LP762-L2 - Week 5

Communication Reports

ISSN: 0893-4215 (Print) 1745-1043 (Online) Journal homepage: www.tandfonline.com/journals/rcrs20

Assimilation, Organizational Support, and Impostor Syndrome as Predictors of GTAs’ Communicatively Restricted Organizational Stress (CROS)

Mir Md Fazla Rabby, Carrie Anne Platt & Cheng Zeng

To cite this article: Mir Md Fazla Rabby, Carrie Anne Platt & Cheng Zeng (2023) Assimilation, Organizational Support, and Impostor Syndrome as Predictors of GTAs’ Communicatively Restricted Organizational Stress (CROS), Communication Reports, 36:1, 15-29, DOI: 10.1080/08934215.2022.2083203

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/08934215.2022.2083203

Published online: 17 Jun 2022.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 675

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 1 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rcrs20

Assimilation, Organizational Support, and Impostor Syndrome as Predictors of GTAs’ Communicatively Restricted Organizational Stress (CROS) Mir Md Fazla Rabby, Carrie Anne Platt, & Cheng Zeng

This study extends research on Communicatively Restricted Organizational Stress (CROS) by documenting the impact of assimilation, organizational support, and impostor syndrome on CROS in a Graduate Teaching Assistant (GTA) student population. Through a survey of 102 GTAs from U.S. universities, we found that higher levels of assimilation and organizational support, along with lower levels of impostor syndrome, predicted lower CROS Prevalence. Lower CROS Prevalence then predicted lower CROS Distress. Fellow graduate student familiarity, acculturation, and recognition appeared to play a more significant role in CROS Prevalence than other dimensions of assimilation. Our findings support the implementation of targeted socialization efforts for addressing graduate student mental health; we conclude with several recommendations based on our data.

Keywords: Assimilation; communicatively restricted organizational stress (CROS); graduate teaching assistants (GTAs); impostor syndrome; organizational support

Correspondence to: Mir Md Fazla Rabby, Department of Communication, North Dakota State University, Minard 338, 1210 Albrecht Blvd, Fargo, ND 58102, USA. E-mail: [email protected] Mir Md Fazla Rabby (MA, University of Dhaka) is a master’s student in the Department of Communication at North Dakota State University. His research focuses on employee experiences such as organizational stress, support, and friendships in both remote and in-person work environments. Carrie Anne Platt (PhD, University of Southern California) is a Professor of Communication and an Associate Dean at North Dakota State University. Her research as associate dean focuses on understanding and improving the student learning experience. Cheng Zeng (PhD, University of Jyväskylä) is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Communication at North Dakota State University. He is interested in examining organizational behaviors, including organizational dissent, organizational assimilation, and workplace freedom of speech in different cultural settings.

Communication Reports Vol. 36, No. 1, 2023, pp. 15–29

ISSN 0893-4215 (print)/ISSN 1745-1043 (online) © 2022 Western States Communication Association DOI: 10.1080/08934215.2022.2083203

Graduate Teaching Assistants (GTAs) have distinct organizational roles that may result in unique experiences of work-related stress. We know that supportive environments and overt information seeking are essential components of GTA assimilation (Myers, 1998), especially as they navigate the stress of conflicting responsibilities associated with their student and instructor roles (Grady et al., 2014; Mazzola et al., 2011). However, GTAs may feel like they need to stay quiet about their work-related stress to maintain credibility (Parkman, 2016). The work- place context is also unique: GTAs are far more dependent on positive relation- ships with their advisor than those in other professions, as professors both control their graduation timeline and have an outsized impact on their success in the field (Keefer, 2015; Mazzola et al., 2011). Graduate students may also avoid discussing stress with peers for fear of being seen as someone who cannot succeed in graduate school (Grady et al., 2014). Boren and Veksler (2015) developed the concept of Communicatively Restricted Organizational Stress (CROS) to account for the stress that results from the feeling of being limited in one’s ability to communicate about work stressors. This concept can help us better understand factors that influence GTAs’ stress-related communication within higher education organizations.

Previous researchers have identified factors that influence work-related stress (e.g., Westman & Etzion, 2001), consequences of work-related stress (e.g., Carmack & Holm, 2013), and the impact of CROS on one’s ability to address other forms of stress (e.g., Veksler & Boren, 2017). Our study contributes to scholarship on work- related stress by documenting the impact of assimilation, organizational support, and impostor syndrome on CROS in a GTA student population. We also contribute to validating the CROS-14 scale by studying CROS within the unique organizational context of graduate programs. A better understanding of factors that impact CROS amongst graduate students can inform organizational efforts to address mental health concerns in graduate education (Evans et al., 2018).

