Onboarding: a key to employee retention and workplace well-being

The term onboarding emerged at the beginning of the 21st century in the practitioner literature, while scholars preferred to carry on using the concept of organizational socialization (Didion et al. 2024). Organizational socialization is usually defined as “the process by which an individual acquires the social knowledge and skills necessary to assume an organizational role” (Van Maanen and Schein 1977). More recently, both these concepts have been used interchangeably in the practitioner as well as the scholarly literature (Didion et al. 2024). However, some scholars (e.g., Wanberg 2012; Frögéli et al. 2023) advised against using the two concepts as synonyms, considering that organizational socialization is a broader concept involving more than organizational practices to facilitate newcomers adjustment to their new roles. Organizational socialization requires newcomers to learn and adapt to the demands of a new role. For this study, we use the term onboarding for the reason that we mainly focus on the practices initiated by the organizations and its members (managers and coworkers) to help newcomers transition from being outsiders to insiders, following the definition of onboarding of Bauer and Erdogan (2011).

While in many cases onboarding practices are limited to a formal session when HR staff transmit relevant information, such as the company’s mission and ethics code, Cesário and Chambel (2019) consider that these formal sessions are insufficient and that a broader range of practices is necessary to effectively welcome and integrate newcomers. The authors propose a three-component perspective of onboarding, including not only a structured corporate welcome, but also managers’ welcome and coworkers’ welcome. There is a general agreement in the literature that reducing the uncertainty, anxiety, and stress of newcomers is a major concern of organizations when developing and implementing onboarding programmes (Jones 1986; Bauer et al. 2007; Saks et al. 2007; Ellis et al. 2015; Saks and Gruman 2018). These programmes are also referred to as ‘socialization tactics’ (Jones 1986; Ashforth and Saks 1996; Allen and Shanock 2013; Peltokorpi et al. 2022), or ‘induction practices’ (Antonacopoulou and Güttel 2010; Reeves et al. 2022).

The meta-analytical studies of Bauer et al. (2007) and Saks et al. (2007) support the theory that uncertainty reduction is a fundamental explanation for the effects of onboarding on attitudes such as job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and turnover intention. However, several authors have noted that onboarding and socialization should not be limited to reducing uncertainty for newcomers (Klein and Heuser 2008; Saks and Gruman 2012, 2018; Cranmer et al. 2017; Gupta et al. 2018). As noted by Saks and Gruman (2012, 2018), uncertainty reduction theory focuses on reducing the job demands (e.g., role ambiguity) that newcomers face, but places little to no emphasis on providing newcomers with the necessary job resources for adjusting to their new environment. For example, informal learning provided by interactions with coworkers may develop expertise and other job resources (Zia et al. 2024).

Saks and Gruman (2012) developed the Socialization of Resources Theory (SRT), which focuses on providing newcomers with resources throughout onboarding programmes. These authors identify 17 socialization resources (e.g., supervisor support, feedback, and recognition) that should be provided to newcomers at four specific time periods, namely: prior to entry, immediately after entry, following orientation, and at the end of the formal onboarding/socialization period. According to SRT, receiving these resources at the correct time facilitates proximal and distal outcomes of onboarding. Proximal outcomes refer to indicators that directly reflect employees’ adjustment to their work environment (e.g., knowledge of the organizational culture and social integration), that is to say, indicators that demonstrate that the socialization of employees was successful. Distal outcomes are secondary indicators of adjustment that take the form of overall attitudes and behaviours towards the organization (e.g., organizational commitment and turnover intention) and they may result from proximal outcomes and from other organizational experiences that are not related to onboarding.

For the purpose of this study, we draw on SRT to analyse the mechanisms linking onboarding to the distal outcome of turnover intention. Based on previous research (Cranmer et al. 2017; Narayansany and Isa 2021), we will consider two mediators– organizational identification and employee well-being. Previous research has shown a significant connection between organizational identification and both these two variables of onboarding (Smith et al. 2017; Narayansany and Isa 2021) and turnover intention (Akgunduz and Bardakoglu 2017; Dechawatanapaisal 2018; Nowak 2021), as well as between employee well-being and both the above-mentioned variables of onboarding (Gruman and Saks 2013; Cai et al. 2021) and turnover intention (Gordon et al. 2019; Nae and Choi 2022).

