This article was downloaded by: [82.137.14.

247]
On: 28 July 2015, At: 23:42
Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: 5 Howick Place, London, SW1P 1WG

Social Influence
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/psif20

Newcomers as change agents: Effects

of newcomers' behavioral style and
teams' performance optimism
a

Thomas Hansen & John M. Levine

University of Pittsburgh , PA, USA

Published online: 21 Nov 2008.

To cite this article: Thomas Hansen & John M. Levine (2009) Newcomers as change agents:
Effects of newcomers' behavioral style and teams' performance optimism , Social Influence, 4:1,
46-61, DOI: 10.1080/15534510802280827
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15534510802280827

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
Content) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever
or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or
arising out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms
& Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/
terms-and-conditions

SOCIAL INFLUENCE
2009, 4 (1), 4661

Newcomers as change agents: Effects of newcomers

behavioral style and teams performance optimism
Thomas Hansen and John M. Levine

Downloaded by [82.137.14.247] at 23:42 28 July 2015

University of Pittsburgh, PA, USA

Newcomers are often viewed as passive targets of influence, but they can be
active sources of innovation as well. In this study, three-person teams worked
on a computer-based air-surveillance task for three shifts. Team performance
in Shifts 1 and 2 was varied to manipulate members performance optimism
for Shift 3 (low, moderate, or high). At the beginning of Shift 3, a low-status
team member was replaced by a (confederate) newcomer who used either an
assertive or non-assertive behavioral style in suggesting that the team adopt a
new task strategy. Teams performance optimism and newcomers behavioral
style influenced teams receptivity to newcomers suggestions and evaluations
of newcomers. Implications of the findings for understanding newcomerinduced innovation are discussed.
Keywords: Newcomers; Innovation; Minority influence; Work teams.

Work groups are the building blocks of organizations, and organizational

effectiveness depends on the ability of such groups to carry out their tasks
(Sundstrom, 1999; Turner, 2001). In spite of their importance, however,
work groups do not always perform as well as they might (Hackman, 1998;
Steiner, 1972). One reason is that groups often fail to develop or import
innovative work practices.
In recent years, social and organizational psychologists have devoted
increasing attention to group creativity in general and team innovation in
particular (see, for example, Anderson, De Dreu, & Nijstad, 2004; Gibson &
Gibbs, 2006; Levine & Moreland, 2004; Nijstad & Levine, 2007; Paulus &
Brown, 2007; Paulus & Nijstad, 2003; Thompson & Choi, 2006). Among the

Address correspondence to: Thomas Hansen, 515 LRDC Bldg., University of Pittsburgh,
Pittsburgh, PA 15260, USA. E-mail: thh6@pitt.edu
Thanks are extended to Hoon-Seok Choi, Richard Moreland, and Janet Schofield for their
helpful comments on an earlier draft of this paper.
# 2008 Psychology Press, an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an Informa business

http://www.psypress.com/socinf

DOI: 10.1080/15534510802280827

Downloaded by [82.137.14.247] at 23:42 28 July 2015

NEWCOMERS AS CHANGE AGENTS

47

factors that have been found to influence a groups likelihood of engaging in

innovation are its composition (e.g., diversity in members demographic
characteristics and knowledge); stage of development; norms; climate (e.g.,
psychological safety); and dynamics (e.g., leadership processes, member
participation). In addition to these variables, the entry of new members can
be an important stimulus for innovation in work groups (Levine & Choi, in
press; Levine, Choi, & Moreland, 2003; Levine, Moreland, & Choi, 2001).
In some cases, newcomers can produce innovation without intending to do
so. For example, the need to socialize newcomers may motivate old-timers
to reflect on the groups work practices (Feldman, 1994; Gruenfeld & Fan,
1999; Sutton & Louis, 1987), which in turn may stimulate efforts to improve
these practices. In addition, newcomers can be a source of diversity
regarding the groups knowledge, skills, or values, which under certain
conditions can stimulate the group to consider new ideas and adopt new
practices (Choi & Levine, 2004; Choi & Thompson, 2005; Kane, Argote, &
Levine, 2005; Levine & Choi, 2004; see also Milliken, Bartel, & Kurtzberg,
2003; van Knippenberg, De Dreu, & Homan, 2004).
Of greater relevance to our present concerns are cases in which newcomers
intentionally produce innovation in groups they join. Although newcomers
often are highly susceptible to old-timers efforts to shape their attitudes and
behaviors (Levine & Moreland, 1999; Levine, Moreland, & Hausmann, 2005)
and meet resistance when they criticize group practices (Hornsey, Grice,
Jetten, Paulsen, & Callan, 2007), they are not always passive recipients of
influence. For example, organizational newcomers often play an active role in
their socialization (Bauer, Morrison, & Callister, 1998), and newcomers in
work groups can sometimes exert substantial influence (Choi & Levine, 2004).
Given that newcomers are often numerical minorities in the groups they join,
the large literature on minority influence is potentially relevant to understanding when and how newcomers produce change (e.g., De Dreu & West,
2001; Martin & Hewstone, in press; Nemeth & Nemeth-Brown, 2003; Wood,
Lundgren, Ouellette, Busceme, & Blackstone, 1994).
Levine et al. (2003) recently analyzed the conditions under which
newcomers produce innovation in work groups by introducing new ideas
that have the potential to improve group performance. They argued that
innovation is the outcome of an implicit or explicit negotiation between
newcomers and old-timers, which depends on newcomers (a) motivation to
introduce new ideas, (b) ability to generate such ideas, and (c) success in
convincing old-timers to adopt their ideas.

