Transitions as a threat to personal control

Employment transitions, such as when people begin their first occupation after completing their education or military service, can act as an external threat to individuals’ experiences of personal control. For example, during their transition to civilian employment, military veterans have reported experiencing anxiety as a result of their civilian employers’ lack of a clearly defined onboarding process [4]. More generally, employment transitions require navigating opaque hiring processes (e.g., application review, interviews, assessment testing, hiring decisions) that candidates often have little control over. Likewise, once an individual finds a new place of employment, they frequently lack control over their work environment, job responsibilities, and expectations. When college graduates transition to the workforce, they may feel pressure to adapt their identities, responsibilities, relationships, lifestyles, and level of independence to their new employment status [5], setting an expectation of adversity for many graduates [6]. With major life transitions come a series of challenges, and transitioning into the workforce is a prime example [7].

When people have experiences that are stressful, chaotic, and unpredictable, such as may occur during employment transition, they engage in a variety of coping strategies. Research and theorizing on compensatory control has focused on how people strive to perceive the world as orderly, where all events follow clear cause and effect relationships, and how these perceptions may aid them in their ability to cope with an otherwise chaotic perception of the world [8]. Wanting to perceive the world as non-random and orderly is argued to be a fundamental human motive [9–12]. Compensatory control theory (CCT) [8,13] argues that this perception that the world is structured and orderly facilitates the development of feelings of personal control – defined as “an individual’s belief that [they] can personally predict, affect, and steer events in the present and future” [13], p. 264. CCT goes on to argue that when individuals perceive a lack of personal control, for example following an external threat to their control such as employment transition, they engage in psychological processes to reinforce their foundational perception that the world is orderly, rebuilding the foundation upon which personal control and individual goal pursuit may be developed.

In this paper, we explore the implications of this theorizing for the experience of employment transition, with a particular focus on those who are making the transition from the military to their first post-military work experience. We examine whether people respond to the potential lack of personal control they experience during an employment transition by drawing on their perceptions of the new workplace, and in particular, being attuned to and impacted by the amount of structure they perceive as a potential strategy to compensate for a relative lack of control they may be personally experiencing [8,14]. The experience of structure in initial employment varies widely for people as a function of where they work, how the workplace is constructed, and their perceptions of that structure. In this research, we seek to better understand the implications of this variation on the perceived success of individual employment transitions, as it may have implications for how best to structure environments to promote transitional success.

Military veterans as an exemplar group for research on transitions

Although it may be the case that sources of structure provided by an employer are impactful to all transitioning employees by potentially facilitating their goals, in this research we explore whether structured employment environments are particularly beneficial to those who have been socialized to expect a structured work environment (e.g., military veterans). The military is a “total institution,” that requires its members to fully embrace “the values, norms, and practices” of the military [15,16]. Through the total institution of the military, service members are exposed to a near continuous reminder that their world is regimented, structured, and hierarchical with specific expectations and norms regarding interpersonal conduct, discipline, and obedience [16–20]. Military service provides structure through daily routine and a clear hierarchy of command, including the clarifying and simplifying of tasks that generate a system of opportunities to excel and a regular pathway of advancement [17,21,22]. Becoming socialized to expect such order and structure from one’s environment may make military veterans particularly reliant on structure in their environment to facilitate the pursuit of their goals after being discharged, knowing that civilian organizations tend to be flexible and egalitarian [23], rarely providing similar structure to that provided by the military [24].

Fostering success among transitioning military veterans has long been a goal of both private industry and the government [25], and yet, there continues to be a wide range of challenges facing transitioning veterans [3]. According to the United States Department of Labor, 200,000 military veterans transition to civilian life every year [26]. United States (U.S.) military veterans report that beginning a civilian career can be challenging. In a sample of 2,044 veterans, 40% describe their transition to civilian employment as “difficult” or “very difficult” [27]. Likewise, research based on analyses of veteran and civilian LinkedIn users reveals that underemployment, defined as working an hourly wage job while having a bachelor’s degree or higher, is a significant and increasing issue for veterans [28]. Whereas in 2010 veteran underemployment was at roughly 11% and civilian underemployment was at about 12%, in 2019, civilian underemployment remained at about 12%, while veteran underemployment rose sharply to roughly 34% [28].

