What about the family? Onboarding athletes’ entourage into professional sport organizations

Abstract Effective onboarding practices benefit both the incoming members and the organization as a whole. However, to date, existing onboarding literature has focused exclusively on the incoming members, with little attention to those in their social network, such as family members (e.g., partners, parents/guardians). The purpose of this study was to explore onboarding practices within a professional sport context (i.e., National Basketball Association), with a specific emphasis on understanding the experiences of family members involved in the transition process with an athlete. A qualitative approach was undertaken, involving semi-structured interviews with people who facilitated or had undergone onboarding: organizational representatives (n = 11), athletes (n = 5), and family members (n = 6). Findings demonstrated the importance of resource and information sharing, valuing family members, and developing social capital for successful onboarding, and identified several considerations (e.g., timing, acquisition type) and barriers (e.g., member turnover, status hierarchy). Ultimately, although organizations acknowledged the importance of purposefully onboarding family members, none prioritized the task or had a systematic process in place. These findings reinforce the importance of considering significant others when onboarding professional athletes and provide suggestions for future research directions and practical advancements within the elite sport context. Lay summary: Family members, such as partners and parents/guardians, play an important role in assisting professional athletes through career transitions. While family members experience similar stressors during transition periods, they are often not considered in the onboarding process. Results highlight that family members require purposeful onboarding from sporting organizations to be successfully integrated into a new environment. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE The current findings emphasize the importance of being purposeful and prioritizing family members during the onboarding process of professional athletes. For successful onboarding to occur, organizations should know who will be onboarded and subsequently, provide tailored resources to ensure they feel informed and valued. It is integral that systematic and formal mentoring efforts (e.g., forming a mentoring network) are put in place to foster a sense of connection amongst family members within an organization.


IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE
The current findings emphasize the importance of being purposeful and prioritizing family members during the onboarding process of professional athletes. For successful onboarding to occur, organizations should know who will be onboarded and subsequently, provide tailored resources to ensure they feel informed and valued.
It is integral that systematic and formal mentoring efforts (e.g., forming a mentoring network) are put in place to foster a sense of connection amongst family members within an organization.
Arriving to an organization or team can be a challenging endeavor, as transitions are demanding on both interpersonal and task-oriented levels (Ellis et al., 2015). In sport teams and organizations, incoming members must navigate a new setting and quickly familiarize themselves with the normative and role-related expectations imposed on them (Benson et al., 2016). The integration of new members into an organization is termed onboarding-defined as the "formal and informal practices, programs, and policies enacted or engaged in by an organization or its agents to facilitate newcomer adjustment" (Klein & Polin, 2012, p. 268). When done purposefully and systematically, effective onboarding results in numerous benefits for both incoming members and the organization (Allen et al., 2017;Bauer et al., 2007). As such, extensive research has been dedicated to understanding the onboarding process, with ample practical recommendations put forth in both organizational and sport contexts (e.g., Bauer et al., 2007;Benson & Eys, 2017;Caldwell & Peters, 2018). In the current study, we broaden the theoretical scope of the literature and advance practical recommendations by considering how those closest to athletes during a transitional period, such as family members (e.g., partners, parents/guardians), are involved in, and influenced by, the onboarding process.
Onboarding occurs during a turbulent time where newcomers need to learn how to assimilate themselves into a group and transition from being an "outsider" to an "insider." Van Maanen and Schein (1979) introduced organizational socialization theory as a framework for understanding how organizations retain a degree of control over this transition process and can profoundly shape how newcomers come to view an organization and their role within it. Indeed, meta-analytic evidence highlights that an institutionalized approach to socializing newcomers-which entails collective learning experiences, formalizing expectations and priorities, knowledge sharing between incumbent members and newcomers, having clear and predictable timelines and pathways for progression, and welcoming members for who they are as individuals-tends to facilitate newcomer adjustment in terms of role clarity, social acceptance, self-efficacy, and satisfaction (Bauer et al., 2007). As Klein and Heuser (2008) noted, newcomers should be celebrated as welcomed members and guided systematically through their transition process. Scholars have drawn attention to how effective onboarding practices should help new members access critical social resources (e.g., information, support) by developing social capital (Fang et al., 2011;Korte & Lin, 2013). Summarizing these empirical findings into concrete practical recommendations, Caldwell and Peters (2018) advanced a ten-step model for quality onboarding experiences, suggesting the need to appoint a trained mentor to guide new employees, facilitate networking and relationship building opportunities, clarify expectations and priorities, and provide an engaging, empowering, and appreciative environment.
Professional sport is an ideal context to explore this topic in greater detail. For instance, when athletes, and anyone accompanying them, transition to the professional level, they tend to experience unpredictable and short careers that span transitions to different organizations (Leonard, 1996). In addition, elite athletic involvement is often accompanied by drastic lifestyle changes that involve uprooting their lives and attempting to maintain quality relationships with friends and family (e.g., Bruner et al., 2008). Nevertheless, the opportunity to play professional sport can be a rewarding chapter in an athlete's life if they are adequately equipped and supported throughout important transitions. As such, it is critical that the organization has an effective onboarding plan to assist athletes in attaining professional and personal excellence through transition periods (Stambulova, 2010).
Although researchers have only begun to systematically explore onboarding processes in the context of sport, Benson et al. (2016) highlighted the applicability of organizational socialization theory and proposed that sport onboarding should strive to reduce uncertainty for new members and equip them with the resources necessary for navigating the interpersonal and task demands of transitioning into a novel environment. Follow-up research highlighted the benefits of socialization tactics that (a) provide newcomers with individualized information regarding one's task responsibilities, (b) reinforce a culture of mentorship whereby knowledge is passed down from more experienced members, and (c) establish an inclusive environment where there are equal opportunities for social integration (Benson & Eys, 2017). Such tactics have been related to improvements in a range of outcomes in sport, such as role clarity (Leo et al., 2020), commitment (Benson & Eys, 2017), cohesion, and social identity (Chamberlain et al., 2021).
Although the onboarding literature generally, and in sport specifically, emphasizes the benefits for incoming members as well as the organization (e.g., Bauer & Erdogan, 2014;Ellis et al., 2015), researchers have not yet considered the individuals close to the incoming member (e.g., their family members) during the onboarding process. This is surprising, given that the importance of support networks for athletes is well documented across the sport phases from early adoption to more elite adult competition (e.g., Côt e et al., 2020;Henriksen et al., 2010). For instance, sport talent identification literature also emphasizes the importance of factors such as social support (e.g., significant others) for facilitating talent development, aiding with coping during stressful situations (e.g., transitioning to a higher competition level), and wellbeing across other life domains (e.g., Johnston et al., 2018;Morgan & Giacobbi, 2006). Moreover, the International Society of Sport Psychology (ISSP) recently revisited their position stance on athlete transitions, with one section being specifically dedicated to career assistance (Stambulova et al., 2021). Further, a main point of emphasis for applied intervention work with athletes during career transitions is to first collect holistic information about an athlete's life, such as their key relationships and support individuals (Schultheiss, 2006).
Within professional sport, athletes who transition to new teams are often accompanied by significant others (e.g., partners, parents/guardians), and it is critical to consider that these individuals experience a similar transition and common stressors. For instance, these individuals must leave friends and family behind, and struggle with feelings of isolation and the logistics of relocating and settling in an unfamiliar environment (Roderick, 2012). Importantly, current onboarding and integration frameworks focus on the individual being integrated into the organization-neglecting the onboarding and transition of family members undergoing a similar process. This is surprising given that research suggests that family members contribute greatly to the wellbeing and performance of athletes (e.g., Schultheiss, 2006) and that these individuals themselves undergo a transition that would benefit from organizational systematic support. Therefore, the purpose of this research was to (a) determine the extent to which organizations include or consider family members within the onboarding process of professional athletes, (b) explore the perceptions and experiences of family members who have experienced onboarding processes, and (c) advance best practices for onboarding elite athletes and their family members within professional sport.

