Communication Monographs

ISSN: 0363-7751 (Print) 1479-5787 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rcmm20

Toward a Communication Model for the

Socialization of Voluntary Members

Michael W. Kramer

To cite this article: Michael W. Kramer (2011) Toward a Communication Model for the
Socialization of Voluntary Members, Communication Monographs, 78:2, 233-255, DOI:
10.1080/03637751.2011.564640

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03637751.2011.564640

Published online: 16 May 2011.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 651

View related articles

Citing articles: 9 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rcmm20

Download by: [Copenhagen University Library] Date: 31 October 2016, At: 15:13
Communication Monographs
Vol. 78, No. 2, June 2011, pp. 233255

Toward a Communication Model for

the Socialization of Voluntary
Members
Michael W. Kramer

Because most socialization/assimilation research focuses on employment as the primary

membership role in groups and organizations, the accompanying models have failed to
consider the unique characteristics of voluntary membership. In addition, those models
have been criticized for being too linear and based on concepts of organizations as
containers. Using principles of the bona fide group perspective and a case study, this
paper develops a model that emphasizes the unique characteristics of the socialization of
voluntary members. The multilevel model also examines how membership in various
other groups, such as work and family, influence and interact with individuals’ voluntary
memberships. With a focus on communication, the model emphasizes the fluid process of
voluntary associations in organizations with ambiguous boundaries.

Keywords: Socialization/Assimilation; Voluntary Members; Model; Bona Fide Group

Perspective

Individuals spend an average of four to five hours a week as voluntary members in

various community, religious, and arts organizations (Hooghe, 2003). Collectively,
their activities create 5% of the gross domestic product (Salamon, 1995). Despite this,
the large body of research that has explored the socialization or assimilation process
of individuals joining groups or organizations has focused primarily on employment
or work relationships. In some instances, the research explicitly excludes voluntary
membership from consideration (e.g., Jablin, 2001).

Michael W. Kramer (PhD, Texas, 1991) is Chair and Professor in the Department of Communication at the
University of Oklahoma. A previous version on this manuscript was presented at the November 2009 National
Communication Association annual convention in Chicago. The author would like to thank Howard Kramer
for comments and editing on the previous versions. Correspondence to: Michael W. Kramer, Department of
Communication, 610 Elm Avenue, Burton Hall 101, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK 73072, USA. Tel:
405-325-9503; Fax: 405-325-7625; E-mail: [email protected]

ISSN 0363-7751 (print)/ISSN 1479-5787 (online) # 2011 National Communication Association

DOI: 10.1080/03637751.2011.564640
234 M. W. Kramer

The failure to examine the socialization of voluntary memberships is an

unfortunate limitation. Like employees, volunteers must learn their tasks, develop
communication channels to gain information, create relationships with others, and
understand the organization’s culture (McComb, 1995). However, the unique
characteristics of these voluntary memberships, such as the motivations for joining,
the nature of their tasks and relationships, and the nonfinancial rewards, suggest that
socialization of voluntary members deserves specific attention.
Recently, Haski-Leventhal and Bargal (2008) proposed a model of socialization of
volunteers that focused on one type of voluntary membership, volunteers with a
social agency working with street-teenagers. Given their background in social work,
their model focused more on the psychological aspects of volunteering than on
communication. In addition, their model failed to consider how the volunteers’
simultaneous membership in other organizations and their unique characteristics as
voluntary members influenced the socialization process. This paper builds on
previous research and proposes a multilevel communication-based socialization
model of voluntary membership. Using a bona fide group perspective (Putnam &
Stohl, 1996) as a conceptual framework, it focuses on communication as central to
this complex process. A case study of one organization of voluntary members, a
community choir, is used to illustrate the model.

Review of Literature
Because the assimilation and socialization literature has been summarized elsewhere
(e.g., Jablin, 1987, 2001), and most recently by Waldeck and Myers (2008), what
follows is a brief presentation of the research that specifically influenced the
development of this model of the socialization of voluntary members. Before
examining previous models, it is important to discuss some conceptual distinctions
that have beleaguered the literature, including the term ‘‘socialization’’ itself.
Socialization is broadly defined as ‘‘the process by which an individual acquires the
social knowledge and skills necessary to assume an organizational role’’ (van Maanen
& Schein, 1979, p. 211). In contrast to this, Jablin (2001) preferred the term
‘‘assimilation’’ to describe the general process of joining, participating in, and leaving
organizations, and considered socialization a subcategory of assimilation. According
to Jablin, assimilation is the interaction of socialization, the efforts by an organization
to influence individuals to meet its needs, and individualization, the efforts of
individuals to change organizations to meet their needs. In contrast to Jablin,
Moreland and Levine (2001) include assimilation as a subcategory of one phase of
overall socialization. Due to these different uses of terms, specific definitions of terms
will be noted as necessary. For example, the broader use of ‘‘socialization’’ is used for
the remainder of the paper rather than Jablin’s narrower definition.
Group and organizational models for socialization are consistent in a number of
important ways. Most models include some sort of anticipatory (Jablin, 2001) or
investigation (Moreland & Levine, 2001) phase that designates the time period prior
to joining a group or organization. This is followed by an encounter (Feldman, 1981)
Voluntary Socialization 235

or entry (Jablin, 2001) phase where the individuals are considered new members.
A metamorphosis (Jablin, 1982) or maintenance (Moreland & Levine, 2001) phase
follows when individuals become full members. Individuals experience a variety of
changes as full members as they change roles within the organization such as when
they are promoted (Kramer & Noland, 1999) or transferred (Kramer, 1995). Finally,
an exit transition (Moreland & Levine, 2001) or exit phase (Jablin, 2001) is often
included to delineate the time period in which individuals transition to no longer
being official organizational members. Haski-Leventhal and Bargal’s (2008) model
for volunteers parallels these models with a nominee phase, entrance leading to being
a new volunteer, emotional involvement leading to affiliation, and then, if renewal
fails to occur, exit and retiring.
Another commonality in the previous models and research is their reliance on a
relatively small number of theoretical frameworks. The most prominent theories in
the research are uncertainty reduction (Berger & Calabrese, 1975) or uncertainty
management theories (Kramer, 2004), which emphasize that individuals seek
information through a variety of strategies (e.g., Miller & Jablin, 1991) when faced
with the various uncertainties they experience about their roles, work groups, and
organizations. Another prominent theory in the research is sense making, which
focuses on the meanings individuals assign to their experiences (Louis, 1980; Weick,
2001). In addition, social exchange theory (Kramer, Callister, & Turban, 1995;
Thibaut & Kelley, 1959) spotlights the ways in which individuals consider the costs
and benefits of membership. Other theories have been used by particular researchers
to explore issues related to socialization such as role development theory (e.g., Apker,
2001), and a number of the models have no explicit theoretical basis and instead rely
on a model itself as the theoretical framework (e.g., Feldman, 1981; Haski-Leventhal
& Bargal, 2008).
Not surprisingly, the merits of these models and theoretical approaches have been
criticized and debated. Among the common criticisms are concerns that these
conceptualizations limit research by treating organizations as containers with defined
boundaries (Smith & Turner, 1995), devalue certain types of work such as self-
employment (Clair, 1996), and fail to recognize the unique experiences of women
and marginalized individuals (Allen, 1996; Bullis, 1993). Despite a published
interaction (see Communication Monographs, Volume 66, Number 4, December
1999), both critics and supporters failed to note that these conceptualizations have
not addressed the unique characteristics of voluntary membership in organizations
due to their focus on employment.
Applying a bona fide group perspective (BFGP; Putnam & Stohl, 1990) to the
examination of the socialization of volunteer members addresses some of the criticisms
of the models. A BFGP emphasizes that all naturally occurring groups are imbedded in
a larger context (Stohl & Putnam, 1994). As a result, individuals are simultaneously
members of multiple groups and the boundaries between them are ambiguous,
permeable, and flexible (Putnam & Stohl, 1996). This perspective seems particularly
applicable to some of the unique characteristics of volunteer members who frequently
are members of family/friend groups, work organizations, and other volunteer
236 M. W. Kramer