Military veterans beginning their civilian careers face numerous, complex challenges including transitioning from a military culture to a civilian culture [29], adapting to new social dynamics [3], and maintaining psychological health after potential trauma experiences [30,31]. Each of these factors represent significant challenges to veterans as they pursue their goals in their new, civilian employment. Adding to these challenges is the stark contrast between the extent of structure found within military service relative to civilian life. In contrast to military life, civilian life can be far less structured as a result of its variety and lack of routine. Upon discharge and a return to civilian culture, veterans’ environments are likely to become significantly less structured, exacerbating the loss of structure and control veterans face during transition and presenting difficulties adapting to their new reality [3]. Not only must veterans cope with a loss of personal control inherent to transitions themselves, but they must also adapt to a new environment with less structure, order, and predictability than that to which they had been accustomed. And while in aggregate it may be the case that military service is more structured than civilian life, the significant heterogeneity among service members’ military experiences as a function of their branch and era of service, service role, and if a veteran joined the reserves immediately after service, may make the structure in military service and civilian life more or less similar for individual veterans.

We propose that how military veterans subjectively construe the loss of environmental structure that may mark the start of their civilian lives is a key psychological driver of some of the occupational challenges they face when transitioning [32]. This loss of structure may make it challenging for veterans to shore up their foundational belief in an orderly and predictable world in such a way that enables them to pursue their goals [14]. In the present research we thus sought to explore the relationship between perceived structure in a new employment environment and key transition outcomes among military veterans and civilians (i.e., non-veterans).

Structure as control compensation

Our central premise is that because employment transitions represent periods of low personal control, transitioning employees may look for sources of structure within their new work environments as a means of building (or rebuilding) that sense of control. In the present work, we define workplace structure as any element of one’s employment that provides or imposes some degree of order or predictability, including elements such as corporate rules and expectations, work routines, and hierarchical leadership. Past research has shown that organizational structure can impact processes of information processing, decision making, and employee performance [33–37]. Sources of structure may help transitioning employees compensate for feelings of low personal control and maintain their perception that the world is orderly and predictable. Past research has shown that sources of organizational support, such as alternative scheduling and support from one’s supervisor and coworkers, is associated with greater perceived control [38], highlighting how systems within one’s employment environment may facilitate the development of personal control. By helping to satisfy one’s core motivation to perceive the world as orderly, non-random, and potentially controllable [39], perceiving greater structure in one’s new work environment may lead to a more successful employment transition. By contrast, if new employees transitioning from a different career subjectively construe their new work environment as lacking structure, predictability, and order, the transition may be particularly difficult.

Such responses would be consistent with compensatory control theory, which explains how and why, during periods of low personal control, individuals come to rely on control compensation strategies to help them strengthen their perceptions of an orderly and predictable world. For example, individuals in states of low personal control turn to external agents they see as benevolent as sources of control and structure in their life, such as God or the government [8,13,39,40], and this helps them to maintain a global perspective that the world is orderly and predictable, which can then enable effective goal pursuit. Indeed, simply being exposed to world events that are seen as highly structured (e.g., the earth’s orbit around the sun, the tides of the oceans, and variations in traffic congestion throughout the day) can lead to increased motivation and action towards one’s goals [41]. When one feels a lack of control, being reminded that the world follows a consistent pattern with clear cause and effect helps individuals to see that their efforts toward their goals are not in vain. This could help to rebuild their feelings of control and motivation to pursue their goals. In the employment context, then, we examine whether pursuing one’s goals in the workplace – to do well and to fit in at work - is facilitated when people see their employment as relatively structured, compared to relatively lacking in structure.

Occupational self-efficacy and belonging in the workplace

In the present work, we focus on two key outcomes that are relevant to pursuing employment related goals: occupational self-efficacy and sense of belonging in the workplace. We reason that if individuals struggle to perceive structure during potentially control-threatening career transitions, then it may be particularly challenging for them to effectively perform in their jobs and feel as though they belong in the workplace.