Communicating about Work-Related Stress

Work-related stress comes in different forms, though all relate to “the process by which workplace psychological experiences and demands (stressors) produce both short-term (strains) and long-term changes in mental and physical health” (Ganster & Rosen, 2013, p. 1088). In developing their CROS construct, Boren and Veksler (2015) identified four sources of work-related stress: stressors related to job char- acteristics, organizational members’ behaviors, interpersonal relationships, and per- sonal/psychological variables. These factors may manifest as interpersonal conflict with colleagues, work overload, role conflict, role ambiguity, evaluations/recogni- tions, lack of control, or organizational constraints.

GTAs report experiencing many of these antecedents in their roles as both students and instructors (Mazzola et al., 2011). Graduate students also report stress from financial issues, social isolation, family problems, and meeting basic needs (Grady et al., 2014). Work-related stress negatively impacts both employees and

16 Rabby et al.

organizations. High levels of stress are linked to low levels of job satisfaction (Carmack & Holm, 2013; Johnson et al., 2005). Organizational stress is also inversely related to job performance (Arshadi & Damiri, 2013; Pflanz & Ogle, 2006). Job stress is an important predictor of employee withdrawal behaviors such as absenteeism and turnover intentions (Arshadi & Damiri, 2013; Mosadeghrad et al., 2011). Prolonged exposure to stress sources may result in burnout (Carmack & Holm, 2013; Ganster & Rosen, 2013; Stordeur et al., 2001), further reducing organizational commitment. For GTAs, these negative impacts may appear as decreased satisfaction with the graduate program and diminished performance as both instructors and students.

CROS may be particularly relevant for GTAs who experience work-related stress but worry that talking about it will diminish their credibility. Boren and Veksler (2015) developed the concept to account for an organization member’s “perceived inability to communicate about a particular stressor” (p. 34). CROS aggravates the effects of stress caused by that initial stressor and can frustrate one’s ability to resolve the initial stressor, seek perceived social support, cope with the stressor due to reduced social support, and translate perceived support into received support (Boren & Veksler, 2015). Veksler and Boren (2017) created a 14-item scale to measure CROS Prevalence and CROS Distress. Prevalence measures the amount of CROS experienced by participants (e.g., “Sometimes I feel like I want to talk about these stressful things, but I can’t”), while Distress measures the extent of emotional response to this restricted communication (e.g., “I feel frustrated when I cannot discuss these stressful things”). Boren and Veksler (2015) determined that 78% of people who experienced CROS found it distressful. Consequently, Veksler and Boren (2017) conceptualized CROS Distress as the result of CROS Prevalence.

Organizational Assimilation

Organizational assimilation is a multidimensional concept that explores the process of newcomers’ integration into an organization’s culture (Jablin, 2001). This process is dynamic, as it involves both establishing and maintaining organizational member- ship (Gailliard et al., 2010). Myers and Oetzel (2003) identified six dimensions of assimilation for their Organizational Assimilation Index: 1) supervisor familiarity, 2) acculturation, 3) recognition of employee contributions, 4) involvement in the organization, 5) job competency, and 6) role negotiation. Gailliard et al. (2010) added a seventh dimension: coworker familiarity. Past researchers have found that organization type influences levels of organizational assimilation (Davis & Myers, 2019; Zeng et al., 2018), suggesting that specific dimensions of assimilation may be more or less important in the unique organizational context of graduate programs.

Organizational assimilation may mitigate CROS by helping employees feel like they can talk about work-related stress with others in the organization. Higher levels of organizational assimilation correlate with higher levels of job satisfaction, job performance, motivation to work (Sollitto et al., 2016), organizational commitment, and organizational identification (Bauer et al., 2007; Gailliard et al., 2010; Goldman

COMMUNICATION REPORTS 17

& Myers, 2015; Myers & Oetzel, 2003; Sollitto et al., 2016), and lower levels of intention to leave (Bauer et al., 2007; Myers & Oetzel, 2003). With time-limited organizational membership, GTAs have less time to learn implicit organizational rules and communication cues, which may keep them from discussing negative work experiences. GTAs who experience lower levels of department assimilation may consequently experience higher levels of CROS. Therefore, we propose the following hypothesis:

H1: All dimensions of organizational assimilation will correlate negatively with CROS.

Although CROS Distress has been conceptualized as an outcome of CROS Prevalence, our hypothesis is configured to permit testing for different levels of association between the various dimensions of assimilation and the two dimen- sions of CROS.