Philosophical approach
Using a critical realist approach, it is important to acknowledge that the experiences of those involved in the onboarding process can never fully be understood (Fletcher, 2017) and given that the truth is fallible, we attempted to obtain a close approximation or representation of that truth (Wiltshire, 2018). Bhaskar (1998) advanced two terms that illustrate how this perspective is meaningfully translated to scientific efforts: Intransitive knowledge structures refer to phenomena that exist independently from our minds. Even in the absence of any theory of, or way to measure, a particular phenomenon, intransitive knowledge structures endure. Here, we acknowledge that activities associated with onboarding imposed by organizations can occur regardless of athletes' and family members' experiences and interpretations of them. In contrast, transitive knowledge structures reflect our current conceptions of various phenomena (i.e., theories and tools we develop to approximate reality). That is, although objects in the social world exist independently of people's thoughts and conceptions, how individuals perceive those objects of knowledge contribute, in part but not wholly, to their understanding of those objects. As such, there are onboarding strategies currently used by elite sport organizations that may be better suited to helping family members (and athletes) navigate the challenges associated with a particular transition period (Bhaskar, 1998;Collier, 1994). Using a qualitative methodology, we explored the onboarding process through discussions with individuals who experienced onboarding firsthand and from different vantage points to best explain how these social structures came to be and were experienced by those involved (Wiltshire, 2018). As an example, triangulation was adopted to represent a diverse range of perspectives (i.e., athletes, family members, and organizational representatives), which in turn, provided a richer understanding of practices and experiences with a unique professional sport context (Carter et al., 2014).

Researcher positionality
Reflecting how the first author's experiences with professional sport onboarding shaped the research process, the perspective of being a partial insider (i.e., a former member of the population of interest; Adler & Adler, 1994) assisted the first author with access to this population, and enabled them to have a deeper understanding of participant experiences. We expect that in addition to access, being a partial insider also facilitated initial trust and a willingness to share perspectives from the participants. Despite these benefits, such "insider status" carries limitations. For instance, the first author had to reflect on their experiences and preconceived biases pertaining to the onboarding process (e.g., experiencing divergent onboarding processes from several NBA teams, witnessing friends endure negative experiences). In this regard, the first author actively engaged in conversations with the research team who served as critical friends to continuously address, reflect on, and challenge personal biases and positionality and to explore competing alternative explanations (Ronkainen & Wiltshire, 2021).

Participants
A total of 22 participants were recruited from the National Basketball Association (NBA) to participate in individual semi-structured interviews. Participants included 11 organizational representatives, six family member representatives, and five athletes across 12 different teams who have experienced NBA onboarding. The organizational representatives (three male, eight female) had been with their respective team for an average of ten years (SD ¼ 6.76). Generally, the scope of their positions involved assisting the players and their families during career transitions and throughout the season; however, the level of involvement in engaging with families varied. For example, some organizational representatives were directly tasked with tending to the families (e.g., they are present in the family room on game nights, organize family events, help families with daily needs and requests), whereas others worked directly with the players and by extension, were involved with the families (e.g., helping families relocate when an athlete was acquired). The family members included six females (M age ¼ 40.0; SD ¼ 16.9). Four of the family members were players' wives, one was a head coach's wife, and one was a player's mother. Each of these individuals had experienced onboarding from more than one NBA team; thus, they were able to contrast their varying onboarding experiences. Five male athletes (M age ¼ 29.0; SD ¼ 3.36) with an average of six years of NBA playing experience (SD ¼ 2.61) participated in the study. Four of the athletes had experienced onboarding programs from more than one team. The group also included four NBA champions who were considered starters on their teams. All athletes had transitioned into an organization accompanied by a family member. Across the participants, two complete triads were secured from the same team-an organizational representative, a player, and a respective family member.