Occupational self-efficacy “refers to the competence that a person feels concerning the ability to successfully fulfill the tasks involved in [their] job” [42], p. 239. Occupational self-efficacy has been shown to promote both work performance and intrinsic motivation [43], as well as commitment to one’s organization and work engagement [44]. Prior research has demonstrated that providing external structure to individuals can improve their self-efficacy related to pursuing goals [45]. Individuals who perceived their work environment as having greater procedural justice and being more hierarchical reported a greater sense of self-efficacy in their work [45]. We theorize that transitioning to an organization that one perceives as more structured will be positively associated with occupational self-efficacy whereas transitioning to an organization that one perceives as less structured would lead people to feel less efficacy in the workplace. To the extent that people are able to draw upon their subjective construal of structure in their work environments (e.g., more clear hierarchy, fixed routines, clearer expectations), it will, we predict, facilitate their pursuit of occupational goals, including successfully executing in their work performance, thus exhibiting occupational self-efficacy.

We further reasoned that greater organizational structure could lead to a greater sense of belonging at that organization. One of the basic human motivations is the need to belong [46,47], and in organizational contexts, this may manifest itself as feelings of being a respected and esteemed member of the workforce and connected to one’s coworkers and the larger organization [48]. This feeling of belonging in the workplace might be augmented to the extent one believes oneself to be performing efficaciously at work. In employment settings, individuals are often initially evaluated by their ability to perform their job well, incentivizing the prioritization of being an efficacious and successful employee. Current employees may hesitate to socially connect with and may even punish an employee who performs poorly at their job [49]. Likewise, while poor job performance may elicit negative feelings from one’s manager and coworkers, contributing to a perceived lack of belonging, strong job performance can lead to more favorable views of employees by managers [50]. Moreover, inadequate job performance, by appearing to confirm negative stereotypes and triggering stereotype threat, has been shown to have detrimental impacts on underrepresented employee’s and students’ sense of belonging [51].

To sum up, we predict that a downstream consequence of increased organizational structure, because of its effects on occupational self-efficacy, will be increased feelings of workplace belonging.

Overview of studies

Across three studies, we test how perceived organizational structure during times of employment transition may impact, or be associated with, occupational self-efficacy and sense of belonging. Study 1, using a sample of military veterans and civilians (i.e., non-veteran former students with some level of formal education) who reflected on their transitions to their first jobs, tested whether greater perceived organizational structure was associated with increased occupational efficacy and belonging at work. We also examine, in a study reported in supplemental materials, whether heterogeneity in the veteran experience on branch and era of service, service role, and if a veteran joined the reserves immediately after service, moderates the impact of perceived structure on these outcomes. Study 2 (preregistered) tests the robustness and generalizability of the previous findings by examining the proposed relationship at veterans’ current employers, as opposed to previous employers, using narrower single item measure of our key variables. Studies 1 and 2 adopt a mediational approach to examine whether efficacy mediates the relationship between structure and belonging. Finally, Study 3 (preregistered) adopts an experimental methodology to examine whether manipulating perceived structure leads to changes in anticipated efficacy and belonging.

Overview of research samples, analytics, and methodology transparency

Tables 1 and 2 provide demographic information for all studies. Throughout the analyses reported in this paper, we will utilize control variables, notably age, gender, and race (see results sections for relevant descriptions of how these variables are coded). As indicated in Table 1, the veteran and civilian samples in both Studies 1 and 3 differ on these demographic characteristics. As such, in Study 1, these covariates will be used to help account for between group differences between veterans and civilians. For Study 3, due to its experimental designs, we will report findings from analyses without covariates included, and note any changes in results caused by the inclusion of covariates. Additionally, in Studies 1 and 2 (correlational), covariates will be used to help isolate effects of the psychological predictor on the outcomes above and beyond the impact of the individual differences (e.g., age, gender, race) captured by the covariates.

Download:

• PPT
  PowerPoint slide
• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Table 1. Personal demographics.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0317575.t001

Download:

• PPT
  PowerPoint slide
• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Table 2. Military demographics.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0317575.t002

We describe our sampling plan, all data exclusions (if any), all manipulations, and all measures in the reported studies in this article on the Open Science Framework (OSF; https://osf.io/fc627/). Data, analysis code, and research materials for all studies, along with supplemental materials, are available on OSF. Data were analyzed using R Statistical Software (v4.3.1) [54] and the package boot (v1.3.28.1) [55,56], DescTools (v0.99.49) [57], dplyr (v1.1.2) [58], ez (v4.4.0) [59], ggplot2 (v3.4.2) [60], lm.beta (v1.7.2) [61], psych (v2.3.6) [62], pwr (v1.3.0) [63], reshape2 (v1.4.4) [64], and reghelper (v1.1.1) [65]. Study designs, hypotheses, and analyses for Studies 2 and 3 were preregistered (preregistrations available on OSF).