Organizational Support

Increased organizational support may help GTAs feel like they can share their work- related stressors with others. Perceived organizational support is associated with increased affective attachment, employee commitment, job satisfaction, and job performance, along with decreased absenteeism and turnover (Cropanzano et al., 1997; Eisenberger et al., 1990, 1986; Farh et al., 2007; Pattie et al., 2006; Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002). Organizational support also predicts four work-related stress variables: job tension, somatic tension, general fatigue, and burnout (Cropanzano et al., 1997).

GTAs receive communicative support through mentor-protégé relationships and peer relationships (Myers, 1998). Perceived support from one’s supervisor mediates the impact of organizational support on employee performance (Rhoades & Eisen- berger, 2002; Shanock & Eisenberger, 2006), suggesting that advisors or course directors may play a substantial role in enhancing GTAs’ perceptions of organiza- tional support. Formal programs of peer mentoring may also help GTAs talk about work-related stressors. Previous researchers have found that formal mentoring positively influences graduate students’ overall socialization, which aids assimilation and reduces work-related stress (Allen et al., 1999).

In their initial validation of the CROS-14 scale, Veksler and Boren (2017) found that CROS Prevalence had a strong negative association with perceived organiza- tional support, perceived supervisor support, and perceived coworker support. Organizational support may therefore predict levels of CROS Prevalence in GTA populations.

Impostor Syndrome

Whereas organizational support may make it easier for GTAs to talk about work- related stress, impostor syndrome can make it more difficult. People with impostor

18 Rabby et al.

syndrome attribute their accomplishments to external factors, believing themselves unworthy of recognition or rewards (Parkman, 2016). People with high impostorism tend to lack confidence in their abilities, talk about themselves in more negative terms, and express less optimism about their future performance (Keefer, 2015; Leary et al., 2000). Research suggests that feeling like an impostor may limit some- one’s ability to fully reach their potential (Bravata et al., 2020), possibly because they express lower performance expectations (Leary et al., 2000).

Impostor syndrome has been linked to burnout, a significant form of work-related stress (Bravata et al., 2020; Jaremka et al., 2020). GTAs often report experiencing impostor syndrome and feeling unqualified for their position, along with a lack of belongingness in their program (Herrmann, 2016). As impostor syndrome is also characterized by a fear of being “found out” by colleagues and supervisors, we expect it would increase CROS Prevalence. Our second hypothesis combines organizational assimilation, organizational support, and impostor syndrome as predictors of CROS Prevalence:

H2: CROS Prevalence will be negatively predicted by organizational assimilation and organizational support and positively predicted by impostor syndrome.

Because Boren and Veksler (2015) conceptualized CROS Distress as the outcome of CROS Prevalence, we also include the relationship between Prevalence and Distress in our path model.

Method

Participants

A total of 102 graduate teaching assistants (GTAs) from U.S. universities completed the survey. We conducted a-priori power analysis using G-power 3 to determine the sample size needed to detect an effect size with α = 0.15 and power = 0.95 in a linear regression model (Faul et al., 2007). This analysis suggested a sample size of 119. The challenges of recruiting during the pandemic—when graduate students experienced a significant increase in workload, mental health concerns, and professional precarity (Zahneis & June, 2020)—impacted our sample size. After several rounds of recruit- ment, we deemed the current sample size acceptable for testing our hypotheses.

Participants were mostly female (n = 76, 74.5%), with male (n = 17, 16%) and non-binary (n = 9, 8.8%) participants making up the rest of the sample. Ages of participants ranged between 21 and 54 years (M = 28.22, SD = 63.5). Most partici- pants were White (n = 86, 76.79%), followed by Asian (n = 13, 11.61%), Hispanic, Latino or Spanish Origin (n = 8, 7.14%), American Indian or Alaska Native (n = 2, 1.79%), Black or African American (n = 2, 1.79%), and Middle Eastern or North African (n = 1, .89%). The aggregate number exceeds 102 because participants could check more than one choice to describe their ethnicity. Time in graduate school ranged from half a year to six years (M = 2.35, SD = 1.39).

COMMUNICATION REPORTS 19

Procedures

Our population consisted of GTAs from U.S. universities, recruited via convenience sampling. Following IRB approval, surveys were distributed between March 29, 2021 and April 21, 2021. Four channels were used: the graduate student listserv of a Midwestern University, the National Communication Association listserv, and two Facebook groups for communication researchers. Participants gave consent and completed the study through a Qualtrics survey.

Measures

Organizational Assimilation Index (OAI) Organizational assimilation was measured with the 24-item Organizational Assim- ilation Index (Gailliard et al., 2010), which we adapted to measure GTAs’ level of assimilation to their academic department. The scale represents seven dimensions: coworker familiarity (adapted to “fellow graduate student familiarity”), supervisor familiarity, acculturation, involvement, recognition, job competency, and role nego- tiation. It includes statements such as “I consider my [fellow graduate students] as friends,” “I understand the standards of [my department],” and “I have figured out efficient ways to do my work.” Responses were recorded on a seven-point Likert- type scale indicating level of agreement.

