WIXLIB

Holmberg & Larsson (2020) also produced a case study of onboarding during the pandemic. Theyinterviewed six newly onboarded personnel at a Swedish IT department at a Swedish governmentalorganization. From the semi-structured interviews, they conclude that most issues with remoteonboarding are related to establishing the wanted work culture and the connection with theorganization and their new colleagues.The practice of “Shadowing”, following a more senior colleague, and thereby get to learn theworkplace basics, the unwritten code of conducts, company culture, social interplay will be different.These skills are vital for success, but impossible to learn in any education, and therefore need to bediscovered and assimilated. The use of technology to make information available to the new hirescould be positive, but Bauer (2010) suggests that employees taking part in computer-basedorientation gains less understanding of the job compared to hires that receive the same informationface-to-face.In this study we will focus on how the Swedish engineering companies have adapted to the newsituation. How they onboard when limited physical contact is possible, and if they expect these newtools they develop to remain after the pandemic is over. We expect our contribution to be a widerexamination of the Swedish Covid-19 response regarding onboarding compared to previous studieson the subject, and to give some new insights into what adjustments that has proven to reduce thetime to productivity in a remote work setting. We also hope to gain insight into how beginning acareer in a completely remote setting has affected the performance of the onboarding of newlygraduated engineers that are taking their first steps of their career in this pandemic setting.1.2. Problem formulation and purposeThe study is divided into two main parts. The present situation, and an outlook on the post pandemicera.The study investigates how Swedish engineering companies have adapted their onboarding processof newly graduated engineers to the conditions of the Covid-19 pandemic. How the virtualonboarding methods and tools for onboarding have been adapted, with the aim of finding the bestpractices and potential pitfalls. This may contribute to the area of knowledge and hopefully increasethe chances of a successful onboarding of the latest generation of higher educates.As mentioned during the problem discussion above, the subject of onboarding has been extensivelyresearched for over 20 years, but this new situation with the Covid-19 pandemic created anunprecedented opportunity to see how remote working during a pandemic will affect theonboarding process. Rodeghero et al (2020) have done this, but only focused on a single US softwarecompany. The same case is true for Holmberg & Larsson (2020). Both also put most of the emphasison the experience of the onboarded. With this study we want to broaden the view to include a widerselection of Swedish engineering companies. We will also change the focus to the companiesthemselves, the adaptations they have made to adjust to the pandemic and how they evaluate theresults of those efforts.2

To do this, it first must be investigated how the onboarding processes have changed during thepandemic and how it has affected the outcomes. For this, three research questions (RQ) have beenformulated:With RQ1 the aim is to set a foundation to understand how the companies examined in the studyresponded to the pandemic. Did they continue as before, or did they convert their onboardingprocess into a virtual one with the new hires receiving their onboarding from home?xRQ1: To what extent has Swedish engineering companies switched to virtual onboardingduring the Covid-19 pandemic?To attempt do judge if the (assumed) switch to a more virtual/digital onboarding process haveaffected the result, the concept “time to productivity” is used to measure if the onboarding time hasbeen affected by the change. This is reflected in RQ2.xRQ2: Has switching to virtual onboarding affected the time to productivity?To follow up to RQ2 and examine which parameters in the onboarding program of the companiesincluded in the study, RQ3 was formulated.xRQ3: What aspects of the onboarding process have most effect on time to productivity?The study will also investigate the foresights and perceptions of the engineering companies whendigitalization is not forced from a virus infection control perspective and how that will affectonboarding and introduction.xRQ4: What aspects of the onboarding process are expected to have most effect on time toproductivity when both the traditional and virtual methods are available in a post Covid-19environment?1.3. DelimitationsThe purpose of the study is to investigate the challenges of onboarding newly graduated engineers(Bachelor or Master’s degree) in their first job within their new profession, hired into businesses thatdue to Covid-19 have transformed onboarding from traditional workplace (mainly office) based tovirtual, where the new employee is not able to physically meet their coworkers or managers. It willfocus on those who have started their first employment after their (university) studies and wereonboarded for the first time during the pandemic. By limiting the study to the newly graduatedengineers, it can be focused to view the angle of “learning how to work”. This through virtualonboarding - not simply starting a new job and getting the introduction via different computer-basedtools. Below we list the criteria of the desired object(s) of study:xxxNewly graduated BSc or MSc in engineering or individuals who have received the entireeducation but started working without finishing the degree.Started their first employment within their new profession after finished studies, during theCovid-19 Pandemic.Employed within the engineering field in Sweden.3