organizations. These multiple group memberships often lead to overlapping member-

ships across some groups such as when co-workers volunteer in the same organization.
One socialization model captures some of the overlapping membership suggested
by the BFGP. Anderson, Riddle, and Martin’s (1999) model presents overlapping
circles of multiple memberships suggesting that an individual may be simultaneously
in the anticipatory phase in one group, a full member in a second, and exiting a third
or any other combination. The broken lines in their model suggest that the
boundaries between socialization phases and between groups are flexible and
penetrable. Their model does not explicitly consider the unique characteristics of
volunteer membership. Likewise, it does not recognize other contextual factors that
affect the process, such as family group memberships or the potential for mutual
overlapping memberships of individuals across groups when family members
volunteer in the same organization.

Voluntary Membership
Defining the characteristics of voluntary membership for the socialization process
is more difficult than it may seem. Generally there is agreement that voluntary
members belong to organizations that do not distribute profits to stakeholders, do
not coerce participation, and do not compensate individuals for their participation
(Frumkin, 2002). Even these characteristics are sometimes stretched when individuals
are reimbursed for expenses or individuals volunteer to meet educational or court-
ordered requirements. Despite such definitional difficulties, voluntary memberships
are seen as including organizations that provide social services (e.g., family or
employment assistance), community development (e.g., neighborhood improvement
or environmental preservation), education (e.g., scouts and 4-H), health care (e.g.,
substance abuse or mental health), foreign assistance (e.g., disaster aid, refugee
resettlement), and culture activities (e.g., community art, music, and theater)
(Salamon & Abramson, 1982). As an alternative to this sort of typology, other
scholars classify organizations based on whether they are public serving (e.g., aid to
the elderly and cultural groups), member serving (e.g., professional associations and
religious organizations), and voluntary associations (e.g., informal, grassroots
organizations) (Frumkin, 2002). Voluntary members of a community choir represent
noncoerced, noncompensated individuals; they serve the community by presenting
cultural activities that enhance the aesthetic quality of the community.
Studies on the motives for voluntary memberships have had various results
depending on the focus of the research. For example, people tend to volunteer to
express their values, learn or practice skills, enhance and enrich personal develop-
ment, escape negative feelings, conform to the norms of significant others, or develop
and enhance a career (Allison, Okun, & Dutridge, 2002). People who volunteer tend
to be more prosocial, have a concern and a sense of responsibility to others, especially
those in need, and to their community in the broad sense (Reed & Selbee, 2003).
They typically begin their voluntary associations either in order to help provide
services for their own children, because they recognize a lack of professional services
Voluntary Socialization 237

or activities in their community, or because they are committed to working with

others for some form of public good (Dekker & Halman, 2003). In addition, though
initially individuals volunteer to serve others and achieve organizational goals, over
time these motives are often replaced by motivation based on maintaining enjoyable
relationships with others (Pearce, 1993) and promises of recognition often increase
the number of hours of volunteering (Fisher & Ackerman, 1998). Regardless of
the motivations, individuals who volunteer generally report greater health, life
satisfaction, and life expectancy, along with lower levels of depression (Haski-
Leventhal, 2009).
Although research like this provides insight into the individuals who volunteer
and volunteer organizations, it provides little understanding of the communication
processes by which individuals become voluntary members. McComb’s (1995) work
focused only on the newcomer experience and not the overall socialization process.
Haski-Leventhal and Bargal (2008) focused on the psychological aspects of
volunteering without explicitly examining communication. This study develops a
model that explores the communication processes that are part of the broad
socialization of voluntary membership from the time before individuals decide to
become voluntary members until after they no longer associate with the organization.

A Multilevel Communication Model of Voluntary Socialization

Rather than develop a socialization model of volunteer membership based exclusively
on theoretical and conceptual scholarship, the model that follows grew out of an
ethnographic study of socialization in a community choir. During that study it
became clear that traditional socialization models failed to represent portions of the
volunteer members’ experiences (Kramer, 2011). For example, membership in the
choir was often ambiguous; sometimes the choir considered individuals as former
members even though the individuals thought of themselves as current members on
temporary leave. To address the limitations of the previous models, a new multilevel
socialization model of the volunteer members was developed through a grounded
theory approach in which the data from that study guided the development of this
model (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). I first briefly describe that study and then how it
supported the resulting model.

The Study
In the fall of 2007, I conducted an ethnographic study of Middleton Community
Choir (MCC, a pseudonym). MCC has existed for some 30 years with three different
directors. Under the leadership of the director for its first 25 years, a relatively small
group (2530) sang short selections by various composers with little or no
accompaniment for small audiences consisting mostly of family and close friends.
After one year with a second director, the current director took the group in a new
direction that included singing large works, such as Handel’s The Messiah. The much
larger choir (7080) now performs for audiences of over 400 accompanied by full
238 M. W. Kramer

orchestra. The choir rehearses weekly during the academic year with extra rehearsals
during the weeks before the five or six different concerts that it performs each year.
After receiving permission from the director and my university’s Institutional
Review Board, I joined the group and conducted a participant-observation
ethnography to gain an understanding of MCC’s culture (Fetterman, 1989). Its
socialization process was one indicator of its culture. During the semester study, I
participated in over 44 hours of observation including weekly rehearsals, special
rehearsals prior to concerts, and five performances. These experiences resulted in 106
pages of single-spaced field notes (Lindlof, 1995). In addition, 18 newcomers, 37
continuing members, and 16 inactive or former members were interviewed. These
interviews, lasting 1530 minutes, resulted in an additional 327 pages of transcripts.
The interview and observational data were content analyzed for themes related
to the socialization process (Krippendorf, 1980). First, those sections indicative of the
socialization process broadly defined were identified and separated from other data
collected, a process known as data reduction (Lindlof, 1995). Then, through a
constant comparison method, those segments were grouped into categories that
represented different aspects of the socialization process (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). The
process was cyclical, not linear, as groups of data were sometimes collapsed into a
single category or items within a category separated into two groups until each group
represented a separate, nonoverlapping category. Then, the categories were compared
to traditional socialization models with a focus on aspects of voluntary membership
that did not line up with those models. This led to development of the proposed
model. Exemplars from the ethnographic research are used to illustrate aspects of the
model.