We conducted a confirmatory factor analysis using AMOS 26 to evaluate the remaining seven-dimensional measurement. Items with factor loadings lower than .6 were identified as problematic (Hinkin, 1998). After assessing the problematic items’ conceptual fit for the study context, we dropped three items from the final analysis. Low factor loadings were likely caused by conceptual inequivalence when adapting the scale for a different organizational setting (e.g., the item “I can do others’ jobs, if I am needed,” which had a factor loading of .46, may be less relevant to GTA competence as individual expertise varies in academic programs).

Following the removal of the three items identified through this process, the goodness-of-fit statistics for the model were: χ2 = 270.51, p < .01; df = 168; Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI) = .89; comparative fit index (CFI) = .92; root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) = .078; and standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) = .068, demonstrating a satisfactory fit (Hu & Bentler, 1999).

Organizational Support The perceived organizational support scale (Farh et al., 2007) was adapted for this survey; we replaced “my organization” with “my department” and “employees” with “graduate students.” The unidimensional measure had six items, such as “[My department] really cares about the well-being of [graduate students].” Responses were recorded on a 7-point Likert-type scale ranging from “strongly disagree” (1) to “strongly agree” (7). We performed a confirmatory factor analysis

20 Rabby et al.

on the scale. The goodness-of-fit statistics for the model were: χ2 = 12.53, p =.19; df = 9; TLI = .99; CFI = .99; RMSEA = .063; and SRMR = .025, demonstrating a satisfactory fit.

Impostor Syndrome Impostorism was measured by seven items used by Leary et al. (2000), including statements such as “I tend to feel like a phony.” Responses were solicited on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from “Not at all characteristic of me” (1) to “Extremely characteristic of me” (5). We conducted a confirmatory factor analysis. The goodness-of-fit statistics for the model were: χ2 = 21.51, p = .063; df = 13; TLI = .98; CFI = .99; RMSEA = .081; and SRMR = .021, demonstrating an acceptable fit.

CROS The CROS-14 measure has two dimensions (CROS Prevalence and CROS Distress) represented by 14 items. Participants responded to statements such as “I feel I am limited in my ability to talk about these stressful things” and “I find it stressful when I cannot discuss these stressful things with some people,” using a 7-point Likert-type scale to indicate their level of agreement.

Three items with low factor loadings and high cross-loadings were removed from the analysis. We dropped items from CROS Distress primarily due to cross-loading issues, which indicated that the participants considered these CROS Distress items as CROS Prevalence items when answering the survey. We were stringent with item inclusion because cross-loading is a more concerning issue with CROS, as its two dimensions have a unique, causal relationship, instead of a merely correlational relationship as in most other scales. The goodness-of-fit statistics for the revised model were: χ2 = 75.07, p < .001; df = 42; TLI = .94; CFI = .96; RMSEA = .089; and SRMR = .077, demonstrating an acceptable fit. With 11 items retained and satisfac- tory fit indices, we believe the revised version adequately assessed CROS in this unique organizational context.

Results

GTAs reported moderately high levels of CROS Prevalence (M = 4.20, SD = 1.43), CROS Distress (M = 5.03, SD = 1.23), and assimilation (M = 5.02, SD = .74). We found high levels of perceived organizational support (M = 4.54, SD = .94) and moderate levels of impostor syndrome, though impostorism showed considerable variation (M = 2.72, SD = 1.23).

In our first hypothesis, we predicted that all dimensions of organizational assim- ilation would correlate with CROS Prevalence and CROS Distress. We computed a canonical correlation to test this hypothesis, entering organizational assimilation as one set of variables and both CROS dimensions as the second set. This analysis resulted in one significant interpretable root Λ = .63, F = 3.44, p < .001: Rc = .58,

COMMUNICATION REPORTS 21

indicating a shared variance of 45%. Overall, CROS Prevalence had a negative, significant relationship with organizational assimilation, while CROS Distress did not. See Tables 1 and 2 for descriptive statistics and canonical loadings.