1.4. Thesis structureChapter 2 will present the literature review of job introduction/onboarding, the Covid-19 pandemic,working from home and the relevant theoretical framework.Chapter 3 will present the selected research methodology and methods to collect the primary data.Chapter 4 will present empirical data.Chapter 5 will present the analysis.Chapter 6 will present the conclusion, recommendations and theoretical contributions. It will alsopropose future research recommendation.4

2.Literature review & theoretical frameworkIn this chapter, the theoretic work that form the foundation of this study is presented as well as thetheoretical framework used.The process of onboarding has been extensively researched for more than 30 years. Although thereis some consensus regarding some concepts, and widely different views on what is important andwhat has effect on the effectiveness of the onboarding. Also, how should the effect be measured?On top of the already complicated subject, there is the disruptive effect of the Corona virus Covid-19.Since the subject of onboarding in Covid-19 context is still young, little academic work has beenpublished regarding the effects on onboarding yet.2.1. What is onboardingBauer (2010, p. 1) defines onboarding as ”the process of helping new hires adjust to social andperformance aspects of their new jobs quickly and smoothly”.There are several definitions of onboarding in our reviewed literature. They differ somewhat fromeach other. Besides about mentioned quote from Bauer, there is also:--Onboarding is the “formal and informal practices, programs, and policies enacted or engagedin by an organization or its agents to facilitate newcomer adjustment” (Klein & Polin, 2012, p.268)“Onboarding is a process of introducing new hires into the new job, acquainting them withthe organization’s goals, values, rules, responsibilities, procedures, and socializing the newemployee into organizational culture.” (Chillakuri, 2020, p. 3)This variance also displays how varied the approach to onboarding is from the companies’ point ofview. It also varies in formality and can be either formal, informal or both (Bauer, Erdogan, Truxillo, &Tucker, 2007) (Klein & Polin, 2012) (Elset, 2018). There are also differences regarding whether or notauthors view socialization to be a part of the onboarding. Bauer and Erdrogan (2011) consider themsynonymous, Klein, Polin and Suttin, however, think they are two processes to be consideredseparate (Klein & Polin, 2012). Laurano (2013) suggest that onboarding and socialization are twomeans to an end, but different aspects of the process. The conclusion of Pavlina (2020, p. 8) is that“socialization process applies to anyone in the organization, whereas onboarding specifically appliesto new hires”.It is difficult to measure the specific effect of an onboarding program on a new hire (Laurano, 2013),but the overall consensus of previous research is that it has a positive effect on the long term successof new hires (Bauer, Erdogan, Truxillo, & Tucker, 2007). According to Aberdeen group (2006), aneffective onboarding process may improve retention rate by 52% and reduce time to productivity byas much as 60%. In 2012, Boston Consulting Group (2012) performed a global survey, investigatedand compared what HR practices that differ in capability between high performing companies andtheir low-performing competitors. The second most important HR practice was “onboarding of newhires and retention”. High capability in onboarding contributed to increased revenue growth and5

profit margins. The Aberdeen Group reports that in 2016, only about 32% of American companiesutilizes a formal boarding program for new hires (Aberdeen Group, 2016). The practice of onboardingis becoming more common, and workers are undergoing onboarding more in their careers (Bauer,Erdogan, Truxillo, & Tucker, 2007).Laurano (2013) and the Aberdeen Group (2016) examined onboarding strategies in 2013 andidentified key drivers for onboarding:Percentage of respondents, n 230Key drivers for onboarding80%70%60%68%67%50%40%51%49%Better employeeretentionBetter assimilation of newhires30%20%10%0%Getting new employeesproductive more quicklyBetter employeeengagementSource: Aberdeen Group, 2013Figure 1: Key drivers for onboardingStudies show that the quality of the onboarding will affect the above-mentioned drivers as well asothers (Bauer & Erdrogan, 2011) (Klein & Polin, 2012).Bauer (2010) states how onboarding may be looked at using four levels, the Four C’s. These arenamed Compliance, Clarification, Culture and Connection (Bauer T. N., 2010). These are alsodescribed as the building blocks of successful onboarding. Bauer claims that the degree to which anorganization is able to succeed within these areas determines the level of overall onboarding.Table 1: The Four C's (Bauer, 2010)Compliance“Basic legal and policy-related rules and regulations.”Clarification“Ensuring that employees understand their new jobs and all related expectations.”Culture”Providing employees with a sense of organizational norms—both formal andinformal.”Connection”Interpersonal relationships and information networks that newemployees must establish.”6