Definitions and the Conceptual Framework of the Model

The model consists of three levels of analysis. The model’s first level considers an
individual’s voluntary membership with a single organization. This is similar to the
traditional socialization models discussed above but differs from them in significant
ways. First, to address criticisms of previous models, the model consists of membership
statuses or categories rather than phases. Similar to the overlapping phases in Anderson
et al. (1999), these membership statuses are viewed as potentially overlapping rather
than mutually exclusive although it seems that it would be unusual for an individual to
have more than two statuses overlapping at a time.
Second, the model emphasizes that these different statuses are enacted or
negotiated through communication, a process much like Scott and Myers’ (2010)
concept of membership negotiations (MNs). These statuses differ somewhat from the
concept of MNs because the model considers that the outcome of the MNs process
may be ambiguous resulting in uncertainty concerning an individual’s status. For
example, volunteers may have difficulty at times defining their own statuses because
they enact aspects of more than one status. There also may be disagreements between
individuals and other members concerning their statuses. For example, some
individuals may consider themselves enacting the status of newcomer because they
Voluntary Socialization 239

are uncertain about the organization’s norms, whereas others may believe their
behaviors communicate that they are established members because they participate
regularly.
Finally, the model differs from previous models by emphasizing how volunteer
membership is distinct from employment. In particular, whereas membership as
employee is rarely ambiguous, voluntary membership frequently is, as neither the
individuals nor the organizations are certain as to who are and are not members. As a
result of these kinds of ambiguities, in the model the statuses are represented with
broken lines and overlapping circles to reduce the tendency to see the socialization as
a predetermined, unambiguous, or linear process. Illustrative of the ambiguity about
membership statuses in MCC, when I asked to interview former members to explore
their reasons for leaving, some individuals had already returned after taking some
time off or planned to return soon. My experience since completing the formal study
indicates the fluid and ambiguous nature of voluntary membership statuses. I was in
and out of the group over the next year. After I left permanently, I continued to
receive the group’s e-mails until I explicitly requested to stop receiving them. This
suggests that membership is fluid and ambiguous and that there is not always
agreement between MCC and individuals on their membership status.
The model’s second level explores how individuals’ multiple group memberships
interact to affect their own volunteer socialization, but the focus is still on the
experience of one individual. The third level considers how the multiple group
memberships of others further influence the socialization process. This level begins to
examine how the socialization processes for multiple people are interdependent.
To be consistent with the majority of the research across disciplines, in the present
model socialization refers to the broad overarching process by which individuals learn
the attitudes and skills they need as they join, participate in, and leave organizations
as volunteer members. Socialization is viewed as consisting of the interaction of three
circumstances instead of the one or two defined in most previous research.
First, scholars use a variety of terms to describe how the organization, through its
members, makes an effort to educate, persuade, or imbue certain attitudes and
behaviors in all of its members (volunteers, in this case). This process of changing
members to fit the organizational needs and culture is labeled inculcation in order to
avoid confusion with other terminology discussed above. The inculcation process
can be as simple as explaining ‘‘how we do things around here’’ so that volunteer
members can follow procedures to something as extreme as the brainwashing that
cults use to indoctrinate new recruits into their beliefs and practices (Cushman,
1986). In the case of MCC, I observed examples of inculcation when new volunteers
learned how to check in so that an accurate attendance record existed, and when they
learned that men must wear tuxedoes and women must wear formal, black attire at
concerts.
Second, scholars generally have recognized that new and continuing members
make efforts to change aspects of the organization to fit their needs and habits. These
changes are labeled personalization (Hess, 1993) to avoid conceptual issues related to
terms like individualization and individuation. Personalization processes can be as
240 M. W. Kramer

simple as arranging a work space to display personal artifacts or to accommodate

individual work habits to negotiating a new role, or, in extreme cases, changing the
structure or culture of the organization. I observed personalization in MCC when
volunteers selected whom they wanted to sit with at rehearsals and developed their
own way of organizing their music or participated in only the concerts that interested
them and dropped out for other performances. The current director personalized
MCC by changing its culture to reflect his interest in performing major works
accompanied by orchestra.
Finally, matching occurs when neither individuals nor organizations need to make
significant changes in response to the other. When the attitudes, behaviors, and
practices of volunteers are already consistent with the organization, minimal changes
or adjustments are necessary by individuals or in the organizational practices.
Matching occurred when the volunteers for MCC found that their primary desires,
such as participating in music performance music and making friends, were
consistent with the goals of the organization and its leader.
Given these definitions and this conceptual framework, socialization occurs as
individuals develop their membership statuses, a perspective that is consistent with
recent conceptualizations of socialization as membership negotiations (Scott &
Myers, 2010). Thus, socialization of voluntary members is defined as the commu-
nication process through which individuals negotiate and change membership
statuses as a result of the interaction of inculcation, personalization, and matching.

Level One: Single Organization Voluntary Socialization

The first level of the model simply examines an individual’s involvement as a
voluntary member in one particular organization. There are five different member-
ship statuses; each has its own distinctive communication (see Figure 1). Although at
times the socialization from one status to another occurs in a linear progression, the
broken lines and overlapping circles indicate that this is often not the case. Rather,
individuals may move back and forth between different statuses, as well as skip and

Former Established
Member Member
Status Status
New
Member
Transitory Status
Member
Status Prospective
Member
Status

Figure 1 Level one model: Socialization of volunteer members into a single organization.
Voluntary Socialization 241

repeat statuses. At times their status may be difficult to determine from their own or
the organization’s perspective. For example, an individual may believe that he/she is
communicating an established member status by participating at certain times
throughout the year, but those who participate more regularly may conclude that his/
her irregular attendance communicates a transitory member status. There is no circle
representing the organizational boundary in level one of the model because it may be
unclear which individuals are or are not voluntary members of the organization.

Communication and prospective member status. Similar to other models’ antici-

patory phase, one membership status is potential or prospective member. Prospective
members are not readily identified as organizational members. Three types of
communication are important for this status: role development communication,
reconnaissance communication, and recruitment communication.
Role development communication refers to communication and experiences that
make it likely that an individual in the prospective member status will eventually
become a voluntary member. Through role development communication, individuals
learn both the attitudes and skills needed to volunteer. This process is similar to
Jablin’s (2001) vocational anticipatory socialization, but differs in important ways.
First, the role development for voluntary membership is frequently not a vocation or
occupation. For example, MCC members enjoyed their role as singers, but considered
it an extra activity or hobby. Second, the development of an attitude toward
voluntary participation can be quite separate from the development of the skills
needed. On two occasions I observed individuals who desired to join MCC but did
not have the musical skills. Alternatively, there are singers who have the skills to join
MCC, but do not because they do not value voluntary membership in a community
choir. Third, though the communication sources identified by Jablin for vocational
anticipatory socialization likely influence voluntary membership as well, these
sources need to be slightly revised. Certainly family, educational institutions, peers/
friends, and the media influenced role development by encouraging and supporting
the development of the attitudes and skills needed to volunteer later in life. However,
Jablin’s other source, part-time employment, is a too restrictive a term. Previous
organizational experience more appropriately describes this source of influence. In
describing why they joined MCC, members frequently mentioned the influence of
communication with family members, such as coming from a family with musical
background; in educational settings, such as participation in school choirs; with
friends who were members of MCC; and in other choirs, such as church choirs, on
their decision to join MCC. Although none of MCC’s members mentioned the media
as influencing them, the media influence volunteer role development in other
situations, such as when media coverage of a community activity or a disaster results
in an increase in volunteers for agencies like the American Red Cross.
Reconnaissance communication involves the process of those in the prospective
member status gaining information that influences their selection of an organization
to join. Reconnaissance communication ranges from very active communication,
such as prospective members seeking out information about the organization, to
242 M. W. Kramer