We constructed a path model to test our second hypothesis (see Figure 1). As CROS Distress results from CROS Prevalence (Veksler & Boren, 2017), the path model estimated the extent to which organizational assimilation, organizational support, and impostor syndrome are associated with CROS Prevalence and the extent to which CROS Prevalence is associated with CROS Distress. We treated organizational assim- ilation as a unidimensional measure to better understand how it related to CROS as a full measure. Consistent with H2, organizational assimilation (β = −.19, p < .05) and organizational support (β = −.30, p < .01) negatively predicted CROS Prevalence whereas impostor syndrome (β =.37, p < .001) positively predicted CROS Prevalence. In addition, CROS Prevalence positively predicted CROS Distress (β =.30, p < .01).1

Discussion

With this study, we aimed to understand how assimilation, organizational support, and impostor syndrome relate to GTAs’ experience of Communicatively Restricted Organizational Stress (CROS). Looking exclusively at the correspondence between assimilation and CROS from the canonical correlation results, we found that assim- ilation to one’s department was negatively correlated with CROS Prevalence but unrelated to CROS Distress. GTAs who feel less connected to their department may hesitate to speak up when they encounter problems. Unfortunately, this strategy undermines organizational members’ ability to voice their dissatisfaction (Morrison & Milliken, 2003), making their working life more stressful. The nonsignificant direct relationship between assimilation and CROS Distress suggests that other factors may be mediating their relationship. Our path model confirms this by demonstrating that assimilation influences CROS Distress through CROS Prevalence.

As both students and instructors, GTAs serve in unique organizational roles. Thus, it is natural that some dimensions of assimilation may figure more promi- nently for GTAs than other worker types. We found that peer familiarity, accultura- tion, and recognition were significant correlates of CROS Prevalence. Therefore, greater familiarity among fellow graduate students, integration into the culture of the academic department, and recognition of their contributions to the department are likely to reduce CROS for GTAs. This finding is consistent with previous research that finds peer relationships essential for GTA socialization (Myers, 1998).

We found that impostor syndrome and perceived organizational support also function as significant predictors of CROS Prevalence. In other words, GTAs are less likely to experience CROS when they receive high levels of departmental support and have lower levels of impostor syndrome. This finding supports previous research linking stress to impostor syndrome (Sverdlik et al., 2020) and limited organizational support (Allen et al., 1999). It also shows how impostor syndrome and

22 Rabby et al.

T ab

le 1

D

es cr

ip tiv

e St

at ist

ic s

an d

Ze ro

-O rd

er C

or re

la tio

ns

V ar

ia bl

e M

SD 1

2 3

4 5

6 7

8 9

10 11

1. G

ra du

at e

st ud

en t f

am ili

ar ity

5. 34

1. 32

- 2.

S up

er vi

so r

fa m

ili ar

ity 5.

04 1.

44 .2

5* -

3. A

cc ul

tu ra

tio n

5. 29

1. 15

.1 7

.3 7*

* -

4. R

ec og

ni tio

n 5.

7 1.

24 .1

1 .5

9* *

.3 1*

* -

5. I

nv ol

ve m

en t

4. 62

1. 29

.4 4*

* .3

3* *

.3 6*

* .4

4* *

- 6.

C om

pe te

nc y

4. 94

.9 8

.2 6*

* .0

2 .1

4 .3

1* *

.3 1*

* -

7. R

ol e

ne go

tia tio

n 4.

25 1.

45 .1

8 .1

4 −.

02 .1

0 .1

0 .4

2* *

- 8.

O rg

an iz

at io

na l a

ss im

ila tio

n 5.

02 .7

4 .5

9* *

.6 9*

* .5

5* *

.7 2*

* .7

2* *

.5 **

.4 5*

* -

9. C

RO S

Pr ev

al en

ce 4.

2 1.

43 −.

43 **

−. 19

−. 28

** −.

41 **

−. 41

** −.

16 .0

9 −.

39 **

- 10

. C RO

S D

ist re

ss 5.

03 1.

23 .0

3 −.

03 −.

14 .0

3 .0

3 .0

5 .2

1* .0

1 .4

1* *

- 11

. I m

po st

or s

yn dr

om e

2. 72

1. 23

.0 1

.1 0

.0 1

.1 7

−. 03

−. 25

* −.

12 −.

02 .3

4* *

.2 7*

* -

12 . O

rg an

iz at

io na

l s up

po rt

4. 54

.9 4

.2 4*

* .2

3* *

.5 7*

* .3

3* *

.6 1*

* .1

0 .0

1 .5

0* *

−. 36

** −.

12 −.

05

N ot

e. *

C or

re la

tio n

is sig

ni fic

an t a

t t he

.0 5

le ve

l ( 2-

ta ile

d) . *

* C

or re

la tio

n is

sig ni

fic an

t a t t

he .0

1 le

ve l (

2- ta

ile d)

. * **

C or

re la

tio n

is sig

ni fic

an t a

t t he

.0 01

le ve

l ( 2-

ta ile

d) .

COMMUNICATION REPORTS 23

organizational support influence GTAs’ workplace communication, which, in turn, influences their experience with work-related stress.