THE PRESENT EXPERIMENT

The present study focused on the third determinant mentioned above,
namely the newcomers success in convincing old-timers to adopt a new

48

HANSEN AND LEVINE

idea. Our major goal was to investigate how a newcomers behavioral style
in suggesting changes in a teams work practices affects members receptivity
to this suggestion and evaluations of the newcomer. Theoretical and
empirical work on minority influence (Moscovici, 1985) and team
performance (Jentsch & Smith-Jentsch, 2001) suggests the utility of
examining this variable. In addition, we wished to extend prior research
on how team members optimism regarding their future performance affects
their responses to the newcomer (Choi & Levine, 2004).

Downloaded by [82.137.14.247] at 23:42 28 July 2015

Newcomer behavioral style

Research on minority influence has emphasized the importance of
behavioral style. According to Moscovici (1976, 1985), behavioral style is
the crucial factor underlying a minoritys ability to influence a majority. As
suggested above, work on minority influence is relevant to newcomer
innovation because newcomers are often numerical minorities in the groups
they join. Moscovici (1985) defined behavioral style as the organization of
responses, the appropriateness and intensity of their expression it refers
to behavioral and judgmental rhetoric (p. 358). According to Moscovici,
behavioral style conveys information about both a communicators position
on an issue and inner state regarding that position (e.g., confidence and
certainty).
Moscovici (1985) discussed three behavioral styles relevant to our present
concerns. An autonomous behavioral style is manifested by seeming
independence (freedom from external influence) and objectivity (lack of
bias in considering and presenting evidence). A consistent behavioral style is
manifested by agreement between minority members, as well as their
repetition of the same response (or system of responses) over time.
According to Moscovici, both autonomy and consistency increase minority
influence because they lead to particular attributions about the minority
(e.g., confidence, unwillingness to compromise), which cause the majority to
see the minoritys position as a clear alternative and to consider it carefully.
In contrast, the third behavioral style, rigidity, which is manifested by
extreme and inflexible behavior, is typically ineffective in producing
influence, although it can elicit indirect opinion change under some
conditions.
Behavioral style has also been discussed in the context of team
performance. Interest in this issue was stimulated by evidence that airplane
accidents are often attributable to the failure of lower-status crew members
(first officers) to challenge the judgments of higher-status members
(captains) (Milanovich, Driskell, Stout, & Salas, 1998). In discussing this
problem, Jentsch and Smith-Jentsch (2001) identified three behavioral
(communication) styles used by members of aircrews and other teams.

NEWCOMERS AS CHANGE AGENTS

49

Passivity is manifested by questions or vague statements; aggressiveness

is manifested by direct and hostile statements that signal disregard for
others feelings or needs; and assertiveness is manifested by clear statements
that do not demean or insult others. According to Jentsch and SmithJentsch, passivity and aggressiveness are typically ineffective in producing
influence, whereas assertiveness is often effective. To date, however, no
controlled experiments have been conducted in team contexts to test the
impact of assertiveness on both influence and evaluation of the influence
source.

Downloaded by [82.137.14.247] at 23:42 28 July 2015

Team performance optimism

Another potentially important determinant of a newcomers ability to
produce innovation is the teams performance prior to the newcomers
entry. Failing teams expect lower future performance (i.e., have lower
performance optimism) than do successful teams (e.g., Jung & Sosik, 2003;
Riggs & Knight, 1994), and these expectancies are likely to influence teams
inclination to change vs maintain their current task strategy. In particular,
teams expecting failure should be more receptive to newcomers efforts to
change their task strategy than should teams expecting success (cf. Ziller &
Behringer, 1960).
Choi and Levine (2004) recently tested this hypothesis using three-person
teams (a Commander and two Specialists) that worked on a computer-based
air-surveillance task. Teams were initially asked to choose one of two
equally plausible strategies for dividing up the Specialists monitoring
responsibilities or were assigned one of these strategies. Following one
shift on the task, team members were given either success or failure
feedback. One Specialist was then replaced by a newcomer (confederate),
who suggested a new and plausible (but not demonstrably correct) way of
dividing up Specialists monitoring responsibilities. The Commander and
the other Specialist then decided whether or not to accept this suggestion. Results indicated that the newcomer was significantly more
influential when team members had been assigned (rather than chosen)
their initial task strategy and had failed (rather than succeeded) using this
strategy.
The present study was designed to provide a more sensitive test of how
prior team performance affects receptivity to a newcomers suggestion.
Three (rather than two) levels of team performance were created, and all
teams experienced some degree of failure (rather than failure versus success)
before the newcomer entered. More specifically, teams completed two shifts
on the air-surveillance task prior to the newcomers entry, and all teams
failed in Shift 1. In Shift 2, teams improved slightly, moderately, or
substantially, but in no case reached the success criterion. In Shift 3, one

50

HANSEN AND LEVINE

Specialist was replaced by a (confederate) newcomer who used either an

assertive or non-assertive behavioral style in suggesting a new task strategy.
This design allowed us to investigate whether varying levels of performance
improvement in the absence of success are sufficient to affect teams
receptivity to newcomer influence and evaluation of the newcomer.