Methods

All studies received Institutional Review Board approval from the Human Subjects Committee of the University of California, Santa Barbara. All studies obtained informed written consent from participants prior to data collection.

Results

Perceived structure predicts occupational self-efficacy.

We next examined whether participants’ sense of how structured the workplace was at their first place of employment after transitioning was associated with increased workplace efficacy, and whether that varied by veteran status. We conducted a hierarchical linear regression to examine whether veteran status moderated the association between perceived organizational structure and occupational self-efficacy. We entered veteran status (1 =  veterans and 0 =  civilians) and mean-centered perceived organizational structure as predictors at Step 1 and their interaction as an additional predictor at Step 2. Age, gender (0 =  male, 1 =  non-male), and race (0 =  European American/White, 1 =  non-European American/White) were also included as covariates in both steps. Race was coded dichotomously to control for whether the participant was in the modal racial category within the sample. Unless otherwise noted, the same covariates were included in all additional analyses across all studies. Occupational self-efficacy was entered as the outcome variable. From Step 1, there was a significant main effect of perceived organizational structure, β =  0.59, b =  0.56, SE =  0.05, t(242) =  11.60, p <  0.001, 95% CI for b =  [0.46, 0.65]. Participants who perceived greater structure at their first civilian organization reported feeling greater self-efficacy in their work. The main effect of veteran status was not significant, β =  -0.08, b =  -0.18, SE =  0.11, t(242) =  1.64, p =  0.10, 95% CI for b =  [-0.39, 0.03]. From Step 2, the main effect of perceived organizational structure was not qualified by a significant interaction between perceived organizational structure and veteran status, β =  -0.03, b =  -0.04, SE =  0.10, t(241) =  0.40, p =  0.69, 95% CI for b =  [-0.24, 0.16]. Perceived organizational structure was associated with greater workplace efficacy, and this relationship was equally strong for veterans and civilians, see Fig 1a.

Download:

• PPT
  PowerPoint slide
• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Fig 1. Perceived structure predicting efficacy (a) and belonging (b).

Perceived organizational structure predicting occupational self-efficacy (b_veterans =  0.57, b_civilians =  0.53) and sense of belonging (b_veterans =  0.87, b_civilians =  0.60).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0317575.g001

Occupational self-efficacy mediates perceived structure and sense of belonging relationship.

Finally, we tested a mediational model where perceived organizational structure predicted sense of belonging, mediated through occupational self-efficacy using ordinary least squared regression. We first regressed sense of belonging on perceived organizational structure (mean-centered). There was a significant main effect of perceived structure, β =  0.64, b =  0.78, SE =  0.06, t(243) =  13.01, p <  0.001, 95% CI for b =  [0.66, 0.90]. Second, we regressed occupational self-efficacy on perceived organizational structure (mean-centered). Once again there was a significant main effect of perceived structure, β =  0.59, b =  0.56, SE =  0.05, t(243) =  11.53, p <  0.001, 95% CI for b =  [0.46, 0.65]. Finally, we regressed sense of belonging on occupational self-efficacy. There was a significant main effect of self-efficacy, β =  0.62, b =  0.68, SE =  0.07, t(244) =  9.48, p <  0.001, 95% CI for b =  [0.54, 0.82]. A bootstrap confidence interval (based on 5,000 samples) for the standardized indirect effect, β =  0.31, SE =  0.08, did not include zero, 95% CI for β =  [0.16, 0.46], providing evidence consistent with the proposed mediation model. Perceived organizational structure was associated with sense of belonging partially as a result of its relationship with occupational self-efficacy. However, even after controlling for occupational self-efficacy, there remained a significant (though reduced) direct association between perceived organizational structure and belonging, β =  0.51, b =  0.63, SE =  0.07, t(242) =  8.60, p <  0.001, 95% CI for b =  [0.48, 0.77]. See Fig 2 for a visual depiction of the model. This mediational relationship was consistent for both veterans (β_{indirect effect} =  0.31, SE =  0.10, 95% CI for β =  [0.12, 0.50]) and civilians, β_{indirect effect} =  0.31, SE =  0.12, 95% CI for β =  [0.10, 0.59].