Theoretical and Practical Implications

Scholarship on work-related stress has sought to identify factors that contribute to and protect against the adverse effects of stress in the workplace. Our study has contributed to this conversation by identifying organizational assimilation and organizational support as two factors that predict lower levels of CROS in GTA populations. We have also added CROS to the documented negative effects of impostor syndrome amongst graduate students. In addition to identifying new correlates of CROS, we have further validated the CROS-14 scale by using it to study CROS within a unique organizational context.

Table 2 Canonical Loadings

Variables Canonical Loadings

Set 1 Graduate Student Familiarity .75 Supervisor Familiarity .27 Acculturation .45 Recognition .41 Involvement .81 Competency .30 Role Negotiation −.13 Set 2 CROS Prevalence −.95 CROS Distress −.07

Figure 1 Path model and regression coefficients.

*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

24 Rabby et al.

Insights from this study also have practical implications. Graduate student socialization has been recognized as essential for helping students cope with the many stressors of graduate school. Our research supports institutional efforts to address graduate student mental health issues by documenting how assimilation is associated with a greater willingness to discuss work-related stress. To aid assimilation, graduate program directors and advisors can make unspoken norms of academic life more explicit to graduate students. They can also model con- structive communication about work-related stress, as Grady et al. (2014) have recommended. Being responsive to students experiencing work-related stress can also help increase perceived organizational support. Research shows that formal and informal support mechanisms improve GTAs’ academic lives (Jackson, 2020). Talking about the prevalence of impostor syndrome may also help reduce impostorism amongst GTAs.

Limitations and Future Directions

Our study has helped us better understand CROS amongst GTAs, but we also want to acknowledge its limitations. We collected our data roughly one year after the coronavirus pandemic started in the United States. Documented increases in work- load and mental health issues may have both limited our sample size and influenced GTAs’ perceptions of the work environment. At the time of data collection, our participants were experiencing lower levels of in-person interaction, predominantly remote instruction, and COVID-induced stress (Zahneis & June, 2020), likely impacting both assimilation and organizational support. Future research can test the generalizability of our findings by looking at larger, more diverse samples of GTAs, or comparing our findings to the post-pandemic GTA experience.

We also recognize the limitations of our correlational analysis. It may be possible, for example, that differences in CROS drive GTAs’ level of assimilation rather than assimilation resulting in lower levels of CROS. GTAs may start programs with differing comfort levels with talking about work-related stress. Longitudinal surveys would help us identify how much GTAs' CROS may be due to preexisting individual traits and how much may be attributed to accrued experiences within one’s graduate program.

Finally, our confirmatory analyses also pointed to the limitations of using scales developed for more traditional organizations, which may not fully capture GTAs’ working life. In contrast to more traditional organizations, which are characterized by frequent employee turnovers, academic programs are more intentional about retaining GTAs due to their status as students. GTAs have different individuals supervising various facets of their work and different colleagues in different contexts, making it harder to ensure study participants use the same reference group. Instructional and organizational scholars can work together to construct more valid scales to account for the unique organizational role that GTAs play in higher

COMMUNICATION REPORTS 25

education, using the adaptations and CFA results from our research as a starting point.

Conclusion

With this study, we extended research on a newly conceptualized form of work-related stress—Communicatively Restricted Organizational Stress (CROS)—among graduate teaching assistants (GTAs). We found that higher levels of assimilation and organizational support, along with lower levels of impostor syndrome, predict lower CROS Prevalence in this population. We also added to scholarship on assimilation as a multidimensional construct by identifying specific dimensions of assimilation (i.e., fellow graduate student familiarity, acculturation, and recognition) that appear to play more significant roles in GTAs’ CROS Prevalence. Highly assimilated students with strong organizational support may experience fewer situations where they feel they cannot talk about work-related stress, but still find themselves distressed by those situations in which they do feel restricted. Research on mediating factors can help us better understand the relationship between assimilation and CROS, which will aid organizations in developing strategies that can address CROS Prevalence and CROS Distress.

Note

1. Although not tested as a hypothesis, CROS Prevalence was a significant mediator of the relationship between organizational support and organizational assimilation in this study. The bootstrap confidence interval for the indirect effect (ab = .04) was significant and entirely above zero (.01 to .11).