Procedure
Following institutional research ethics board approval, participants were recruited through a purposeful criterion sampling approach involving both personal contacts and snowball sampling methods (Patton, 2015). It is important to note that the COVID-19 global pandemic impacted the recruitment and interview process, limiting the triangulation to two complete triads. During data collection, the 2019-2020 NBA season was canceled and subsequently resumed months later in a controlled environment (i.e., "bubble") in Orlando, Florida. Originally, scheduled interviews were planned for what would have been the NBA offseason when participants would have had more availability to engage in interviews. All interviews were conducted over the phone by the first author and varied in length for the organizational representatives (M ¼ 37:52; SD ¼ 11:07), the family members (M ¼ 28:58; SD ¼ 7:50), and the athletes (M ¼ 20:43; SD ¼ 8:12). Each interview was audio recorded and transcribed verbatim.

Semi-structured interview guide
A semi-structured interview guide was developed that differed slightly depending on whether the interviewee was an organizational representative, a family member, or athlete (see online supplemental resource). Generally, the interview guides were divided into introductory, transition, key, and concluding sections (Patton, 2015). Introductory questions were used to build rapport and encourage participant discussion and reflection (e.g., Athlete: Can you tell me about your athletic journey to get to where you are?"). Transition questions were used to introduce the topic and obtain preliminary perspectives to contextualize the discussion (e.g., Family member: "Can you tell me about the time that [athlete name] was drafted?"). Key questions required athletes and family members to reflect on and describe their own experiences with onboarding practices (e.g., Athlete: "What were your experiences with becoming part of this team?"; family member: "Can you describe any services offered to you during your transition?"). To best explore family member onboarding experiences, the interviews with organizational representatives and athletes discussed the process more generally (e.g., organizational representative: "What onboarding practices are currently in place for incoming support systems?"; athlete: "Do you feel like your support person was welcomed into the organization?"). Concluding questions were used to investigate related concepts not previously discussed and provided an opportunity for closing remarks (e.g., "Is there anything else that you would like to add regarding your transition into a new organization?").

Analysis and rigour
Our analysis and attempts to promote methodological integrity were in line with our philosophical approach. Specifically, we engaged in thematic analysis (Braun et al., 2016) and strove for fidelity and utility throughout our research (Levitt et al., 2017). Thematic analysis was used to identify patterns and themes within the dataset which aided in the interpretation and importance of the findings (Braun et al., 2016). This approach allowed for flexibility given it is not tied to a particular approach or framework (Smith & Sparkes, 2016). Additionally, Braun and colleagues' (2016) six-phase approach was used as a guiding framework. Familiarization with the dataset was facilitated by listening to each interview, making notes about the content, and by transcribing each audio file. The organizational representative data was examined first to identify themes that the organizations found important for effective onboarding. Next, data from the athletes and then family members were analyzed to compare and contrast the themes presented by the organizational representatives. After analyzing the data, a list of main codes was created that was eventually grouped into higher-order themes. To promote fidelity, we recruited a sample that enabled triangulation, which included the experiences of organizational representatives, athletes, and family members who had all experienced or helped facilitate the onboarding process (e.g., Levitt et al., 2017). Further, the combination of these differing perspectives and our aim to obtain a more complete understanding of what programs were being offered by the organizations and how family members and athletes were perceiving and experiencing them promoted utility in relation to practical implications of our work (e.g., Levitt et al., 2017). Throughout the results, to protect participant confidentiality, quotes were labeled based on the following acronyms: organizational representative (Org), athlete (A), or family member (FM).