rather passive reception of information, such as hearing current members or media

messages talking about the organization. Simultaneously, organizational members
use recruitment communication in their efforts to influence prospective members to
join. Recruitment communication can range from very impersonal efforts, such as a
web page, to very personal efforts such as a current member asking someone to join.
Interviews of MCC members indicated frequent interaction between reconnaissance
and recruitment communication. In explaining why they joined MCC, members
mentioned three primary communication interactions as influencing their decision
to become new members. Some in the prospective member status sought information
from MCC’s web page. Others sought information directly from the leader (the only
paid member of MCC) who then recruited them. Current MCC volunteers recruited
new members by asking them to join and then served as information sources as those
prospective members gathered information about MCC.

Communication and new member status. An important status for voluntary

membership is new member status. The exact beginning and end of new member
status are ambiguous in most organizational settings and particularly for voluntary
membership. For example, in many such organizations it is difficult to determine
the point at which a visitor (doing reconnaissance communication) moves from
prospective to new member status because some visitors never return, some appear a
few times before disappearing, and others return regularly but do not claim
membership status. In addition, new members and established ones may not agree
upon their status. Although some organizations have ceremonies to mark the change
from prospective member to official member (newcomer), new member status is
more of a psychological category than one based on objective standards such as time
(Schlossberg, 1981).
Communication during newcomer status for voluntary membership is quite similar
to that which occurs during entry phases of socialization models involving employ-
ment. New voluntary members often experience high levels of uncertainty. Minimally
they may be uncertain about their tasks and roles, as well as their relationships with
others (Nelson & Quick, 1991). In addition, they likely experience uncertainties about
the organizational culture and norms (Ostroff & Kozlowski, 1992). They must make
sense of their new situation as they experience surprises or shocks when it is different
from their previous experiences or expectations (Louis, 1980). As a result of these
concerns, they use a variety of communication strategies to gain information to
manage the uncertainties they experience such as direct and indirect inquiry, third
parties, and observation (Miller & Jablin, 1991). They may seek information from
various sources including organizational members such as peers and supervisors (who
may or may not be paid employees), written materials including web pages, and
people external to the organization, such as clients, customers, friends, or family
members who may be able to assist them in understanding the situation (Miller &
Jablin, 1991; Teboul, 1994). A likely difference for new voluntary members compared
to new employees, including paid staff in nonprofit organizations, is the time frame or
intensity of these experiences (Ashcraft & Kedrowicz, 2002). Whereas new employees
Voluntary Socialization 243

or paid staff may spend 40 or more hours per week in their organizations, volunteers
likely spend only a few hours per week or month, so that the newcomer experience
may last much longer.
Observations and interviews confirmed the importance of many of these
communication activities for new MCC members. Newcomers often voiced surprise
at the challenge of learning the music because it was more difficult than expected.
Music was often sung in a foreign language, and members were expected to learn it
with very little work on individual parts. To deal with these uncertainties, newcomers
talked to those around them about their concerns. In addition, the director addressed
some of their concerns when he held a meeting after a rehearsal early in the semester
and explained that it was common for new members to feel overwhelmed at first, but
they should stick with it and they eventually would feel comfortable.

Communication and established member status. The term ‘‘established member,’’

rather than ‘‘full member,’’ is used to describe this status because it is not easy to
determine exactly what a full member is for voluntary members and it is often
unclear when the transition to established member occurs. Gradually, through their
regular participation, it becomes clear to others and the individuals that they have
become established members and are no longer newcomers. A number of factors may
contribute to this transition. The volunteers may experience an increase in
participation and a decreased distance between themselves and more established
volunteers or paid staff (Ashcraft & Kedrowicz, 2002). They become aware that
they know the organization’s norms and culture based on their communication
experiences (Ostroff & Kozlowski, 1992). A common indicator of this transition is
when they become information sources for newer volunteers (Haski-Leventhal &
Bargal, 2008) or begin recruiting new members. Thus, it is their relative tenure
compared to even newer members that indicates their status change rather than a
specific amount of time (Rollag, 2007). Their status as established members is
reinforced when other organizational members rely on them to perform certain roles
within the organization’s work, friendship, or authority communication networks
(O’Reilly & Roberts, 1977). Those who consistently perform their roles are more
likely to be perceived as established members by themselves and others because they
seem to match the organization’s cultural values and practices.
Voluntary members are also more likely to experience other role transitions as
part their established member status. For example, they are more likely to be invited
to participate in the organization’s leadership structure as supervisors or board
members since those with longer tenure in organizations are often selected for such
roles (Kramer & Noland, 1999). These role changes indicate that the established
members are more central and higher in the organization’s formal or informal
hierarchy (van Maanen & Schein, 1979). From those positions they may be able to
personalize the organization in small ways by suggesting changes in procedures or
activities, although they probably rarely change its core values.
Established members of MCC seemed to know their status. They viewed
themselves as long-time members and some served on MCC’s board in the past or
244 M. W. Kramer

present, unlike new members. Established members often greeted each other as old
friends and some small groups of them met socially outside rehearsals. They served as
information sources for new members. My field notes recorded a brief interaction
between two new members and an established member that illustrated the distinction
between these two statuses.
After our warm up for the concert, I joked with another newcomer as we walked
from the rehearsal room to the performance hall, ‘‘Well, we’ve sung that three times
now. I guess it’s ready for a performance.’’ She said, ‘‘I guess so.’’ But a woman we
didn’t know said, ‘‘Is this your first time?’’ When we said it was, she said that she
used to worry about being ready but now she just trusts [the director]. He has a
way of always pulling it off.
The unidentified woman recognized our comments as expressing our uncertainty
about the concert; this communicated our newcomer status to her. She enacted her
status as an established member by informing us that MCC’s culture is one that pulls
together for performances rather than one that is thoroughly prepared prior to the
performance. This communication interaction helped us, as newcomers, manage our
uncertainty and make sense of the situation but reinforced our status as newcomers
who needed to be inculcated into the organization’s culture.

Communication and previous member status. Established voluntary members

become previous members when they end their association with an organization.
In many situations, they gradually decrease their participation and then simply fade
into previous member status without any formal announcement or recognition. In
other cases, they may officially communicate that they are severing their ties with the
organization by informing a supervisor or membership coordinator. For example,
in some religious organizations, there is a formal process of ending or transferring
membership. In this way, communication or a lack thereof enacts the previous
member status. Often impersonal communication from the organization to former
members continues uninterrupted for some time in the form of paper or electronic
mailings offering opportunities to volunteer or soliciting donations. This continued
communication may occur due to problems keeping track of active volunteers or may
be the result of an organizational effort to re-recruit the individuals or maintain them
as transitory members (see next section).
MCC sent e-mails about once a week during the season to keep its voluntary
members informed. It reached current members and any former members who did
not cancel it. The e-mail always included a statement, ‘‘You’re receiving this e-mail
because of your relationship with MCC. Please confirm your continued interest
in receiving e-mail from us. You may unsubscribe if you no longer wish to receive our
e-mails.’’ By communicating with former members until they cancel the e-mails,
MCC potentially recruited former members to rejoin it.

