1999). Mentor functions and outcomes: A
comparison of men and women in formal and informal mentoring rela-
tionships. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 529–550.
Ragins, B. R., Cotton, J. L., & Miller, J. S. (2000). Marginal mentoring:
The effects of type of mentor, quality of relationships and program
design on work and career attitudes. Academy of Management Journal,
43, 1177–1194.
Ray, C. A. (1986). Corporate culture: The last frontier of control? Jour-
nal of Management Studies, 23, 287–297.
Rollag, K., Parise, S., & Cross, R. (2005). Getting new hires up to speed
quickly. MIT Sloan Management Review, 46, 35–41.
Russell, J. E. A., & Adams, D. M. (1997). The changing nature of men-
toring in organizations: An introduction to the special issue on mentor-
ing in organizations. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 51, 1–14.
Saks, A. M., & Gruman, J. A. (2011). Organizational socialization and
positive organizational behaviour: Implications for theory, research,
and practice. Canadian Journal of Administrative Science, 28, 14–26.
Salanova, M., Agut, S., & Peiró, J. M. (2005). Linking organiza-
tional resources and work engagement to employee performance and
DOI: 10.1002/tie
customer loyalty: The mediation of service climate. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 90, 1217–1227.
Schaufeli, W. B., & Bakker, A. B. (2004). Job demands, job resources
and their relationship with burnout and engagement: A multi-sample
study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 293–315.
Schaufeli, W. B., Bakker, A. B., & Salanova, M. (2006). The measure-
ment of work engagement with a short questionnaire: A cross-national
study. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 66, 701–716.
Schaufeli, W. B., Bakker, A. B., & Van Rhenen, W. (2009). How
changes in job demands and resources predict burnout, work engage-
ment, and sickness absenteeism. Journal of Organizational Behavior,
30, 893–917.
Schaufeli, W. B., Martínez, I., Marques Pinto, A., Salanova, M., & Bak-
ker, A. B. (2002). Burnout and engagement in university students: A
cross national study. Journal of Cross- Cultural Psychology, 33, 464–481.
Schaufeli, W. B., Salanova, M., Gonzalez-Romá. V., & Bakker, A. B.
(2002). The measurement of engagement and burnout: A two sample
confirmatory factor analytic approach. Journal of Happiness Studies,
3, 71–92.
Schermerhorn, J. R. (1993). Management for productivity. New York,
NY: Wiley.
Seligman, M., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Positive psychology: An
introduction. American Psychologist, 55, 5–14.
Spector, P. E. (1987). Method variance as an artefact in self-reported
affect and perceptions at work: Myth or significant problem? Journal of
Applied Psychology, 72, 438–443.
Storm, K., & Rothmann, I. (2003). A psychometric analysis of the
Utrecht Work Engagement Scale in the South African police service.
South African Journal of Industrial Psychology, 29, 62–70.
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup
conflict. In W. G. Austin & S. Worschel (Eds.), The social psychology
of intergroup relations (pp. 33–47). Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Van Dick, R., Wagner, U., Stellmacher, J., & Christ, O. (2004). The
utility of a broader conceptualization of organizational identification:
Which aspects really matter? Journal of Occupational and Organiza-
tional Psychology, 77, 171–191.
Van Maanen, J., & Schein, E. H. (1979). Toward a theory of organi-
zational socialization. In B. M. Staw (Ed.), Research in organizational
behavior (pp. 209–264). Greenwich, CT: JAI.
Vandenberg, R. J., & Self, R. M. (1993). Assessing newcomers’ chang-
ing commitment to the organization during the first 6 months of work.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 557–568.
Viator, R. E., & Scandura, T. A. (1991). A study of mentor protégé
relationships in large public accounting firms. Accounting Horizons,
5, 20–30.
Vigoda-Gadot, E. (2007). Redrawing the boundaries of OCB? An empir-
ical examination of compulsory extra-role behavior in the workplace.
Journal of Business and Psychology, 21, 377–405.
Westman, M. (2001). Stress and strain crossover. Human Relations, 54,
557–591.
Williams, N. (2006, June 6). Spotlight on … buddy schemes. Personnel
Today. Retrieved January 18, 2009, from http://www.personneltoday.
com/articles/2006/06/06/35767/spotlight-on.-buddy-schemes.html
Xanthopoulou, D., Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., & Schaufeli, W. B.
(2007). The role of personal resources in the job demands–resources
model. International Journal of Stress Management, 14, 121–141.
Xanthopoulou, D., Bakker, A. B., Heuven, E., Demerouti, E., &
Schaufeli, W. B. (2008). Working in the sky: A diary study on work
engagement among flight attendants. Journal of Occupational Health
Psychology, 13, 345–356.
Thunderbird International Business Review Vol. 54, No. 6 November/December 2012