Bauer (2010) states that all organizations can be put into one of three categories depending on thesuccess rate of the four C’s: Passive, high potential, or proactive onboarding. Passive mostly coverscompliance and some clarification; high potential improves by adding some culture- and connectionbuilding. Proactive companies cover all areas extensively.Table 2: Levels of onboarding (Bauer, 2010)Onboardingstrategy levelPassiveHigh potentialProactiveCompliance Clarification CultureYesYesYesSomeYesYesConnectionLittle/none Little/noneSomeSomeYesYesRodeghero et al (2020) points out in their report, the importance of having an onboarding processthat can be adapted to the level of experience of the newly recruited, as there will likely be differentneeds from a newly graduated compared with an industry veteran.2.2. Covid-19 contextCovid-19 is a respiratory virus that created a worldwide pandemic (World Health Organization, 2020).To prevent further spread, many businesses in Sweden chose to close down offices and have theirwhite-collar staff work from home. Statistics Sweden (SCB) reported, in November 2020, that onethird of Swedish workers were working from home at least some day every week (StatistiskaCentralbyrån, 2020). During the period May 2020 to October 2020 the number of workers workingfrom home more than 50% of their work week varied between 13,7 and 21,8% with an average of16,6% (Statistiska Centralbyrån, 2020). Brynjolfsson et al (2020) estimates that nearly half of theAmerican workforce worked remotely at some time during the Covid-19 pandemic. Many businessesstill hired new employees during the period, and therefore had to perform their onboarding virtually(Andersson, 2020). During the autumn 2020, there was an increasing number of registrations of newcompanies in Sweden (Visma Sverige, 2020).2.3. Working from homeDue to the progression of globalization, teams of workers are commonly spread across the world andcommunicate virtually to coordinate their work (Ahuja & Carley, 1999). The reasons for companies toencourage remote work may be several: lower cost for offices, higher profits, improved customerservice, market access and better work-life balance for the employees (Cascio, 2000). This has alsoimpacted how new hires are onboarded (Elset, 2018) (Gruman & Saks, 2018). Ahuja and Galvin(2003) found that working from home (WFH) can limit the number of people workers interact with,which can decrease collaboration or limit perspective.Working from home requires a more active type of leadership. Cascio (2000) found that leadersneeded to change their mindset from time and activity orientation to a more project and resultfocused orientation. Cascio (2000) also found that communication skills, both formal and informal,needed to be improved to succeed in the virtual workplace.7

Diab-Bahman & Al-Enzi (2020) describes in their study that the majority of their participants havefound that working from home has contributed overall positively to their productivity and found iteasier to concentrate on their tasks compared to working in the office. Their participants expect theirorganizations to return to a hybrid work model after the pandemic, working partly from home andpartly from office. Diab-Bahman & Al-Enzi concludes that most work tasks can be performed in ahybrid environment today and with some changes all should be able to be done. They also concludethat the work-life balance has improved with more flexible work hours and less time spentcommuting to the office.As mentioned during the introduction, Rodeghero et al (2020) found that communication washampered by the work from home regime. They also found that the onboarded struggled to ask forhelp, build connections with their team and bond with teammates. They produce a list ofrecommendations to mitigate the issues caused by WFH (see Table 3).Table 3: Recommendations for Remote Onboarding (Rodeghero et al (2020))Recommendations for Remote Onboarding-Promote communication & asking for helpEncourage teams to turn cameras onSchedule 1:1 meetingsProvide information about the organizationEmphasize team buildingAssign an onboarding buddyAssign an onboarding technical mentorSupport multiple onboarding speedsAssign a simple first taskProvide up-to-date documentationAs also mentioned in the previous chapter, Holmberg & Larsson (2020) did a case study within aSwedish IT department on a governmental agency. They found that the rapid transfer to remotework brought some complications and may have hampered the results of the onboarding. They havealso produced some recommendations (see Table 4).Table 4: Recommendations for Remote Onboarding (Holmberg & Larsson (2020))Recommendations for Remote Onboarding-Increasing social interactions by creating opportunities for interaction withcolleagues outside of the smaller work group or teamEncourage the use of the web cameraEnsure that documentation is available and easy to find when neededMore focus on pre-boarding to let the new hire prepare themselves regarding theirrole and expectationsIncrease practical (remote) teaching. Let the new hire follow how a moreexperienced employee perform tasks through for example screen sharing8

Goodermote (2020) studied the remote o

specific onboarding processes or activities that are of extra significance during and after the pandemic to ensure an effective onboarding process. Results: In total, 74 responses for the survey were collected. The study finds that working from home and the use of digital tools and ways of working for onboarding have increased significantly during