Results
Participants provided a range of perspectives pertaining to current onboarding processes and discussed various factors that shaped their experiences. First, it was apparent that from the organizational representatives' perspectives, family members were of secondary consideration with the recruited athlete being the focal point. Thus, an initial theme involves the process whereby organizations explored whether anyone would be accompanying the incoming athlete. Once this was understood, points of emphasis for the family member experience involved resource and information sharing, demonstrating the value of each individual, and implications of hierarchy and status for accessing and mobilizing social capital. Effectiveness of onboarding was described in relation to how these points of emphasis could be employed, necessitating an awareness of important considerations and barriers that will be discussed throughout the subsequent sections.
Introduction and understanding of "who" will be onboarded When onboarding new members, organizations typically know "who" they must socialize. In relation to family members, organizations rarely had information about these individuals until they spoke with the incoming athlete. Although the timing of the introduction to the athlete depended on the acquisition type (e.g., drafted player, midseason trade), the general manager and head coach usually made contact immediately with a welcoming phone call. After this contact, a member from player services who oversaw on-court activities, such as player development (i.e., growth of the players and game) as well as family services (i.e., managing communication and engagement with family members), began the onboarding process by obtaining details from the athlete about who-if anyone-would be transitioning with them.
If I was calling [player], he would say my uncle is coming. I would say perfect, let me get his number and I'll call the uncle. There are different ways that you get introduced to the family. But the bigger thing about the family is most of those things won't happen until you're sitting down with the athlete and talking to them about who their family is. (Org1) Importantly, it was made clear that if a player did not disclose information regarding their family, the organization would not reach out to them. This was due in part to wanting to establish a trusting relationship with the athlete and ensuring that boundaries were not overstepped: " … we always ask the guys if they want either the significant other, the mom, or whoever else in it because we don't want to overstep" (Org2). Similarly, another organizational representative stated, "I create a culture of trust and when they begin, I say 'Is there anyone you want me to reach out to?' If they say no, I might get some backlash but ultimately, my job is to support the player" (Org4). This individual continued by noting that some athletes explicitly asked not to assist their family members, "There are times when a player won't want me to contact their wife. That happens more often than you think" (Org4). These situations caused tension for the organizations when trying to consider the needs of the athlete and their support networks.
There were also examples of miscommunication or misunderstanding pertaining to the amount of support required or provided to athletes and their families. For instance, when asked about the support that their family received, an athlete identified an individual in charge of assisting incoming families and felt that everything had gone well. In contrast, the athlete's mother said, "To be honest, I have not met anybody. The staff at the arena are amazing, they're very friendly, and they welcome you and make you feel amazing but no one from the organization, not one person from the organization, helped me" (FM3). Thus, a disconnect existed between the athlete's understanding of what onboarding practices were in place for their family versus what services they were receiving. Therefore, from the outset, the process of onboarding family members was informal and required approval from the incoming athlete.