Download:

• PPT
  PowerPoint slide
• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Fig 2. The effect of structure on belonging, mediated through efficacy.

Path coefficients are standardized regression coefficients. The total effect relating perceived organizational structure to belonging is shown in parentheses. The model also included age, gender, and race as covariates. ***p <  0.001.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0317575.g002

This analysis provides support for the hypothesized mediational relationship between perceived structure, efficacy, and belonging. Occupational self-efficacy appears to partially mediate the relationship between perceived organizational structure and sense of belonging such that structure is associated with greater efficacy, which in turn predicts greater belonging. The relationship between organizational structure and occupational efficacy was consistent for veterans and civilians, and so there was no moderation of the mediation. Transitioning to an environment that provides greater structure will be associated with more positive psychological outcomes, specifically greater self-efficacy and, in turn, greater belonging.

Methods

Results

We tested the proposed mediational model where perceived organizational structure at veterans’ current employer predicted sense of belonging, mediated through occupational self-efficacy. Ordinary least squared regression was used. We first regressed sense of belonging on perceived organizational structure (mean-centered) controlling for age (0 =  over 50 years old, 1 =  under 50 years old), gender (0 =  male, 1 =  non-male), and race (0 =  White/Caucasian, 1 =  non- White/Caucasian). The racial categories used in Study 2 differ from Studies 1 & 3 because they were chosen by the organization that fielded the survey. There was a significant main effect of perceived structure, β =  0.37, b =  0.38, SE =  0.04, t(492) =  8.93, p <  0.001, 95% CI for b =  [0.29, 0.46]. Participants who perceived greater structure in their current employer reported a greater sense of belonging in their workplace. Second, we regressed occupational self-efficacy on perceived organizational structure (mean-centered; with the same covariates as in the previous analysis). There was a marginally significant main effect of perceived structure, β =  0.08, b =  0.04, SE =  0.02, t(492) =  1.84, p =  0.07, 95% CI for b =  [-0.003, 0.09]. Participants who perceived greater structure in their current employer reported feeling somewhat greater efficacy in their work. Finally, we regressed sense of belonging on occupational self-efficacy (with the same covariates as in the previous analyses). There was a significant main effect of self-efficacy, β =  0.29, b =  0.54, SE =  0.08, t(492) =  6.51, p <  0.001, 95% CI for b =  [0.38, 0.70].

A bootstrap confidence interval (based on 5,000 samples) for the standardized indirect effect, β =  0.02, SE =  0.01, did not include zero, 95% CI for β =  [0.001, 0.06], providing evidence consistent with the proposed mediation model. Perceived organizational structure is associated with sense of belonging partially as a result of its relationship with occupational self-efficacy. However, even after controlling for occupational self-efficacy, there remained a significant (though reduced) direct association between perceived organizational structure and belonging, β =  0.35, b =  0.35, SE =  0.04, t(491) =  8.72, p <  0.001, 95% CI for b =  [0.27, 0.43]. See Fig 3 for a visual depiction of the model.

Download:

• PPT
  PowerPoint slide
• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Fig 3. The effect of structure on belonging, mediated through efficacy.

Path coefficients are standardized regression coefficients. The total effect relating perceived organizational structure to belonging is shown in parentheses. The model also included age, gender, and race as covariates. ***p <  0.001, ^†0.05 <  p <  0.10.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0317575.g003

Predictions regarding the moderating role of personal need for structure were preregistered for Studies 2 and 3. These predictions are not investigated here as it is not the focus of the present manuscript. Additionally, there is a discrepancy between the sample size reported in Study 2’s preregistration and that reported in the present analyses. The sample size reported in the preregistration was incorrectly calculated as it included survey participants who were both military veterans and those actively serving in the military and/or reserves. The analyses reported here only used data from participants who were fully separated from the military.