Communication and transitory member status. With few exceptions, employment

relationships are an either/or situation: Either an individual is an employee or not.
In contrast, transitory member status is quite common for voluntary membership.
Voluntary Socialization 245

Transitory membership status indicates that the relationship of the individual to

the organization is uncertain and ambiguous either from the perspective of the
individual or the organization or both. Volunteers can become transitory
members through a variety of paths. By participating sporadically, some prospective
members never quite become members. Newcomers sometimes never make the
commitments necessary to assume roles as established members but are no longer
newcomers based on their organizational knowledge. Other newcomers may feel that
they become transitory members rather than established members because their
experiences are different or they feel that they are kept on the margins of the
organizations due to factors such as their race or gender (Allen, 1996; Dallimore,
2003). In addition, established members sometimes reduce involvement temporarily
for a variety of reasons from loss of interest to conflicts with other life activities.
These transitory members may eventually either become former members if they
discontinue their voluntary association or they may be resocialized as established
members if they recommit to the organization (Haski-Leventhal & Bargal, 2008).
Communication with transitory members is varied and inconsistent. Transitory
members likely receive general, impersonal organizational communication, such as
paper or electronic mailings. If they participate sporadically, they likely communicate
with other members or leaders. They may receive requests to participate in
organizational activities. They may or may not make an effort to communicate
their status to organizational leaders. Depending on organizational record keeping, it
may or may not be possible to distinguish their membership status from other
membership statuses. There also may not be agreement between other established
members and the transitory members as to the nature of their membership.
Transitory membership was common in MCC. Established members sometimes
had difficulty stating how many years they had been in MCC because they had been
members ‘‘off and on.’’ During the study, I observed newcomers who dropped out for
the first concert of the semester because they felt unprepared. Some returned for the
second concert but others did not. MCC had two separate lists: ‘‘Former members’’
were those individuals they believed would never return, and ‘‘inactive members’’
were individuals they believed were planning to return after a temporary leave. In
contacting people for interviews, it was apparent that both lists were inaccurate.
Some former members planned to return or already had. Some inactive members had
returned or realized they would not. I observed one individual who showed up for a
concert after not attending for some time. He did not even have copies of the correct
music, but performed the concert anyway. Through sporadic communication and
participation these individuals enacted their transitory status. These examples
illustrate that transitory membership is a common status in the socialization of
voluntary members, a status that typically does not exist for employees.

Level one socialization summary. The level one model depicts member statuses as
overlapping with broken lines to suggest the ambiguous nature of voluntary
organizational membership. In some cases the overlapping statuses are the result of
individuals’ uncertainty concerning their own status. In others, the overlap occurs
246 M. W. Kramer

because the organizational members view an individual as being in one category

whereas the individual identifies with a different category. It is through communica-
tion that individuals are socialized into these different statuses. Through commu-
nication, prospective members conduct reconnaissance and are recruited to be new
members. Through communication, individuals are inculcated into the culture and
practices of the organization, personalize the organization, or discover that there is a
match between them and the organization. As a result of communication, or perhaps
due to a lack of it, established members become transitory or former members.
Individuals may be resocialized into a previous status through communication. Finally,
it is important to recognize that the various statuses can occur in almost any pattern of
overlap and sequence, although some patterns are more common than others. There
are no clear organizational boundaries since membership is often ambiguous.

Level Two: Socialization of Voluntary Members in Multiple Groups

The model’s first level only considers the socialization of volunteer members for a single
organization with ambiguous boundaries. Consistent with the BFGP, level two of the
model (Figure 2) illustrates that individuals are simultaneously members of multiple
groups and organizations. The figure represents four simultaneous memberships
although this number varies. The five statuses can occur in all these memberships. The
broken lines around each group or organization suggest that there are some important
differences between them, but the overlapping spaces represent the often ambiguous
boundaries between memberships in these various groups. This second level parallels
the Anderson et al. (1999) model, but differs from it by including family (or friendship)
groups as concurrent memberships that influence individuals’ socialization as
voluntary members, along with work and other voluntary memberships.
Ample evidence supports the inclusion of family membership in the model.
Extensive research over several decades indicates that work and family membership
simultaneously impact each other. For example, research indicates a general interaction
between work and nonwork attitudes (Staines, 1980), moods (Williams & Alliger,
1994), stress (Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985), and conflict (Frone, Russell, & Couper,
1992). Ashforth, Kriener, and Fugate (2000) extended these concerns by indicating that
the resulting role interactions influence what they termed ‘‘third place roles,’’ including
voluntary memberships. Although some scholars might take exception with the label
‘‘third place’’ because voluntary associations are not always an individual’s third most
important role, Ashforth et al.’s research supplements the BFGP by acknowledging the
mutual influence of multiple memberships or roles. This interaction of roles mutually
influences the socialization processes of each role because the time, effort, and
behaviors associated with one role impact the ability to perform roles in other groups or
organizations (Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985).
Some readers may question the appropriateness of applying the model’s level one
socialization framework to family groups. However, research studying the socializa-
tion of family memberships indicates that when dating, engagements, marriages,
divorces, and other living arrangements are considered, the prospective, new,
Voluntary Socialization 247

Family
Membership
Established
Former
Member
Member Work
Status
Status Organization
Membership
Transitory Former
Member Member Established
Status Volunteer Status Member
Organization Status
New
Membership Member
Former Status
Member Established
Status Member
Status
New
Member
Transitory Status
Member
Status Prospective
Member Established
Status Member
Status
New
Transitory Member
Member Status
Status Prospective
Member
Status

Figure 2 Level two model: Socialization of voluntary members in multiple groups.

*M membership. In the figure, Individual One is a member of four groups or
organizations, for example, a family group, work organization, and two volunteer
organizations.

established, transitory, and former member statuses all occur in extended families
(Prentice, 2008). Difficulty in determining statuses may create problems for families
when it is unclear, for example, whether to include or exclude a dating partner in a
family event or when individuals are excluded from certain activities because they are
not blood relatives.
The MCC study provided clear evidence of the mutual influence of simultaneous
memberships in family, work, and other volunteer organizations on the socialization
process in MCC. In a typical example, a 50-year-old, married speech pathologist
explained why she took a temporary leave from MCC:
Well, last season I had some family issues and it was my son’s last semester in high
school, so we were trying to deal with him and begin preparing ourselves for him to
leave for college . . . and there was a lot of scheduling issues . . . I had just started a new
job which had placed some different demands on my time and it was kind of hectic.
248 M. W. Kramer