Downloaded by [82.137.14.247] at 23:42 28 July 2015

Design and hypotheses

The experiment utilized a 2 (newcomer assertiveness: non-assertive,
assertive)63 (team performance optimism: low, moderate, high) betweenparticipants design. We predicted that teams receptivity to the newcomers
suggestion (a) would be greater when this suggestion was presented using an
assertive rather than a non-assertive style and (b) would vary negatively with
performance optimism (i.e., lower optimism would produce more receptivity). In addition, we predicted an interaction between these variables, such
that assertiveness would have less impact in the low and high optimism
conditions than in the moderate condition. This prediction was based on the
assumption that the former two conditions would elicit clear performance
expectations, and hence produce strong motivation to either accept (for low
optimism) or reject (for high optimism) the newcomers suggested change in
the teams strategy. As a result, participants would have little motivation to
pay close attention to the newcomers behavioral style. In contrast, the
moderate optimism condition was expected to elicit an ambiguous
performance expectation and hence motivate participants to attend to the
newcomers behavioral style in order to decide whether to follow his
suggestion.
We also investigated the impact of newcomer assertiveness and team
performance optimism on a second dependent variable, evaluation of the
newcomer. This variable was operationalized by participants ratings of the
newcomer on several scales (assertiveness, self-confidence, expertise,
arrogance, motivation). We predicted the same pattern of results as above,
namely more positive evaluation of a newcomer using an assertive rather
than a non-assertive style, an inverse relationship between evaluation and
performance optimism, and a weaker assertiveness effect in the low and high
optimism conditions than in the moderate condition.

METHOD
Participants
A total of 243 male undergraduates at a large university participated in the
experiment to fulfill a course requirement. Participants were randomly
assigned to three-person teams in the 263 design described above, yielding
a total of 81 teams.

NEWCOMERS AS CHANGE AGENTS

51

Downloaded by [82.137.14.247] at 23:42 28 July 2015

Procedure
Teams worked on a computer-based air-surveillance task that embodied
many challenges that real-world teams face (e.g., coordinating responses
under time pressure; processing dynamic information that is distributed
unequally across team members). Three participants were brought into the
laboratory, seated in cubicles containing personal computers, and told they
would work as members of a simulated air-surveillance team. One member
was randomly designated as team leader (Commander), and remaining
members were designated as subordinates (Specialists). Participants were
told that team composition would change later in the experiment to simulate
turnover in natural teams.
During training on the team task, Specialists were taught how to use their
computers to look up information about eight characteristics of planes
flying through a simulated airspaceAirspeed (in miles per hours), Altitude
(in feet), Angle (degree of the planes ascent or descent), Corridor (whether
the plane was in, outside, or on the edge of its authorized flight path),
Direction (the size of the course adjustment the plane would have to make in
order to fly directly over the air base, in degrees), Radar (weather, none,
jamming), Range (distance, from the air base, in miles), and Weapons
Arming (low ready, medium ready, high ready). When looking up plane
characteristics, Specialists saw raw values (e.g., 510 mph for Airspeed),
which they converted into parameter values (,435 mph51; 436
570 mph52; .570 mph53) and then communicated to the Commander
using an email system. The Commander was taught to integrate this
information using a formula that yielded threat values for each plane and to
enter these values into his computer. The task was demanding for both
Specialists and the Commander, because parameter values changed over
time.
Following a practice period, participants were informed that they would
complete three work shifts on which they could earn 0100 points,
depending on the accuracy of the Commanders threat assignments. After
learning that each Specialist would monitor four characteristics of each
plane in the airspace, participants were asked to choose between two equally
plausible monitoring strategies (Choi & Levine, 2004).1 According to one
strategy, Specialists monitored characteristics that were equally important in
the Commanders threat formula. According to the other strategy,
Specialists monitored characteristics that were equally difficult to monitor.
1
Participants were allowed to choose their strategy because, in Choi and Levines (2004)
study, teams in the Group Failure No Choice condition accepted the newcomers suggestion
at a very high rate (91%), compared to teams in the Group Failure Choice condition (64%).
To avoid the possibility of a ceiling effect in the present study, which involved group failure, the
choice option was used.