The following section presents a literature review of studies relating onboarding to turnover sections. Subsequently, we present a review of studies underlying the mediating role of organizational identification and employee well-being in the relationship between onboarding and turnover intention.

As mentioned above, onboarding may be defined as the organizational welcome and integration process through which new employees transition from being outsiders to insiders (Bauer and Erdogan 2011). This process usually pursues two main objectives: (1) providing newcomers with the information, tools, and materials necessary to be productive in their new roles (Snell 2006; Bauer and Erdogan 2011; Idrees et al. 2023); and (2) facilitating newcomers’ adaptation to the organizational culture and relevant aspects of the social environment (Fagerholm et al. 2014; Hall-Ellis 2014; Cesário and Chambel 2019).

Previous research has shown that onboarding programmes are associated with the development of positive job attitudes such as job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and job embeddedness (Bowen and Blackmon 2003; Bauer et al. 2007; Pratiwi et al. 2018). These practices also facilitate a faster learning curve for new employees (Davila 2018), while reducing the time it takes for them to feel comfortable in their new roles (Gourova and Gourova 2017), with subsequent positive consequences for job performance (Bauer et al. 2007) and organizational productivity (Snell 2006). Implementing effective onboarding processes is also crucial for the successful adoption of new technologies and achieving environmental goals (Schwaeke et al. 2025).

Considering that onboarding programmes may result in a higher level of satisfaction with the work experience, several authors have argued that these programmes also play a relevant role in reducing turnover intention (Bauer and Erdogan 2011; Krasman 2015; Pratiwi et al. 2018; Krugiełka et al. 2023). In fact, empirical studies conducted in specific industries such as the Information Technology (Sharma and Stol 2020; Narayansany and Isa 2021) and Health (Kurnat-Thoma et al. 2017) sectors, as well as those on multiple industries (Ashforth and Saks 1996; Gupta et al. 2018; Peltokorpi et al. 2022), have all provided evidence that onboarding programmes may contribute to reducing turnover intention. On the contrary, feeling less supported through the career development process, leads to higher levels of turnover intention (Köchling et al. 2024). Based on these studies, we propose:

An online survey, located on the Qualtrics platform, was shared on social networks (LinkedIn, Instagram and WhatsApp) from the 22nd May to the 12th June, 2023. The initial participants were former and current Masters’ degree students from a Business School in Lisbon, who were likely to have experienced onboarding processes within the last years (at the end of their studies). These participants were asked to forward the link to the survey to other members of their organization. When clicking on this link, participants accessed the initial page of the questionnaire, containing the informed consent and guaranteeing the confidentiality and anonymity of the answers. A total of 114 complete responses were collected, where the majority of respondents being female (57.1%). The average age is 37.3 years old. The sample revealed high levels of literacy, as 72.8% of respondents are graduates/postgraduates. The average tenure is 2.7 years. The vast majority of respondents works in the private sector (85.1%). Finally, most respondents work in small/medium-sized companies (78.1%). The inclusion of demographic and organizational variables was deemed relevant, since the literature indicates that onboarding practices may vary according to the organization’s size and sector, and may also be viewed differently by individuals from different generations or from different levels of education (Stein and Christiansen 2010). Additionally, the correlates of turnover also include organizational variables such as sizes and sector, and demographic variables such as gender, age, and seniority (Griffeth and Hom 2001; Wang et al. 2012; Nguyen et al. 2020).

To measure onboarding we use the 13-item scale developed by Cesário and Chambel (2019) with three components: Corporate Welcome with 4 items (e.g., I was provided with information about its history, mission, corporate values, etc., thereby facilitating my integration); Managers’ Welcome with 4 items (e.g., My supervisor provided adequate support to facilitate my integration), and Coworkers’ Welcome with 5 items (e.g., My colleagues were always spontaneously available to clarify my doubts).

Employee well-being is measured with the 18-item Employee Well-being scale developed by Zheng et al. (2015b), which includes three dimensions with 6 items each: Life well-being (e.g., I feel satisfied with my life), Workplace well-being (e.g., I am satisfied with my work responsibilities) and, Psychological well-being (e.g., I feel I have grown as a person).