Like many others, this member found that managing the family, work, and volunteer
roles in her life made it difficult to spend the time needed for membership in MCC.
She managed the situation by changing her MCC status temporarily to transitory
member. This illustrates the importance of the BFGP; her work and family group
statuses influenced her socialization process in MCC and caused her status to change
rather than MCC’s internal processes. Others managed the problems associated with
multiple memberships in other ways, such as by reducing time in other voluntary
associations or negotiating changes in one of their roles. In one case, a mother was
able to continue participation in MCC by negotiating an agreement with family
members to have them assume more responsibilities for cooking and cleaning up
after dinner on rehearsal nights.
The way individuals managed their roles in multiple groups also supports the idea
that individuals frequently hold different statuses in their various memberships. The
woman in the example above was an established family member, a new member of
her work organization, and a transitory member of MCC. Of course, individuals can
be in the same status in multiple associations. For example, some MCC members
were established members of their family, work, and MCC roles, whereas others were
new to the community, their jobs, and MCC, and as a result, simultaneously faced the
uncertainties associated with new membership in all the roles.
The second level of the model emphasizes the importance of the individuals’ multiple
group and organizational memberships in understanding their socialization as
voluntary members. Socialization experiences in one organization or group influence
socialization in others, and individuals manage their multiple roles through commu-
nication. They communicate to fulfill the roles they choose to maintain. They manage
role conflicts by communicating that they are changing their statuses or requesting
changes in their roles in particular groups or, through an absence of communication,
they may transition to different statuses such as transitory or former members.
Consistent with a BFGP, an examination of these overlapping memberships provides a
more complete picture of their socialization experiences as voluntary members.

Level Three: Socialization of Multiple Voluntary Members in Multiple Groups

In addition to considering individuals as members of multiple groups and
organizations, a BFGP emphasizes that individuals may also share memberships
with other people across some of those groups (Putnam & Stohl, 1996). This occurs,
for example, when two co-workers are volunteers in the same organization or when
two volunteers have a common acquaintance. Level three of the model (Figure 3)
illustrates this aspect of the socialization process by including multiple people in the
process instead of focusing only on one person. In the figure, Individual One (I1) is a
member of four groups or organizations. Although I1 shares membership with I2, I3,
and I4 as part of different group memberships, I2 and I3 also share membership in
some different group, as do I3 and I4. So, for example, I1 knows I2 from work and I3
from a voluntary membership in one group and I4 from another group, but learns
Voluntary Socialization 249

that I2 and I3 know each other as volunteers in a different organization and that I3
and I4 are part of the same extended family.
Communication resulting from these shared memberships influences the socializa-
tion process of individuals in each group or organization as interactions away from a
particular organization influence participation in it. Examples of the influence of
multiple simultaneous memberships on the socialization process were common in
MCC. For example, two men who sat together during almost every activity during the
study worked together in information technologies at my university. When I heard them
discussing work issues during rehearsal breaks, I began talking to them. Because I
worked for another department, we sometimes discussed broader work-related issues.
The causal friendship we developed helped facilitate my transition from newcomer
status toward becoming an established member of MCC. This eventually affected our
socialization into the workplace as well. We became linked at work as well when one of
them contacted me at work to help solve a work-related problem that affected us both.
Our simultaneous membership in the university and MCC provided an important
commonality that influenced our development of relationships as part of our
membership in MCC and at work. When we saw each other at work we discussed
MCC, and vice versa. This example illustrates that the socialization process for volunteer
members is frequently influenced by communication that results from the simultaneous
memberships of multiple individuals in various organizations and groups.

Discussion
The proposed multilevel socialization model provides an important starting point
for examining the socialization of voluntary membership. It recognizes that at one

Individual
Two

Individual
One

M1* M2 M3 M4

Individual
Four

Individual
Three

Figure 3 Level three model: Socialization of multiple voluntary members in multiple

groups.
*M=membership. In the figure, Individual One is a member of four groups or organizations,
for example, a family group, work organization, and two volunteer organizations.
250 M. W. Kramer

level important communication experiences influence the socialization process as

individuals move among various membership statuses, including prospective, new,
established, former, and transitory memberships. At the second level, it emphasizes
that the socialization experiences of voluntary members in a particular organization
are influenced by their simultaneous membership in other groups and organizations
including family, work, and other volunteer organizations. At the third level, it
recognizes that the simultaneous memberships of multiple individuals across
multiple organizations influences their socialization experiences in a particular
volunteer organization, such as when volunteers are part of the same family, work, or
voluntary groups or organizations.
The model addresses a number of the criticisms of traditional socialization/
assimilation models and research. The focus on membership statuses as overlapping
and occurring in various orders instead of focusing on progress over time addresses
the concerns about the seemingly linear progression suggested in most previous
models (Clair, 1996). Recognizing that individuals may disagree about an individual’s
status is also an important contribution in highlighting that individuals may have
volunteer experiences that differ from others, for example, if they feel that they are
never treated as established members due to their race or gender (Allen, 1996;
Dallimore, 2003). The lack of an organizational boundary at level one and the focus
on simultaneous and overlapping memberships of individuals in levels two and three
of the model make it clear that a container metaphor does not appropriately
represent organizational boundaries for many voluntary memberships (Smith &
Turner, 1995).
Further development of the model is needed in a number of directions. One
important area to explore is the socialization of different types of voluntary members
based on either a typology of volunteer activities (e.g., social agencies, religion),
length of commitment (short term vs. long term) or dimensions of volunteering (e.g.,
free will, formal vs. informal organization in Cnaan, Handy, & Wadsworth, 1996).
The proposed model seems capable of representing the experiences of the volunteer
social workers, since those results suggested all five of the model’s membership
statuses (Haski-Leventhal & Bargal, 2008), as well as travelers’ aid volunteers who
received training and then gradually learned their tasks and the airport culture as they
enacted their roles (McComb, 1995). However, given the breadth of voluntary
activities, it would be valuable to explore a wide range of organizations that rely on
voluntary memberships to determine the applicability of the model to various
contexts. For example, some volunteers make long-term commitments, receive
extensive training, and become involved in regular, ongoing activities (e.g., crisis
hotline volunteers), whereas others make short-term commitments, receive almost no
training, and are involved in one-time events (e.g., parent volunteers at a school
picnic). Some volunteers spend significant time interacting with other volunteers
(e.g., community theater actors), whereas others work fairly independently (e.g.,
youth sports-team coaches). Examining different contexts will highlight the
importance of different aspects of communication during the socialization process
of different types of voluntary memberships.
Voluntary Socialization 251