Downloaded by [82.137.14.247] at 23:42 28 July 2015

52

HANSEN AND LEVINE

The team then completed a 10-minute shift on the task, using the strategy
it had selected. Afterwards, participants in all conditions learned that 75%
was considered good team performance and their team had scored 53%.
Teams then completed a second 10-minute shift, after which their
performance optimism for the third shift was manipulated. Teams in the
low optimism condition learned that they had scored 57 during the
second shift and that about 10% of prior teams with a similar score
had succeeded on the third shift. Teams in the moderate optimism
condition learned that they had scored 65 and that about 50% of similar
prior teams had subsequently succeeded. Finally, teams in the high
optimism condition learned that they had scored 73 and that about 90%
of similar prior teams had later succeeded. Participants then indicated their
expectation for their teams performance on the third shift (0100) and rated
the difficulty and realism of the task, their satisfaction with their
performance, and how much they liked working with the team (using 9point scales).
Next participants were told that they would each receive $3.00 if their
team scored 75% or higher during the third shift and that Specialist B would
be replaced by a newcomer who had been trained on the task but had not
worked on another team. Specialist B was then taken to another room, and
the newcomer (a confederate) was introduced to the team. Team members
then participated in a get acquainted emailing period, during which the
newcomer suggested a major change in the teams task strategy, namely that
each Specialist should monitor all eight characteristics of alternating planes
entering the airspace. This strategy was a plausible, but not demonstrably
correct, alternative to the teams current strategy in which each Specialist
monitored four characteristics of every plane. In the non-assertive
condition, the newcomer said: I had an idea during training that Im not
sure about. Maybe each spec could do all 8 characteristics of a plane spec
A does the first, I do the second, and so on ? In the assertive condition,
the newcomer said: I had an idea during training that I really think is good.
Each spec should do all 8 characteristics of a plane spec A does the first
plane, I do the second one, and so on. Lets try it! After proposing his
strategy, the newcomer withdrew from the discussion, and the Commander
and Specialist A decided whether to accept his idea or continue using their
original strategy.
Following the emailing period, team members rated one another on
assertiveness, self-confidence, expertise, arrogance, and motivation using
9-point scales (with higher numbers indicating stronger ratings). They
then completed a final 10-minute shift, during which the newcomer
followed whichever strategy the other members had selected. Following
the shift, participants were told that they earned $3.00, debriefed, and
dismissed.

NEWCOMERS AS CHANGE AGENTS

53

RESULTS
Data from eight teams were excluded due to suspicion about the purpose of
the experiment and/or the identity of the newcomer. This left a total of 73
teams (low optimism/non-assertive newcomer: n512; low optimism/assertive newcomer: n512; moderate optimism/non-assertive newcomer: n512;
moderate optimism/assertive newcomer: n512; high optimism/non-assertive
newcomer: n513; high optimism/assertive newcomer: n512).2

Downloaded by [82.137.14.247] at 23:42 28 July 2015

Impact of strategy discussion and actual team

performance
Before team members began working on the task, they discussed which
strategy to use for monitoring plane characteristics. As expected on the basis
of Choi and Levines (2004) study, approximately half of the teams chose
each of the two strategies (importance: 41%, difficulty: 59%). Moreover,
there was no significant relationship between (a) either the length of the
discussion or the strategy chosen and (b) teams subsequent acceptance/
rejection of the newcomers suggestion (for discussion length, rpb5.03, ns;
for strategy chosen, x2(1)52.06, ns). Finally, there was no significant
relationship between teams actual performance prior to the newcomers
entry and their subsequent acceptance/rejection of his suggestion (rpb5.11,
ns).

Performance optimism
As noted above, Specialist B was replaced by the newcomer and hence was
not present to consider the newcomers strategy suggestion. Therefore, the
following analyses were performed on the mean of Specialist As and the
Commanders responses.3 Because participants responses on the measures
reported in this section were obtained before the manipulation of newcomer
assertiveness, the impact of the performance optimism manipulation was
tested using one-way analyses of variance (ANOVA). The ANOVA on team
members predicted scores for Shift 3 yielded a significant performance
2

Loss of teams was not systematically related to experimental condition.

Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) were calculated for measures on which Specialist A
and the Commander provided separate responses (performance optimism, task difficulty, task
realism, task satisfaction, working with the team, newcomer evaluation, newcomer arrogance).
Although only three of these measures yielded significant ICC values (p,.25; Kenny, Mannetti,
Pierro, Livi, & Kashy, 2002), all analyses were conducted on mean scores based on Specialist
As and the Commanders responses. This was done for two reasons. First, separate analyses
conducted on each measure using individual and mean scores yielded identical patterns of
significant results. Second, because team acceptance rates are inherently group-level measures, it
makes sense to present all results at that level of analysis.
3

Downloaded by [82.137.14.247] at 23:42 28 July 2015

54

HANSEN AND LEVINE

optimism effect, F(2, 70)5383.35, p,.01 (Ms562.57, SD52.34, 73.83,

SD51.88, and 79.33, SD52.22, for low, moderate, and high optimism,
respectively). Follow-up contrasts using the Bonferroni correction (p,.05)
revealed that members of low optimism teams expected significantly lower
scores on Shift 3 than did members of moderate optimism teams, who in
turn expected significantly lower scores than did members of high optimism
teams.4
Similar findings were obtained on team members satisfaction with their
performance and evaluation of their team experience. A significant
performance optimism effect was obtained for satisfaction, F(2,
70)521.11, p,.01 (Ms54.15, SD51.07, 5.42, SD51.37, and 6.24,
SD50.93, for low, moderate, and high optimism, respectively). Follow-up
contrasts revealed that members of low optimism teams were significantly
less satisfied with their performance than were members of moderate
optimism teams, who in turn were significantly less satisfied than were
members of high optimism teams. In addition, a significant performance
optimism effect was obtained for working with the team, F(2, 70)58.80,
p,.01 (Ms55.69, SD51.33, 6.81, SD50.91, and 6.76, SD50.86, for low,
moderate, and high optimism, respectively). Members of low optimism
teams liked working with their team significantly less than did members of
both moderate and high optimism teams, who did not differ significantly
from one another. Mean ratings of the difficulty and realism of the task did
not yield significant performance optimism effects (overall Ms56.16,
SD51.18, and 5.79, SD51.24, for difficulty and realism, respectively).
Taken as a whole, these findings indicate that our manipulation of
performance optimism was successful.