Study 2 demonstrated positive associations between veterans’ perceived structure in their current civilian organization and sense of belonging as well as occupational efficacy. Study 2 additionally provides evidence consistent with the hypothesized mediational relationship, finding that perceived structure at veterans’ current organization is associated with greater occupational self-efficacy, which in turn promotes a greater sense of belonging. These results suggest that providing a structured work environment to veterans, who have been socialized to expect continued structure in their employment, past their initial transition to a civilian employer continues to be associated with certain beneficial outcomes. Likewise, if structure does not continue to be provided to veterans in their civilian work, this is associated with more detrimental outcomes (reduced belonging and efficacy). Of course, reverse causality, that those who are feeling more efficacy and belonging perceive greater structure in their workplaces cannot be accounted for with the correlational design. Thus, we sought to examine whether there is a causal relationship between perceived structure and these variables in Study 3.

Methods

Measures.

Consenting participants completed an online survey examining “factors that may influence how people view different job opportunities and experiences.” To keep the survey concrete and engaging, and to remind participants what organization they were evaluating, participants provided the initials of their current civilian employer. Likewise, civilian participants were asked to provide the initials of the school/university they most recently attended. These initials were used to personalize the wording of some items.

Following this, participants were given a series of writing prompts where they were asked to reflect on their previous experiences in the military or in the education system. Veterans responded to “Please describe your job in the military” and “Please describe your favorite memory of being in the military.” These questions were intended to remind veteran participants of their veteran status. Civilians responded to “Please describe your academic activities at [YY; Participant Provided School/University Initials]” and “Please describe your favorite memory of being at YY.”

Next, participants were randomly assigned to either a high or low structure condition. The manipulation created conditions where participants would believe they would have high (or low) efficacy in a new position. All participants imagined they were starting a new job at “Company GC,” a fictitious company. Participants then read a welcome email from their new manager, see Table 3.

Download:

• PPT
  PowerPoint slide
• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Table 3. Study 3 structure condition messages.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0317575.t003

Next, participants reported their anticipated sense of efficacy in the job using three-items adapted from the short form Occupational Self-Efficacy Scale [42]. The three items were: “I can handle whatever comes my way in this job at Company GC,” “I would be able to remain calm when facing difficulties in this job at Company GC because I can rely on my abilities,” and “I feel prepared for my occupational future at Company GC.” All items were measured on seven-point scales ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). The scores of the three items were averaged to generate a composite, M =  5.19, SD =  1.25, α =  0.87.

Then, participants reported their anticipated sense of belonging at the fictitious company using a three-items adapted from the Sense of Social and Academic Fit scale [66]. The three items were “I would feel like I belong at Company GC,” “I would fit in well at Company GC,” and “I would feel comfortable at Company GC.” All three items were measured on seven-point scales ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). The scores of the three items were averaged to generate a composite, M =  4.63, SD =  1.29, α =  0.93.

Finally, participants completed a single item manipulation check, “How much structure do you think there will be in your new job at Company GC?” measured on a seven-point scale ranging from 1 (none at all) to 7 (a great deal).

Results

Occupational self-efficacy mediates manipulated structure and sense of belonging relationship.

Finally, we tested an exploratory (i.e., not preregistered) mediational model where condition predicted sense of belonging, mediated through occupational self-efficacy using ordinary least squared regression. We first regressed sense of belonging on condition (0 =  Low Structure, 1 =  High Structure). There was a significant main effect of condition, β =  0.21, b =  0.55, SE =  0.13, t(398) =  4.38, p <  0.001, 95% CI for b =  [0.30, 0.80]. Second, we regressed occupational self-efficacy on condition. Once again there was a significant main effect of condition, β =  0.23, b =  0.57, SE =  0.12, t(398) =  4.67, p <  0.001, 95% CI for b =  [0.33, 0.81]. Finally, we regressed sense of belonging on occupational self-efficacy. There was a significant main effect of self-efficacy, β =  0.70, b =  0.72, SE =  0.04, t(398) =  19.48, p <  0.001, 95% CI for b =  [0.65, 0.79]. A bootstrap confidence interval (based on 5,000 samples) for the standardized indirect effect, β =  0.16, SE =  0.03, did not include zero, 95% CI for β =  [0.09, 0.22], providing evidence consistent with the proposed mediation model. Condition was associated with sense of belonging as a result of its relationship with occupational self-efficacy. After controlling for occupational self-efficacy, there remained no significant direct association between condition and belonging, β =  0.06, b =  0.15, SE =  0.09, t(397) =  1.59, p =  0.113, 95% CI for b =  [-0.04, 0.34]. See Fig 4 for a visual depiction of the model. This mediational relationship was consistent for both veterans (β_{indirect effect} =  0.10, SE =  0.04, 95% CI for β =  [0.01, 0.18]) and civilians, β_{indirect effect} =  0.24, SE =  0.05, 95% CI for β =  [0.13, 0.33].