The model can also be expanded by examining many traditional socialization

topics. Among other topics, research could explore the impact of socialization
strategies (van Maanen & Schein, 1979) on new voluntary members’ satisfaction and
organizational commitment (Ashforth & Saks, 1996) and how they make sense of
surprises (Louis, 1980) or respond to unmet expectations (Wanous, Poland, Premack,
& Davis, 1992). Research could examine how various information-seeking strategies
(Miller & Jablin, 1991) relate to the dimensions and outcomes of socialization for
voluntary members (Chou, O’Leary-Kelly, Wolf, Klein, & Gardner, 1994; Myers &
Oetzel, 2003). Researchers could determine whether the transition of volunteers to
transitory or former members is the result of planned exits, shocks, or gradual
dissolution (Lee, Mitchell, Wise, & Fireman, 1996), as research suggests that
individuals quit their voluntary memberships due to a combination of personal and
organizational factors (Hustinx, 2010). Exploring these topics may increase our
understanding of how communication can help retain volunteers, thereby addressing
a common problem for volunteer organizations in which an annual turnover of one-
third of volunteers is typical (Corporation for National & Community Service, 2007).
For example, certain socialization strategies and information-seeking strategies may be
more likely to result in newcomers’ transition to established members; certain types of
surprises or unmet expectations may be associated with transitions to former
members.
In addition to these general socialization issues, research could examine more
specific topics such as how volunteers learn specific communication behaviors such
as emotion management (Scott & Myers, 2005). This would be particularly important
for volunteers in more stressful and emotional contexts such as social work or
emergency organizations. Alternatively, instead of focusing on the uncertainty of new
volunteers, research could focus on how new or transitory volunteers create
uncertainty for established ones (Gallagher & Sias, 2009). In pursuing these and
other issues the model builds on the work of Scott and Myers (2010) by focusing on
how individuals communicate as they negotiate their roles in various membership
statuses without imitating the phase models of socialization that have been criticized.
A number of additional topics need further examination in relation to the unique
characteristics of voluntary membership. For example, the communication between
volunteers and paid employees, which many organizations have, is not explicitly
mentioned or separated from communication with other volunteers in the model.
Previous research indicates that the communication between paid staff and volunteers
influence the volunteer experience in ways that may be distinctive from interactions
with other volunteers (Ashcraft & Kedrowicz, 2002). The interactions of inculcation,
personalization, and matching have only been mentioned briefly at this point. Given
the voluntary associations involved, it seems likely that inculcation of volunteers would
mostly concern procedures and routines, and that matching values would be a
common experience. Volunteers seem likely to be involved in only limited
personalization because they most likely affiliate with organizations that meet their
needs; it seems unlikely that most volunteers want to change the values or culture of the
organizations they join. However, if the organization is poorly run or strays from its
252 M. W. Kramer

stated values and goals, volunteers may have to choose between attempting to change
organizational practices and leaving it. Issues like these that are unique to voluntary
membership will be important to consider in the future development of the model.
In addition, further theoretical development is needed because although the BFGP
provides a framework for expanding the model beyond the first level, it primarily
provides a descriptive heuristic and is not a theory in the traditional sense. Although
it would be easy to turn to the theories used in previous socialization research, it
might be more valuable to develop a new theoretical perspective. For example, a
meaning management theory (MMT) could possibly combine uncertainty and sense-
making theories. Uncertainty theories tend to explore how individuals proactively
seek information to understand their environment (Berger & Calabrese, 1979),
whereas sense-making theories focus on how they retrospectively assign meaning to
their experiences (Weick, 2001). However, Weick (2001) discusses the possibility of
proactive sense making and Kramer (2004) explores how individuals cognitively
manage uncertainty based on previous experiences without seeking information.
A combined MMT could focus on the ways individuals assign meaning to their
socialization experiences through proactive and reactive behaviors without the
limitations of the separate theories and could include information management as
part of the process (Afifi & Weiner, 2004). In addition, it is likely that an important
aspect of assigning meaning to voluntary membership experiences is determining
whether participation is rewarding enough to continue membership. In this way,
certain aspects of social exchange theory could also be included as meaning
management (Thibault & Kelley, 1959). Of course, some scholars may object to
such a holistic theoretical approach as a blurring of important theoretical differences
rather than the development of a new theoretical perspective.
The proposed multilevel model should be viewed as a step in the development of a
socialization model for voluntary membership. Further development and refinement
are needed including further examination of how volunteer memberships influence
socialization in family, work, and other voluntary settings. However, it is hoped that
this proposed model helps focus attention on how communication is integral to the
socialization of voluntary members in groups and organizations.

References
Afifi, W. A., & Weiner, J. L. (2004). Toward a theory of motivated information management.
Communication Theory, 14, 167190.
Allen, B. J. (1996). Feminist standpoint theory: A black woman’s (re)view of organizational
socialization. Communication Studies, 47, 257271.
Allison, L. D., Okun, M. A., & Dutridge, K. S. (2002). Assessing volunteer motives: A comparison of
an open-ended probe and Likert rating scales. Journal of Community and Applied Social
Psychology, 12, 243255.
Anderson, C. M., Riddle, B. L., & Martin, M. M. (1999). Socialization processes in groups. In L. R.
Frey, D. S. Gouran, & M. S. Poole (Eds.), The handbook of group communication theory and
research (pp. 139163). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Voluntary Socialization 253

Apker, J. (2001). Role development in the managed care era: A case of hospital based nursing.
Journal of Applied Communication Research, 29, 117136.
Ashcraft, K. L., & Kedrowicz, A. (2002). Self-direction or social support? Nonprofit empowerment
and the tacit employment contract of organizational communication studies. Communica-
tion Monographs, 69, 88110.
Ashforth, B. E., Kreiner, G. E., & Fugate, M. (2000). All in a day’s work: Boundaries and micro role
transitions. Academy of Management Review, 25, 472491.
Ashforth, B. E., & Saks, A. M. (1996). Socialization tactics: Longitudinal effects on newcomer
adjustment. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 149178.
Berger, C. R., & Calabrese, R. J. (1975). Some explorations in initial interaction and beyond: Toward
a developmental theory of interpersonal communication. Human Communication Research,
1, 99112.
Bullis, C. (1993). Organizational socialization research: Enabling, constraining, and shifting
perspectives. Communication Monographs, 60, 1017.
Chou, G., O’Leary-Kelly, A., Wolf, S., Klein, H. J., & Gardner, P. D. (1994). Organizational
socialization: Its content and consequences. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 730743.
Clair, R. C. (1996). The political nature of the colloquialism, ‘‘a real job’’: Implication for
organizational socialization. Communication Monographs, 63, 249267.
Cnaan, R. A., Handy, F., & Wadsworth, M. (1996). Defining who is a volunteer: Conceptual and
empirical considerations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 25, 364383.
Corporation for National and Community Service. (2007). Issue brief: Volunteer retention.
Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved June 5, 2009, from http://agweb.okstate.edu/fourh/
focus/2007/may/attachments/VIA_brief_retention.pdf
Cushman, P. (1986). The self besieged: Recruitment-indoctrination processes in restrictive groups.
Journal of the Theory of Social Behavior, 16, 132.
Dallimore, E. J. (2003). Memorable messages as discursive formations: The gendered socialization
of new university faculty. Women’s Studies in Communication, 26, 214265.
Dekker, P., & Halman, L. (2003). Volunteering and values: An introduction. In P. Dekker &
L. Halman (Eds.), The value of volunteering: Cross cultural perspectives (pp. 117). New York,
NY: Kluwer Academic/Plenum.
Feldman, D. C. (1981). The multiple socialization of organizational members. Academy of
Management Review, 6, 309318.
Fetterman, D. M. (1989). Ethnography: Step by step. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Fisher, R. J., & Ackerman, D. (1998). The effects of recognition and group need on volunteerism:
A social norm perspective. Journal of Consumer Research, 25, 262275.
Frone, M. R., Russell, M., & Couper, M. L. (1992). Antecedents and outcomes of work-family
conflict: Testing a model of the work-family interface. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77,
6578.
Frumkin, P. (2002). On being nonprofit: A conceptual and policy primer. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Gallagher, E. B., & Sias, P. M. (2009). The new employee as a source of uncertainty: Veteran
employee information seeking about new hires. Western Journal of Communication, 73,
2346.
Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research.
Chicago, IL: Aldine.
Greenhaus, J. H., & Beutell, N. J. (1985). Sources of conflict between work and family roles.
Academy of Management Review, 10, 7688.
Haski-Leventhal, D. (2009). Elderly volunteering and well-being: A cross-European comparison
based on SHARE data. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit
Organizations, 20, 388404.
Haski-Leventhal, D., & Bargal, D. (2008). The volunteer stages and transitions model: Organiza-
tional socialization of volunteers. Human Relations, 61, 67102.
254 M. W. Kramer