Receptivity to the newcomers suggestion

The computer log files from the emailing discussion period were examined
by two independent coders to determine whether old-timers (Specialist A
and Commander) accepted or rejected the newcomers suggestion. Coders
agreed on 71 of the 73 cases, and disagreement on the remaining two cases
was resolved through discussion. Inspection of the log files from Shift 3
revealed that all teams used the strategy they had decided on following the
newcomers suggestion.
Teams responses to the newcomers strategy suggestion (coded 1 for
acceptance and 0 for rejection) were entered into a step-wise logistic
regression analysis. Because newcomer assertiveness was of major interest,
this variable (coded 1 for assertive and 0 for non-assertive) was entered first
4

Unless otherwise noted, all comparisons reported below were conducted using the
Bonferroni correction (p,.05).

Downloaded by [82.137.14.247] at 23:42 28 July 2015

NEWCOMERS AS CHANGE AGENTS

55

in the regression equation. As predicted, teams were more receptive to the

newcomers suggestion when it was presented using an assertive rather than
a non-assertive style, x2(1)59.09, p ,.01. In the assertive condition, 75% of
teams accepted the newcomers suggestion, compared to 41% of teams in the
non-assertive condition.
Next, two dummy variables were created to capture the three levels of
performance optimism and then entered into the regression equation.
Results revealed that adding performance optimism significantly improved
the prediction of teams receptivity to the newcomers suggestion,
x2(1)513.34, p ,.01. As predicted, teams receptivity varied negatively with
their performance optimism. In the low optimism condition, 79% of teams
accepted the newcomers suggestion, compared to 63% and 32% of teams in
the moderate and high optimism conditions, respectively.5
Finally we added an interaction term to the regression equation, which
did not significantly improve the prediction of teams receptivity to the
newcomers suggestion, x2(1)50.02, ns. Acceptance levels in the six
conditions were as follows: low optimism/non-assertive newcomer: 67%
(n512); low optimism/assertive newcomer: 92% (n512); moderate optimism/non-assertive newcomer: 42% (n512); moderate optimism/assertive
newcomer: 83% (n512); high optimism/non-assertive newcomer: 15%
(n513); and high optimism/assertive newcomer: 50% (n512). To obtain
further information about the predicted interaction, separate chi-square
tests were conducted on teams receptivity to non-assertive versus assertive
newcomers within each of the three performance optimism conditions.
These tests indicated that, whereas receptivity to assertive and non-assertive
newcomers was not significantly different in either the low optimism,
x2(1)52.40, ns, or high optimism, x2(1)53.55, ns, condition, teams were
significantly more receptive to assertive than to non-assertive newcomers in
the moderate optimism condition, x2(1)54.64, p,.05. These findings are
consistent with the prediction that participants would be more sensitive to
the newcomers behavioral style in the moderate optimism condition than in
the low and high optimism conditions.

Evaluation of the newcomer

Team members ratings of the newcomers assertiveness, self-confidence,
expertise, arrogance, and motivation were subjected to a factor analysis
using varimax rotation. This analysis yielded two factors with eigenvalues
above 1.0, which jointly accounted for 77.4% of the total variance. Four
5
To further explore the performance optimism main effect, contrast codes testing for the
presence of a quadratic effect were created. These contrasts did not significantly improve the
prediction of teams receptivity to the newcomers suggestion, x2(1)50.21, ns.

Downloaded by [82.137.14.247] at 23:42 28 July 2015

56

HANSEN AND LEVINE

items loaded strongly on the first factor (labeled newcomer evaluation):