To measure turnover intention we use the 3-item scale from the Michigan Organizational Assessment Questionnaire of Cammann et al. (1979) (e.g., I often think about quitting).

Organizational Identification is measured with the 6-item scale developed by Mael and Ashforth (1992) (e.g., When someone criticizes my company, it feels like a personal insult).

All items of the questionnaire were rated on a 5-point Likert scale.

Items that presented poor reliability (LWB_6 and PWB_6) were excluded from the analyses. Thus, all final items have loadings above the threshold (0.7) suggested by Hair et al. (2017a). We also tested the possibility of common method bias, since it may affect the study validity. We used the full collinearity assessment approach of Kock (2015) to test if all the variance inflation factor values (VIF) were lower than the 5.0 threshold. Since three items (TI_2: CWW_3 and CWW_5) had variance inflation factor values (VIF) higher than the 5.0 threshold, we excluded them in order to make sure that the model is free from common method bias. Table 1 shows the final items to be used for each construct, as well as their means, standard deviations, and loadings.

For all latent variables, composite reliabilities were above the acceptable internal consistency level of 0.7 (Hair et al. 2017a), thus indicating that all scales have reliability (Table 2).

As Table 2 shows, the average variance extracted (AVE) of each latent variable exceeds the threshold of 0.5, indicating that the constructs are unidimensional (Fornell and Larcker 1981). To complement the analysis of convergent validity, bootstrap t-statistics of the indicators’ standardized loadings were calculated (Anderson and Gerbing 1988). These statistics were all significant (p < 0.001), suggesting that the measurement model has a high convergent validity. Additionally, discriminant validity was checked using the Heterotrait-Monotrait (HTMT) Ratio (Henseler et al. 2015). Since the upper bound of the 95% confidence interval of HTMT is lower than the threshold of 0.9, we can conclude that the model is free of discriminant validity problems (Hair et al. 2019b) (Table 3).

To test the research hypotheses we proceed with the analysis of the structural model (Henseler et al. 2009) by assessing the significance of the path coefficients. Figure 2 depicts the final structural model, after having deleted all the path coefficients that were non-significant. For the analysis of path coefficients, we also calculated the bias-corrected confidence intervals, in accordance with the recommendations of (Hair et al. 2017b).

Table 4 shows the significant direct effects in the model (t value > 1.96; p < 0.05) and the effect sizes (f²). According to Cohen (1988), the values of f² are 0.02 for weak effects, 0.15 for moderate, and 0.35 for strong.

Results evidence that onboarding has a positive effect on employees’ well-being, as proposed. Corporate Welcome appears to be the dimension with the most broad effects, since it has a positive direct effect on all the three dimensions of employee well-being, namely Psychological Well-being (β = 0.383, p < 0.01), Life Well-being (β = 0.390, p < 0.01), and Workplace Well-being (β = 0.541, p < 0.01), which fully validates H5a. These direct effects are moderate, weak, and strong, respectively (Cohen 1988). Managers’ Welcome has a positive weak effect on Life Well-being (β = 0.292; p < 0.05), partially validating H5b. Coworkers’ Welcome has a positive moderate effect on both Psychological Well-being (β = 0.407; p < 0.01) and Workplace Well-being (β = 0.325; p < 0.01), partially validating H5c.

Two dimensions of onboarding– Corporate Welcome and Managers’ Welcome– also have a positive direct effect on Organization Identification. Corporate Welcome has a moderate effect (β = 0.456; p < 0.01), which validates H2a and Managers’ Welcome has a weak effect (β = 0.318; p < 0.01), validating H2b.

Managers’ Welcome is the only dimension of onboarding that has a negative direct effect on turnover intention (β = -0.199; p < 0.05), albeit weak, which validates H1b. Finally, there is also evidence of a negative strong effect of Workplace Well-being on Turnover Intention (β = -0.658; p < 0.01), partially validating H6.

Table 5 shows the significant indirect effects found, which are mediating effects created when a variable intervenes between two other variables ((Hair et al. 2017b).

Workplace Well-being fully mediates the relationship between the two dimensions of onboarding– Corporate Welcome and Coworkers’ Welcome– and Turnover Intention (β = -0.356; p < 0.01; β = -0.214; p < 0.01), which partially validates H7. Although only Managers’ Welcome directly affects employees’ Turnover Intention, the two other dimensions of onboarding also contribute to promoting retention, as they positively impact employees’ well-being, which is crucial for their desire to stay with the organization.