Disclosure Statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

References

Allen, T. D., McManus, S. E., & Russell, J. E. A. (1999). Newcomer socialization and stress: Formal peer relationships as a source of support. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 54(3), 453–470. https://doi.org/10.1006/jvbe.1998.1674

Arshadi, N., & Damiri, H. (2013). The relationship of job stress with turnover intention and job performance: Moderating role of OBSE. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 84, 706–710. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.06.631

Bauer, T. N., Bodner, T., Erdogan, B., Truxillo, D. M., & Tucker, J. S. (2007). Newcomer adjustment during organizational socialization: A meta-analytic review of antecedents, out- comes, and methods. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(3), 707–721. https://doi.org/10.1037/ 0021-9010.92.3.707

Boren, J. P., & Veksler, A. E. (2015). Communicatively restricted organizational stress (CROS) I: Conceptualization and overview. Management Communication Quarterly, 29(1), 28–55. https://doi.org/10.1177/0893318914558744

26 Rabby et al.

Bravata, D. M., Watts, S. A., Keefer, A. L., Madhusudhan, D. K., Taylor, K. T., Clark, D. M., Nelson, R. S., Cokley, K. O., & Hagg, H. K. (2020). Prevalence, predictors, and treatment of impostor syndrome: A systematic review. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 35(4), 1252–1275. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-019-05364-1

Carmack, H. J., & Holm, T. T. (2013). Stress, burnout, job satisfaction, and intent to leave among collegiate forensic educators. National Forensic Journal, 31(1), 41–59 http://www.national- forensicjournal.org/uploads/9/1/9/3/91938460/vol31no1.pdf.

Cropanzano, R., Howes, J. C., Grandey, A. A., & Toth, P. (1997). The relationship of organizational politics and support to work behaviors, attitudes, and stress. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 18(2), 159–180. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-1379(199703)18:2<159::AID- JOB795>3.0.CO;2-D

Davis, C. W., & Myers, K. K. (2019). Past work experience and organizational assimilation in nonprofit organizations. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 29(4), 569–588. https://doi. org/10.1002/nml.21348

Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchison, S., & Sowa, D. (1986). Perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(3), 500–507. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021- 9010.71.3.500

Eisenberger, R., Fasolo, P., & Davis-LaMastro, V. (1990). Perceived organizational support and employee diligence, commitment, and innovation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75(1), 51–59. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.75.1.51

Evans, T. M., Bira, L., Gastelum, J. B., Weiss, L. T., & Vanderford, N. L. (2018). Evidence for a mental health crisis in graduate education. Nature Biotechnology, 36(3), 282–284. https:// doi.org/10.1038/nbt.4089

Farh, J.-L., Hackett, R. D., & Liang, J. (2007). Individual-level cultural values as moderators of perceived organizational support–employee outcome relationships in China: Comparing the effects of power distance and traditionality. Academy of Management Journal, 50(3), 715–729. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2007.25530866

Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A.-G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39(2), 175–191. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193146

Gailliard, B. M., Myers, K. K., & Seibold, D. R. (2010). Organizational assimilation: A multidimensional reconceptualization and measure. Management Communication Quar- terly, 24(4), 552–578. https://doi.org/10.1177/0893318910374933

Ganster, D. C., & Rosen, C. C. (2013). Work stress and employee health: A multidisciplinary review. Journal of Management, 39(5), 1085–1122. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0149206313475815

Goldman, Z. W., & Myers, S. A. (2015). The relationship between organizational assimilation and employees’ upward, lateral, and displaced dissent. Communication Reports, 28(1), 24–35. https://doi.org/10.1080/08934215.2014.902488

Grady, R. K., La Touche, R., Oslawski-Lopez, J., Powers, A., & Simacek, K. (2014). Betwixt and between: The social position and stress experiences of graduate students. Teaching Sociology, 42(1), 5–16. https://doi.org/10.1177/0092055X13502182

Herrmann, R. (2016, November 17). Impostor syndrome is definitely a thing. The Chronicle of Higher Education. https://www.chronicle.com/article/impostor-syndrome-is-definitely-a- thing/ Comment.

Hinkin, T. R. (1998). A brief tutorial on the development of measures for use in survey questionnaires. Organizational Research Methods, 1(1), 104–121. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 109442819800100106

Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118

COMMUNICATION REPORTS 27

Jablin, F. M. (2001). Organizational entry, assimilation, and disengagement/exit. In F. M. Jablin & L. Putnam (Eds.), The new handbook of organizational communication: Advances in theory, research, and methods (pp. 732–818). Sage Publications.