confidence (.88), assertiveness (.84), expertise (.84), and motivation (.81).
One item loaded strongly on the second factor: arrogance (.99).
For each team, a composite newcomer evaluation score was calculated by
computing the mean responses of Specialist A and the Commander to the
four items that loaded on the first factor and then averaging these two
responses (Cronbachs Alpha5.86). These composite scores were analyzed
using a 2 (newcomer assertiveness: assertive/non-assertive)63 (performance
optimism: low/moderate/high) ANOVA. This analysis yielded significant
main effects for newcomer assertiveness, F(1, 67)55.28, p,.05, and
performance optimism, F(2, 67)54.89, p,.05, as well as a significant
interaction, F(2, 67)55.80, p,.01.6
As predicted, the two main effects revealed that (a) assertive newcomers
were rated more positively than non-assertive newcomers (Ms57.0,
SD50.87, and 6.61, SD50.74, respectively) and (b) newcomer evaluations
varied inversely with performance optimism (Ms57.07, SD50.76, 6.91,
SD50.91, and 6.44, SD50.69, for low, moderate, and high optimism,
respectively). To clarify the interaction, evaluations of assertive and nonassertive newcomers were compared within each of the three performance
optimism conditions. These evaluations did not differ significantly in either
the low optimism (Ms57.00, SD50.83, and 7.14, SD50.71, respectively),
t(67),1.00, or high optimism (Ms56.50, SD50.75, and 6.39, SD50.66,
respectively), t(67),1.00, condition. However, in the moderate optimism
condition, assertive newcomers were rated significantly more positively than
non-assertive newcomers (Ms57.51, SD50.76, and 6.31, SD50.62,
respectively), t(67)54.05, p,.01. Thus, as predicted, participants were more
sensitive to the newcomers behavioral style in the latter condition than in
the former two conditions.
Mean arrogance scores were also analyzed using a newcomer assertiveness6performance optimism ANOVA. Neither main effect nor the
interaction attained significance. Moreover, across conditions the newcomers arrogance was perceived as relatively low (overall M53.01,
SD51.32).

DISCUSSION
Our goals in this experiment were two-fold. First, we sought to investigate
how a newcomers behavioral style in suggesting changes in a teams work
strategy affects members receptivity to this suggestion and evaluations of
the newcomer. Second, we sought to extend prior research on how team
6

A parallel analysis using the Commanders and Specialist As ratings of the original
Specialist B as a covariate yielded the same pattern of findings.

Downloaded by [82.137.14.247] at 23:42 28 July 2015

NEWCOMERS AS CHANGE AGENTS

57

members optimism regarding their future performance affects their

responses to the newcomer.
Based on work by Moscovici (1985) and Jentsch and Smith-Jentsch
(2001), we predicted that teams would be more receptive to a strategy
suggestion offered by an assertive than a non-assertive newcomer. As
predicted, assertive newcomers were indeed more influential than
non-assertive newcomers. This finding extends prior work on how
behavioral style affects minority influence in two important ways.
First, our research is the first to demonstrate that behavioral style in
general and assertiveness in particular affects minority influence in
interacting work teams (cf. Levine & Kaarbo, 2001). Second, our findings
demonstrate that seemingly small changes in newcomers assertiveness
can have substantial effects on old-timers responses. Although the
messages of assertive and non-assertive newcomers differed in what might
seem to be minor ways, almost twice as many teams accepted an identical
suggestion offered by an assertive, as compared to a non-assertive,
newcomer.
In contrast to prior research comparing teams that clearly failed versus
succeeded prior to the newcomers entry (Choi & Levine, 2004; see also
Ziller & Behringer, 1960), we compared teams that initially failed and then
experienced one of three levels of improvement (though never success)
before the newcomer entered. We predicted that teams receptivity to the
newcomers suggestion would vary negatively with their optimism regarding
their future performance (based on their past performance). As predicted,
low optimism teams were more receptive to the newcomers suggestion than
were moderate optimism teams, which in turn were more receptive than high
optimism teams. These results provide the strongest evidence to date for the
role that prior team performance plays in determining receptivity to
newcomer influence.
Although the predicted interaction between newcomer assertiveness
and team performance optimism did not attain statistical significance,
subsequent tests indicated that teams were significantly more receptive
to assertive than to non-assertive newcomers in the moderate optimism
condition, but not in the low optimism and high optimism conditions.
Consistent (and stronger) evidence for the predicted interaction was
obtained on teams evaluation of newcomers. On this measure, the
interaction was significant and subsequent tests indicated that assertive
newcomers were evaluated significantly more positively than non-assertive
newcomers in the moderate optimism condition, but not in the low and
high conditions. Taken as a whole, our findings demonstrate that the
impact of assertiveness depends on the group context in which it is
manifested.