We also analysed the coefficient of determination (R²) of the endogenous constructs to evaluate the explanatory power of the model (Sarstedt et al. 2014). The model explains 41.3% of variance for Life Well-being, 51.0% for Psychological Well-being, 62.0% for Workplace Well-being, 53.3% for Organizational Identification, and, 65.9% for Turnover Intention (Table 6). Stone-Geiser’s Q² was used to evaluate the predictive relevance of the model. As Q² > 0 for all the endogenous constructs (Table 6), we assume that the model has predictive relevance (Hair et al. 2017a).

We conducted multigroup analyses to evaluate the effects of demographic variables on the relationships found. Only two groups were considered for each variable: female and male for gender; ≤ 35 years and > 35 years for age; and ≤ 3 years and > 3 years for seniority. The other demographic variables (having a degree, company sector, and company size) did not fulfil the minimum sample size criteria for multigroup analysis, and thus they could not be calculated.

The results show that significant differences exist for gender in the relationship between Managers’ Welcome and Turnover Intention and between Workplace Well-being and Turnover Intention. The effect of Managers’ Welcome on Turnover Intention is stronger for male (β_female = -0.051, p < 0.05; β_male = -0.471, p < 0.05), evidencing that men value the participation of managers in the onboarding process more. By contrast, the effect of Workplace Well-being on Turnover Intention is stronger for women (β_female = -0.762, p < 0.05; β_male = -0.443, p < 0.05), providing evidence that for women’s retention in organizations, the organizations should provide a work environment that provides a positive, meaningful, and fulfilling experience.

The results show that all the onboarding dimensions– structured corporate welcome, managers’ welcome, and coworkers’ welcome– play a relevant role in reducing turnover intention, either directly or indirectly. While previous studies on onboarding mainly focused on corporate welcome, this study highlights the relevance of other key onboarding actors– managers and coworkers– on employee retention.

In addition, this study analyses the mechanisms by which onboarding influences turnover intention, which to date has been an under-researched topic (Kammeyer-Mueller and Wanberg 2003; Allen 2006; Narayansany and Isa 2021). The results identify workplace well-being as being a possible link between onboarding and turnover intention, since it mediates between two dimensions of onboarding– corporate welcome and coworkers’ welcome– and turnover intention.

Besides the mediating role of well-being, the study also explores the mediating role of organizational identification through Hypotheses 2, 3, and 4: Hypothesis 2 predicts that the three dimensions of onboarding are positively associated with organizational identification; Hypothesis 3 predicts that organizational identification is negatively associated with turnover intention, and Hypothesis 4 predicts that organizational identification plays a mediating role between the three onboarding dimensions and turnover intention. In effect, the results showed that only managers’ welcome and corporate welcome are positively associated with organizational identification, which partially confirms Hypothesis 2. Therefore, both managers and the organization appear to be viewed as providing tangible and intangible resources that facilitate newcomers’ adaptation, leading to organizational identification (Wang et al. 2015). Contrary to previous studies (Abrams et al. 1998; Van Dick et al. 2004; Riketta 2005; Riketta and Van Dick 2005; De Moura et al. 2009; Marique and Stinglhamber 2011; Ngo et al. 2013; Akgunduz and Bardakoglu 2017; Dechawatanapaisal 2018; Nowak 2021), this study found that organizational identification is not negatively associated with turnover intention, and thus Hypothesis 3 and Hypothesis 4 are not confirmed. One possible explanation for this is that organizational identification may not be a strong predictor of turnover intention on its own, but rather other factors may also play an important role in determining whether an employee decides to leave an organization, or not. Since the relationship between organizational identification and turnover intention may differ depending on the individual’s hierarchical level within the organization (Cole and Bruch 2006), we suggest that future studies should consider including hierarchical level as a control variable.

Additionally, the results from the multigroup analyses indicate that managers’ welcome plays a significant role in reducing male turnover intention. On the other hand, workplace well-being appears to be more relevant for women. This means that male employees are more likely to stay in their job if they feel welcomed by their managers, while female employees are more likely to stay if they feel that their workplace is conducive to their well-being. This is an interesting finding and one that highlights the importance of gender-specific strategies for employee retention.