Jackson, J. (2020). Experiences and perspectives of graduate teaching assistants at a large urban university [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Georgia State University. https://scholar- works.gsu.edu/eps_diss/225

Jaremka, L. M., Ackerman, J. M., Gawronski, B., Rule, N. O., Sweeny, K., Tropp, L. R., Metz, M. A., Molina, L., Ryan, W. S., & Vick, S. B. (2020). Common academic experiences no one talks about: Repeated rejection, impostor syndrome, and burnout. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 15(3), 519–543. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691619898848

Johnson, S., Cooper, C., Cartwright, S., Donald, I., Taylor, P., & Millet, C. (2005). The experience of work-related stress across occupations. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 20(2), 178–187. https://doi.org/10.1108/02683940510579803

Keefer, J. M. (2015). Experiencing doctoral liminality as a conceptual threshold and how super- visors can use it. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 52(1), 17–28. https:// doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2014.981839

Leary, M. R., Patton, K. M., Orlando, A. E., & Wagoner Funk, W. (2000). The impostor phenomenon: Self-perceptions, reflected appraisals, and interpersonal strategies. Journal of Personality, 68(4), 725–756. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6494.00114

Mazzola, J. J., Walker, E. J., Shockley, K. M., & Spector, P. E. (2011). Examining stress in graduate assistants: Combining qualitative and quantitative survey methods. Journal of Mixed Meth- ods Research, 5(3), 198–211. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689811402086

Morrison, E. W., & Milliken, F. J. (2003). Speaking up, remaining silent: The dynamics of voice and silence in organizations. Journal of Management Studies, 40(6), 1353–1358. https://doi.org/ 10.1111/1467-6486.00383

Mosadeghrad, A. M., Ferlie, E., & Rosenberg, D. (2011). A study of relationship between job stress, quality of working life and turnover intention among hospital employees. Health Services Management Research, 24(4), 170–181. https://doi.org/10.1258/hsmr.2011.011009

Myers, S. A. (1998). GTAs as organizational newcomers: The association between supportive communication relationships and information seeking. Western Journal of Communication, 60(1), 54–73. https://doi.org/10.1080/10570319809374597

Myers, K. K., & Oetzel, J. G. (2003). Exploring the dimensions of organizational assimilation: Creating and validating a measure. Communication Quarterly, 51(4), 438–457. https://doi. org/10.1080/01463370309370166

Parkman, A. (2016). The imposter phenomenon in higher education: Incidence and impact. Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice, 16(1), 51–60. http://www.nationalforen- sicjournal.org/uploads/9/1/9/3/91938460/vol31no1.pdf.

Pattie, M., Benson, G. S., & Baruch, Y. (2006). Tuition reimbursement, perceived organizational support, and turnover intention among graduate business school students. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 17(4), 423–442. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrdq.1184

Pflanz, S. E., & Ogle, A. D. (2006). Job stress, depression, work performance, and perceptions of supervisors in military personnel. Military Medicine, 171(9), 861–865. https://doi.org/ 10.7205/MILMED.171.9.861

Rhoades, L., & Eisenberger, R. (2002). Perceived organizational support: A review of the literature. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(4), 698–714. https://doi.org/10.1037/12318-003

Shanock, L. R., & Eisenberger, R. (2006). When supervisors feel supported: Relationships with subordinates’ perceived supervisor support, perceived organizational support, and perfor- mance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(3), 689–695. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021- 9010.91.3.689

28 Rabby et al.

Sollitto, M., Martin, M. M., Dusic, S., Gibbons, K. E., & Wagenhouser, A. (2016). Assessing the supervisor-subordinate relationship involving part-time employees. International Journal of Business Communication, 53(1), 74–96. https://doi.org/10.1177/2329488414525462

Stordeur, S., D’Hoore, W., & Vandenberghe, C. (2001). Leadership, organizational stress, and emotional exhaustion among hospital nursing staff. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 35(4), 533–542. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2648.2001.01885.x

Sverdlik, A., Hall, N. C., & McAlpine, L. (2020). Ph.D. imposter syndrome: Exploring antecedents, consequences, and implications for doctoral well-being. International Journal of Doctoral Studies, 15, 737–758. https://doi.org/10.28945/4670

Veksler, A. E., & Boren, J. P. (2017). Communicatively restricted organizational stress (CROS) II: Development and validation of the CROS-14. Communication Methods and Measures, 11(2), 137–149. https://doi.org/10.1080/19312458.2017.1299120

Westman, M., & Etzion, D. (2001). The impact of vacation and job stress on burnout and absenteeism. Psychology & Health, 16(5), 595–606. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 08870440108405529

Zahneis, M., & June, A. W. (2020). . The Chronicle of Higher Education. The Chronicle of Higher Education Inc. https://www.chronicle.com/article/how-has-the-pandemic-affected-graduate- students-this-study-has-answers.

Zeng, C., Croucher, S. M., Kelly, S., & Chen, H. (2018). An exploration of organizational assimilation among state-owned, private-owned, and foreign-invested enterprises in China. Communication Research Reports, 35(1), 58–67. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 08824096.2017.1366304

COMMUNICATION REPORTS 29