58

HANSEN AND LEVINE

Downloaded by [82.137.14.247] at 23:42 28 July 2015

Limitations and future directions

Some limitations of the current study and avenues for future research are
worth noting. Because our experiment included only two levels of
assertiveness, the possibility of a curvilinear relationship between newcomers assertiveness and teams responses could not be tested. Recently,
Ames and Flynn (2007) found that greater effectiveness was attributed to
leaders who were perceived as moderate, rather than low or high, in
assertiveness. Given that our assertive newcomer produced substantial
influence and elicited positive evaluation, it is likely that we created a
moderately assertive newcomer as defined by Ames and Flynn. Future
studies should investigate how higher levels of assertiveness (which may be
interpreted as arrogance), as well as other behavioral styles (e.g.,
consistency), affect teams evaluations of newcomers and receptivity to
their suggestions (cf. Fragle, 2006; Hornsey et al., 2007).
Additional work is also needed to clarify the impact of team performance
optimism. One question concerns the impact of the teams performance
levels in Shifts 1 and 2, holding constant their degree of improvement
between shifts. For example, would we have obtained the same results if all
teams had scored 23 on Shift 1 and then scored 27, 35, or 43 on Shift 2?
Another question concerns the impact of the teams degree of improvement
(e.g., 20 vs 40 points), holding constant either its initial or final performance.
Finally, the teams direction of performance change deserves attention.
Teams may be more or less sensitive to decreasing than to increasing
performance, and this sensitivity may vary as a function of their initial and
final performance and degree of performance change.
Finally, two additional features of our experimental paradigm should be
mentioned. First, we restricted our attention to newcomers, because they are
typically viewed as passive recipients of influence and their efforts to
introduce change are often rebuffed. Our goal was to identify conditions
under which these unlikely sources of influence might be effective. And we
were successfulwhen teams had low performance optimism and newcomers presented their strategy suggestion using an assertive behavioral
style, this suggestion was accepted in more than 90% of the cases. These
results do not mean, of course, that old-timers cannot produce innovation
or that the variables we investigated do not affect their ability to do so.
Studies assessing how performance optimism and behavioral style influence
old-timers ability to produce innovation would therefore be useful. Second,
we restricted our attention to low-status newcomers, who typically are less
influential than their high-status counterparts (Levine & Choi, 2004). Here
again, studies assessing the impact of performance optimism and behavioral
style on high-status newcomers ability to exert influence would provide
interesting information.

NEWCOMERS AS CHANGE AGENTS

59

Clearly, much remains to be learned about the mechanisms underlying

newcomers ability to produce innovation in work groups. Given that
membership change is a ubiquitous feature of natural groups and that
newcomers are a potentially important source of ideas for improving group
performance, we hope that researchers in social and organizational
psychology will devote increased attention to when and how newcomers
stimulate change in the groups they enter.
Manuscript received 18 February 2008
Manuscript accepted 17 June 2008
First published online 22 September 2008

Downloaded by [82.137.14.247] at 23:42 28 July 2015

REFERENCES
Ames, D. R., & Flynn, F. J. (2007). What breaks a leader: The curvilinear relationship between
assertiveness and leadership. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 307324.
Anderson, N., De Dreu, C. K. W., & Nijstad, B. A. (2004). The routinization of innovation
research: A constructively critical review of the state-of-the-science. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 25, 147173.
Bauer, T. N., Morrison, E. W., & Callister, R. R. (1998). Organizational socialization: A review
and directions for future research. In G. R. Ferris (Ed.), Research in personnel and human
resources management (Vol. 16, pp. 149214). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Choi, H-S., & Levine, J. M. (2004). Minority influence in work teams: The impact of
newcomers. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40, 273280.
Choi, H-S., & Thompson, L. (2005). Old wine in a new bottle: Impact of membership change on
group creativity. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 98, 121132.
De Dreu, C. K. W., & West, M. A. (2001). Minority dissent and team innovation: The
importance of participation in decision making. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86,
11911201.
Feldman, D. C. (1994). Whos socializing whom? The impact of socializing newcomers on
insiders, work groups, and organizations. Human Resource Management Review, 4, 213233.
Fragle, A. R. (2006). The power of powerless speech: The effects of speech style and task
interdependence on status conferral. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 101, 243261.
Gibson, C. B., & Gibbs, J. L. (2006). Unpacking the concept of virtuality: The effects of
geographic dispersion, electronic dependence, dynamic structure, and national diversity on
team innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 51, 451495.
Gruenfeld, D., & Fan, E. T. (1999). What newcomers see and what old-timers say:
Discontinuities in knowledge exchange. In L. L. Thompson, J. M. Levine, &
D. M. Messick (Eds.), Shared cognition in organizations: The management of knowledge
(pp. 245266). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.
Hackman, J. R. (1998). Why teams dont work. In R. S. Tindale, L. Heath, J. Edwards,
E. J. Posavac, F. B. Bryant, Y. Suarez-Balcazar et al. (Eds.), Theory and research on small
groups (pp. 245267). New York: Plenum Press.
Hornsey, M. J., Grice, T., Jetten, J., Paulsen, N., & Callan, V. (2007). Group-directed criticisms
and recommendations for change: Why newcomers arouse more resistance than old-timers.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33, 10361048.
Jentsch, F., & Smith-Jentsch, K. A. (2001). Assertiveness and team performance: More than
Just say no. In E. Salas, C. A. Bowers, & E. Edens (Eds.), Improving teamwork in

Downloaded by [82.137.14.247] at 23:42 28 July 2015

60

HANSEN AND LEVINE

organizations: Applications of resource management training (pp. 7384). Mahwah, NJ:

Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.
Jung, D. I., & Sosik, J. J. (2003). Group potency and collective efficacy: Examining their
predictive validity, level of analysis, and effects of performance feedback on future group
performance. Group and Organization Management, 28, 366391.
Kane, A. A., Argote, L., & Levine, J. M. (2005). Knowledge transfer between groups via
personnel rotation: Effects of social identity and knowledge quality. Organizational Behavior
and Human Decision Processes, 96, 5671.
Kenny, D. A., Mannetti, L., Pierro, A., Livi, S., & Kashy, D. A. (2002). The statistical analysis
of data from small groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 126137.
Levine, J. M., & Choi, H-S. (2004). Impact of personnel turnover on team performance and
cognition. In E. Salas & S. M. Fiore (Eds.), Team cognition: Understanding the factors that
drive process and performance (pp. 153176). Washington, DC: American Psychological
Association.
Levine, J. M., & Choi, H-S. (in press). Newcomers as change agents: Minority influence in task
groups. In R. Martin & M. Hewstone (Eds.), Minority influence and innovation: Antecedents,
processes, and consequences. New York: Psychology Press.
Levine, J. M., Choi, H-S., & Moreland, R. L. (2003). Newcomer innovation in work teams. In
P. B. Paulus & B. A. Nijstad (Eds.), Group creativity: Innovation through collaboration
(pp. 202224). New York: Oxford University Press.
Levine, J. M., & Kaarbo, J. (2001). Minority influence in political decision-making groups. In
C. K. W. De Dreu & N. K. De Vries (Eds.), Group consensus and minority influence:
Implications for innovation (pp. 229257). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
Levine, J. M., & Moreland, R. L. (1999). Knowledge transmission in work groups: Helping
newcomers to succeed. In L. L. Thompson, J. M. Levine, & D. M. Messick (Eds.), Shared
cognition in organizations: The management of knowledge (pp. 267296). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.
Levine, J. M., & Moreland, R. L. (2004). Collaboration: The social context of theory
development. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8, 164172.
Levine, J. M., Moreland, R. L., & Choi, H-S. (2001). Group socialization and newcomer
innovation. In M. A. Hogg & R. S. Tindale (Eds.), Blackwell handbook of social psychology:
Group processes (pp. 86106). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
Levine, J. M., Moreland, R. L., & Hausmann, L. R. M. (2005). Managing group composition:
Inclusive and exclusive role transitions. In D. Abrams, M. A. Hogg, & J. Marques (Eds.),
The social psychology of inclusion and exclusion (pp. 139160). New York: Psychology Press.
Martin, R., & Hewstone, M. (Eds.). (in press). Minority influence and innovation: Antecedents,
processes, and consequences. New York: Psychology Press.
Milanovich, D. M., Driskell, J. E., Stout, R. J., & Salas, E. (1998). Status and cockpit dynamics:
A review and empirical study. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 2, 155167.
Milliken, F. J., Bartel, C. A., & Kurtzberg, T. R. (2003). Diversity and creativity in work
groups: A dynamic perspective on the affective and cognitive processes that link diversity
and performance. In P. B. Paulus & B. A. Nijstad (Eds.), Group creativity: Innovation
through collaboration (pp. 3262). New York: Oxford University Press.
Moscovici, S. (1976). Social influence and social change. London: Academic Press.
Moscovici, S. (1985). Social influence and conformity. In G. Lindzey & E. Aronson (Eds.), The
handbook of social psychology (3rd ed., Vol. 2, pp. 347412). New York: Random House.
Nemeth, C. J., & Nemeth-Brown, B. (2003). Better than individuals?: The potential benefits of
dissent and diversity for group creativity. In P. B. Paulus & B. A. Nijstad (Eds.), Group
creativity: Innovation through collaboration (pp. 6384). New York: Oxford University Press.
Nijstad, B. A., & Levine, J. M. (2007). Group creativity and the stages of creative group
problem solving. In M. Hewstone, H. A. W. Schut, J. B. F. de Wit, K. van den Bos, &

Downloaded by [82.137.14.247] at 23:42 28 July 2015

NEWCOMERS AS CHANGE AGENTS

61

M. S. Stroebe (Eds.), The scope of social psychology: Theory and applications (pp. 159172).
New York: Psychology Press.
Paulus, P. B., & Brown, V. R. (2007). Toward more creative and innovative group idea
generation: A cognitive-social-motivational perspective of brainstorming. Social and
Personality Psychology Compass, 1, 248265.
Paulus, P. B., & Nijstad, B. A. (Eds.). (2003). Group creativity: Innovation through collaboration.
New York: Oxford University Press.
Riggs, M. L., & Knight, P. A. (1994). The impact of perceived group successfailure on
motivational beliefs and attitudes: A causal model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79,
755766.
Steiner, I. D. (1972). Group process and productivity. New York: Academic Press.
Sundstrom, E. D. (1999). Supporting work team effectiveness: Best management practices for
fostering high performance. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Sutton, R. I., & Louis, M. R. (1987). How selecting and socializing newcomers influences
insiders. Human Resource Management, 26, 347361.
Thompson, L. L., & Choi, H-S. (Eds.). (2006). Creativity and innovation in organizational teams.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.
Turner, M. E. (Ed.). (2001). Groups at work: Theory and research. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates Inc.
Van Knippenberg, D., De Dreu, C. K. W., & Homan, A. C. (2004). Work group diversity and
group performance: An integrative model and research agenda. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 89, 10081022.
Wood, W., Lundgren, S., Ouellette, J. A., Busceme, S., & Blackstone, T. (1994). Processes of
minority influence: Influence effectiveness and source perception. Psychological Bulletin,
115, 323345.
Ziller, R. C., & Behringer, R. D. (1960). Assimilation of the knowledgeable newcomer under
conditions of group success or failure. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 60,
288291.