Overall, the proposed model explains 65.4% of turnover intention variance and thus the study provides evidence for the ongoing discussion on the joint and differentiated effects of different types of onboarding activities for employee well-being and retention (Snell 2006; Bauer and Erdogan 2011; Gupta et al. 2018; Cesário and Chambel 2019; Narayansany and Isa 2021).

Considering the call for further research on the mechanisms by which onboarding influences turnover intention (Kammeyer-Mueller and Wanberg 2003; Allen 2006; Narayansany and Isa 2021), we propose and test a conceptual model with two mediating variables– employees well-being and organizational identification. The results from this study evidence that only well-being plays a mediating role in the relationship between onboarding and turnover intention.

In order to contribute to a more detailed understanding of the process linking onboarding and turnover intention, this study analyses the joint and the differentiated effects of different types of onboarding activities, namely structured corporate welcome, managers’ welcome, and coworkers’ welcome. While managers’ welcome has a negative direct effect on turnover intention, corporate and coworkers’ welcome have an indirect effect, which is mediated by workplace wellbeing.

The results indicate that in order to retain employees, organizations should combine the three types of activities when designing onboarding programmes (Corporate Welcome, Managers’ Welcome, and Coworkers’ Welcome). Human resource managers should work together with line managers and newcomers’ coworkers to promote onboarding practices that enhance employees’ well-being (Sani et al. 2023). In addition, to better support this process, new financial incentives that recognize and reward desired helping behaviours should be implemented.

Furthermore, both Corporate Welcome and Managers’ Welcome play an important role in promoting organizational identification, which is crucial for individuals to feel connected to their organization and to consider it to be a part of their identity (Mael and Ashforth 1992). In addition, coworkers should also be involved in the onboarding process, since they are able to provide relevant resources for newcomers, such as social support, and thus facilitate their adaptation to the organization’s culture (Krugiełka et al. 2023). These measures promote a healthy workforce, generate positive feelings towards work, and increase employee well-being, which in turn leads to higher productivity and lower turnover intention (Harter et al. 2003).

Considering that the effect of Managers’ Welcome on Turnover Intention is stronger for males and that the effect of Workplace Well-being on Turnover Intention is stronger for females, Human Resource managers should pay attention to the different needs of male and female employees when designing retention policies. By doing so, they can create a more inclusive and supportive work environment that benefits all employees.

The first limitation of the study is the use of a convenience sample that does not permit the generalization of the results. Another limitation is that the sample size was insufficient to enable a more detailed analysis of the role played by some of the demographic variables included in the study (e.g., multi-group analysis).

Another limitation arises from the fact that being a cross sectional study, it thus fails to establish a cause-and-effect relationship or to analyse behaviour over a period of time (Hunziker and Blankenagel 2021). Given that it may take some time for the new employee to internalize the attributes of the organization as being their own (Ashforth and Saks 1996; Akgunduz and Bardakoglu 2017), it would be relevant to conduct a longitudinal study to verify whether there is a change over time in the strength of the relationship between onboarding and organizational identification (Narayansany and Isa 2021).

The use of self-report scales constitutes another limitation, since the answers given by respondents may have suffered from various biases that might affect the results (Podsakoff et al. 2003). We thus suggest that future studies should consider using objective measures (e.g., effective turnover rates).

We also suggest that future studies on the topic consider including psychological contract as a possible mediator variable. Perceptions of psychological contract breaches frequently occur in the early stages of employment due to unmet expectations (DeBode et al. 2017). This is particularly relevant considering that. psychological contract breaches are positively related to turnover intention (Heath et al. 2024). On the other hand, recent research shows that the effects of perceptions of psychological contract breach may be mitigated by the social context (Sun et al. 2024). Thus, analysing whether onboarding programmes have an effect on mitigating these perceptions may be an interesting avenue of research.

This study presents an important direction for future research, as it can help organizations to develop more effective strategies for retaining their employees. By understanding the factors that contribute to turnover intention, managers can take proactive steps to address these issues and create a more supportive work environment. This, in turn, can lead to increased employee wellbeing, and retention.