Download:

• PPT
  PowerPoint slide
• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Fig 4. The effect of manipulated structure on anticipated belonging, mediated through efficacy.

Path coefficients are standardized regression coefficients. The total effect relating perceived organizational structure to belonging is shown in parentheses. ***p <  0.001, ^nsp >  0.10.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0317575.g004

Implications for compensatory control theory

The present studies contribute to compensatory control theory in three ways. First, belonging is a central motivating factor in people’s lives [46,47], and yet, it has not been considered in relation to models of compensatory control, which are built on the fundamental motive to perceive the world as orderly [9–12]. Building on prior theorizing that applies compensatory control theory [8] to the experience of the workplace [45], the research here provides evidence that variables that help people compensate for losses in personal control (perceived structure) are related (and in Study 3, causally) to belonging. Given the centrality of belonging to performance and well-being [66,68,69] this is an important theoretical development.

Second, CCT research has only recently begun to explore how one’s cultural environment shapes control compensation behavior [70]. For example, Ma et al. [71] investigated how tight vs loose cultural contexts shape control compensation processes. By focusing on veterans, who have experience in tight cultures (i.e., the military) [72], the present work expands understanding of how a structured environment may compensate for low control to influence important outcomes.

Finally, CCT research has broadly focused on the phenomena of low control while theorizing about the implications of specific real-world manifestations of low control. The compensatory control process has rarely been investigated in the context of a specific form of lost control [73]. The present research does this by focusing on life transitions, specifically the loss of control that may occur during employment transitions.

Evidence for differential effects among veterans and civilians

The present work treated military veterans as the primary group of interest. As previously discussed, we theorized that the total institution of the military socializes service members to expect a high degree of structure from their employment environment, due to the regimented, structured, and hierarchical nature of the military [16–20]. Recognizing that most civilian employers would be unable to match the level of structure provided by the military [24], implying a loss of environmental structure when service members transition to being civilian employed veterans, we hypothesized that veterans would particularly benefit from a highly structured civilian work environment, relative to their civilian counterparts who were not socialized to expect structure in their employment environment. While Study 1 provided some evidence that structure may be more strongly associated with sense of belonging at work among veterans compared to civilians, Study 3 failed to find causal evidence for structure differentially promoting veterans’ and civilians’ anticipated occupational self-efficacy and sense of belonging. Furthermore, in Study 3 veterans reported higher overall levels of anticipated efficacy and belonging compared to civilians.

Taken together, the present research provides evidence that structure appears to be beneficial for both veterans and civilians and does not provide strong evidence that structure is particularly beneficial in promoting employment outcomes among military veterans. However, there are some limitations of the present samples that may explain this lack of differential effects. Most importantly, most veterans sampled had been separated from the military for several years, and in many cases for over a decade (see Table 2). This considerable time away from the military may have led to a weakening of the socialization veterans experienced while they were serving. It’s possible that because of this lengthy separation and possible socialization weakening, veterans, despite their unique employment history, were influenced by employment structure similarly to non-military civilians. Sampling newly separated veterans, among whom a stronger benefit of a structured work environment would be predicted, and following them longitudinally to determine their (non-retrospective) work outcomes is an important avenue for future research.

Another possibility to consider in terms of the generally null findings between veterans and non-veterans is the appropriate comparison group. In the present studies, we focused (in Studies 1 and 3) on people who reflected on their transition from college to work settings as the comparison group. While it seems plausible that one of the biggest factors distinguishing the college transition from the military transition is the relative amount of structure in each environment, that assumption too would be better tested by contemporaneous assessments of perceived structure among the transitioning groups and longitudinal assessments. In addition, having multiple comparison groups (e.g., people retiring from a professional sports team) would enable stronger inferences.