Hess, J. A. (1993). Assimilating newcomers into an organization: A cultural perspective. Journal of

Applied Communication Research, 21, 189210.
Hooghe, M. (2003). Participation in voluntary associations and value indicators: The effect of
current and previous participation experiences. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 32,
4769.
Hustinx, L. (2010). I quit, therefore I am?: Volunteer turnover and the politics of self-actualization.
Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 39, 236255.
Jablin, F. M. (1982). Organizational communication: An assimilation approach. In M. Roloff &
C. Berger (Eds.), Social cognition and communication (pp. 255286). Newbury Park, CA:
Sage.
Jablin, F. M. (1987). Organizational entry, assimilation, and exit. In F. M. Jablin, L. L. Putnam, K. H.
Roberts, & L. W. Porter (Eds.), Handbook of organizational communication (pp. 679740).
Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Jablin, F. M. (2001). Organizational entry, assimilation, and disengagement/exit. In F. M. Jablin &
L. L. Putnam (Eds.), The new handbook of organizational communication: Advances in theory,
research, and methods (pp. 732818). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Kramer, M. W. (1995). A longitudinal study of superior-subordinate communication during job
transfers. Human Communication Research, 22, 3964.
Kramer, M. W. (2004). Managing uncertainty in organizational communication. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Kramer, M. W. (2011). A study of voluntary organizational membership: The assimilation process
in a community choir. Western Journal of Communication, 75, 5274.
Kramer, M. W., Callister, R. R., & Turban, D. B. (1995). Information-giving and information-
receiving during job transitions. Western Journal of Communication, 59, 151170.
Kramer, M. W., & Noland, T. L. (1999). Communication during job promotions: A case of ongoing
assimilation. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 27, 335355.
Krippendorf, K. (1980). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Lee, T. W., Mitchell, T. R., Wise, L., & Fireman, S. (1996). An unfolding model of voluntary
employee turnover. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 536.
Lindlof, T. R. (1995). Qualitative communication research methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Louis, M. R. (1980). Surprise and sense making: What newcomers experience in entering unfamiliar
organizational settings. Administrative Science Quarterly, 25, 226251.
McComb, M. (1995). Becoming a travelers aid volunteer: Communication in socialization and
training. Communication Studies, 46, 297316.
Miller, V. D., & Jablin, F. M. (1991). Information seeking during organization entry: Influences,
tactics, and a model of the process. Academy of Management Review, 16, 92120.
Moreland, R. L., & Levine, J. M. (2001). Socialization in organizations and work groups. In M. E.
Turner (Ed.), Groups at work: Theory and research (pp. 69112). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Myers, K. K., & Oetzel, J. G. (2003). Exploring the dimensions of organizational assimilation:
Creating and validating a measure. Communication Quarterly, 51, 438457.
Nelson, D. L., & Quick, J. C. (1991). Social support and newcomer adjustment in organizations:
Attachment theory at work. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 12, 543554.
O’Reilly, C. A., & Roberts, K. H. (1977). Task group structure, communication, and effectiveness
in three organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 674681.
Ostroff, C., & Kozlowski, S. W. J. (1992). Organizational socialization as a learning process: The
role of information acquisition. Personnel Psychology, 45, 849874.
Pearce, J. L. (1993). The organizational behavior of unpaid workers. New York, NY: Routledge.
Prentice, C. M. (2008). The assimilation of in-laws: The impact of newcomers on the
communication routines of families. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 36, 7497.
Putnam, L. L., & Stohl, C. (1990). Bona fide groups: A reconceptualization of groups in context.
Communication Studies, 41, 248265.
Voluntary Socialization 255

Putnam, L. L., & Stohl, C. (1996). Bona fide groups: An alternative perspective for communication
and small group decision making. In R. Y. Hirokawa & M. S. Poole (Eds.), Communication
and group decision making (2nd ed., pp. 147178). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Reed, P. B., & Selbee, L. K. (2003). Do people who volunteer have a distinctive ethos? A Canadian
study. In P. Dekker & L. Halman (Eds.), The value of volunteering: Cross cultural perspectives
(pp. 91109). New York, NY: Kluwer Academic/Plenum.
Rollag, K. (2007). Defining the term ‘‘new’’ in new employee research. Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology, 80, 6375.
Salamon, L. M. (1995). Partners in public service: Government-nonprofit relations in the modern
welfare state. Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University Press.
Salamon, L. M., & Abramson, A. J. (1982). The federal budget and the nonprofit sector. Washington,
DC: Urban Institute Press.
Schlossberg, N. K. (1981). A model for analyzing human adaptation to transition. The Counseling
Psychologist, 9, 218.
Scott, C., & Myers, K. K. (2005). The socialization of emotion: Learning emotion management at
the fire station. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 33, 6792.
Scott, C., & Myers, K. K. (2010). Toward an integrative theoretical perspective on organizational
membership negotiations: Socialization, assimilation, and the duality of structure. Commu-
nication Theory, 20, 79105.
Smith, R. C., & Turner, P. K. (1995). A social constructionist reconfiguration of metaphor analysis:
An application of ‘‘SCMA’’ to organizational socialization theorizing. Communication
Monographs, 62, 152181.
Staines, G. L. (1980). Spillover versus compensation: A review of the literature on the relationship
between work and nonwork. Human Relations, 33, 111129.
Stohl, C., & Putnam, L. L. (1994). Group communication in context: Implications for the study of
bona fide groups. In L. R. Frey (Ed.), Group communication in context: Studies of natural
groups (pp. 285292). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Teboul, J. C. B. (1994). Facing and coping with uncertainty during organizational encounters.
Management Communication Quarterly, 8, 190224.
Thibaut, J. W., & Kelley, H. H. (1959). The social psychology of groups. New York, NY: Wiley.
Van Maanen, J., & Schein, E. G. (1979). Toward a theory of organizational socialization. In B. M.
Staw (Ed.), Research in organizational behavior (pp. 209264). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Waldeck, J., & Myers, K. (2008). Organizational assimilation theory, research, and implications for
multiple areas of the discipline: A state of the art review. In C. S. Beck (Ed.), Communication
yearbook 31 (pp. 322367). New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Wanous, J. P., Poland, T. D., Premack, S. L., & Davis, K. S. (1992). The effects of met expectations
on newcomer attitudes and behaviors: A review and meta-analysis. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 77, 288297.
Weick, K. E. (2001). Making sense of the organization. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Williams, K. J., & Alliger, G. M. (1994). Role stressors, mood spillover, and perceptions of work-
family conflict in employed parents. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 837868.