Thus, the initial inference from the present research is that there are benefits on belonging through increased efficacy of perceiving one’s new work environment as being structured for both veteran and civilian employees. To the extent employers can help employees perceive greater structure in their work, possibly by leveraging actual organizational structure, this may promote improved employment outcomes among employees of varying backgrounds. Future research may provide stronger tests of whether this is particularly important for people transitioning from high structure environments, such as the military.

Open questions and future directions

In addition to the issues outlined above, there are several other applied and theoretical research questions and future directions we would like to highlight.

First, while these studies demonstrate the importance of general perceived structure in facilitating positive employment transition outcomes, they do not provide insight into the specific forms of structure that best facilitate these outcomes. The measure of structure used in the current studies combines multiple facets of organizational structure including hierarchy, role responsibilities/routine, and organization policies/rules [45,74]. Each of these specific forms of structure may contribute to the development of improved transition outcomes in disparate ways. For example, while specification of role responsibilities may be particularly beneficial for developing occupational self-efficacy, clarity surrounding organizational culture and policies may be more beneficial for the development of one’s sense of belonging. Likewise, recent theoretical work on CCT has suggested that depending on an individual’s cultural worldview, different compensatory responses to low control may be particularly beneficial [70]. As such, it may be the case that the specific form of organizational structure that is most beneficial during employment transitions may vary between populations (e.g., between veterans and civilians). Future research would benefit from investigating the nuanced influence of specific forms of organizational structure on employment outcomes.

Second, the present studies focused specifically on employees’ perception of structure at their past (Study 1), present (Study 2), and hypothetical (Study 3) organizations. It was found that manipulation of perceived structure was sufficient to influence anticipated occupational efficacy and belonging. While the present work focused on perceptions of structure, there is an important extant literature on how actual organizational structure can impact processes of information processing, decision making, and employee performance [33–37]. The findings of the present work raise the question of the relationship between actual and perceived structure. While in general, one would assume that changes in actual structure are reflected in changes in perceived structure, there may be variability among people and situations in the extent to which this is the case. One could imagine situations where changes in actual structure are clearly announced by an organization and result in changes in perceived structure – as well as situations when actual structural changes are more “behind the scenes.” We would suggest that to the extent changes in actual organizational structure are identified and perceived by employees, this may partially explain the mechanism by which actual employment structure influences employee outcomes, but this is an open and important question. As Brockner and Sherman [48] outline in their review of wise interventions in organizations, they can occur at both the structural level as well as at the level of individual construal of the situation. Researchers and practitioners seeking to apply the present work should consider how these two pathways-to-change influence transitioning employees.

Third, throughout each of the studies presented, a strong relationship between occupational self-efficacy and sense of belonging was observed. The present work suggests that interventions designed to strengthen organizational structure during employment transitions could be paired with interventions designed to secure feelings of belonging [66,68] and efficacy to mutually improve workplace efficacy and belonging. The integration of organizational interventions is an exciting area for future research [48].

Finally, while the samples used in the present studies provided unique research opportunities, they also present important limitations to generalizability and inference. Each sample provided a reasonably diverse sample of military veterans and across studies, questions addressed veterans’ past, present, and hypothetical future careers. Observing evidence of the theorized relationship between structure, efficacy, and belonging across each of these contexts among diverse samples provides convergent validity for the proposed model. However, while providing convergent evidence for the proposed hypotheses, heterogeneous effects among important subgroups were left unexplored outside of Supplemental Study 1 (which showed convergent results across branch and era of service, service role, and if a veteran joined the reserves immediately after service). Future research is needed to ensure the results observed in the present studies generalize appropriately to all groups of veterans, particularly recently discharged veterans as noted above. Additionally, our theoretical predictions focus on the employment transition window, and none of the studies presented included longitudinal data collection during employment transition. To understand the processes at play during employment transitions more acutely, robust longitudinal studies, measuring both perceived and actual employment structure as well as sampling both transitioning veterans and civilians, would enable greater generalizability and more precise theory testing. Longitudinal data from both veterans and civilians experiencing employment transition would allow for a better understanding of the challenges both groups face, what challenges are unique to each group, and how structure may play a role in facilitating transition outcomes over time.