Resource and information sharing: uncertainty reduction
Once introductions were made and it was clear to the organization "who" they would be onboarding, the process began. One participant described the importance of orienting the athlete and their family members to their new city and home: Anything that is around the players' families we're heavily involved in … we have an address book of anything a family might need-doctors, dentists, therapists, anything so a family can come in and feel comfortable, moving services … we set that all up. A player doesn't have to touch anything, especially if they're acquired by us. (Org5) Another organizational representative highlighted, "We have this guideline book where we've researched restaurants, hotels, schools, churches-I mean it's pretty much a who's who of [city] for the families to use" (Org8). When organizations provided these resources to incoming family members, these individuals described their onboarding experiences more favorably.
It is important to note that despite best intentions, various contextual factors that served as barriers to uncertainty reduction were discussed. For instance, the timing of an acquisition (i.e., when the player transitions to a new team) had a large impact on the onboarding process. One organizational representative stated: For a player that's getting drafted, it's quick because summer league happens a week or two later … if trading for a player at the trade deadline or anything like that, it is extremely hectic so that's a different animal … that's usually because those guys are established in the league so it's a little bit different, they know what 's up. (Org5) Organizations highlighted how their onboarding processes differed during the season versus drafting or trading during the offseason. The circumstances under which a team can acquire a player varied drastically, which made it difficult to create a standard onboarding program: "It's hard to have any structure because it's so different for every player, it's so different for every family" (Org8). For instance, athletes who were traded midseason generally experienced an expedited onboarding process, while drafting and offseason trades generally received more tailored attention over a longer period. Moreover, this expedited process also impacted the family members: "Midseason trades, you're just left to the wolves. You better just figure it out" (FM4). Another family member emphasized the repercussions of within season trades: "You want dad to be around but … he can't make an appointment or is away for birthdays. You feel it when you have kids because you're taking their emotions into consideration" (FM5). Thus, the condensed onboarding process influenced the athlete and their support person.
In addition to timing, an important yet not formally targeted consideration was the age and experience of the athlete transitioning. For younger and less experienced athletes, onboarding appeared to extend beyond facilitating an integration into the organization, to also ensuring a more effective transition to living away from home.
Our rookie was a baby this year … he didn't have a driver's license, a social security card, is relatively young as far as maturity and so we had to … I don't want to say coddle because we're very conscientious of not enabling these guys and it's a fine line sometimes between doing everything for them versus just trying to help them … we made a joke in the office, someone was like, "Oh my god it's like you're raising him." (Org8) On the other hand, older and more experienced athletes required less assistance because they had previous experience with trades and organizations: "I don't need things done because I am so self-sufficient and I've been in the game a long time; I know what to do, I don't like to ask for much" (A4). Moreover, discussed as a life stage difference, older athletes were described as having different onboarding needs because they were more concerned with transitioning their families. One organizational representative stated, "They could be moving with three kids that are in school so priorities are about them and the family getting acclimated. It's a completely different type of energy that you have to focus on" (Org2). It was clear that both the timing of acquiring the player in addition to their experience within the NBA influenced the aim and scope of the onboarding processes an organization provided for both the athletes and their families.

Valuing the newcomer: putting the (I)ndividual in TEAM
Athletes expressed the need to feel valued and a sense of belonging, and that the way teams went about this was important given the constant uncertainty of being traded within the NBA, "Whenever you get traded it's like, 'Okay, wow they traded me' but then you get to your next team, they welcome you, they want you, you have a role with them … then you keep the grind going" (A1). Organizations were aware of such feelings, and while they did not always prioritize family onboarding to aid with this transition process, they noted its importance for contributing to athlete wellbeing and performance: "We understand that those people that support you-you need them around to be at your best" (Org9). In contrast, other organizations genuinely valued family members as individuals and were motivated to provide them with support because they needed it as well: It's just making them feel important and valued because they are the ones who are left behind when the guys go on a week road trip to [city] and you're like "Okay I'm here, now what?" Whenever they're here you give up your entire day and lives to focus on them … it's making the families feel valued. (Org3) Family members felt most valued when organizations provided tailored resources as a symbol that they cared about their specific needs and concerns. One athlete's mother reinforced the importance of feeling valued as a person: "What stands out to me is when they waived him. They sent flowers and said, ' [Player] has been an amazing part of our family and we wish him the best.' [Coach] called me also so it really meant a lot" (FM3). Support persons also expressed that they felt valued through available resources such as a welcoming family room (i.e., a private space for athletes' family members/partners to gather before and after games) and childcare at games, "When they built the [arena] a couple years after we got there, they placed a big emphasis on a really nice family room … I was really fortunate that my first experience was where families were considered really important and valued" (FM2). On the other hand, organizational representatives noted institutional and structural barriers to making families feel valued: "The constraints of [arena] make it different … I wish I could pay for babysitters … the insurance is too high; we can't pay for it … I tried to. The person before me tried, it's just not a thing" (Org4). They explained that they did not have the ability to address the family member's requests, and it being out of their control was very frustrating.
Interestingly, family members highlighted that while they were not necessarily looking for special treatment to feel valued, they knew that some organizations handled barriers better than others: They did the tour, they made sure I knew how to get around, they asked for my photo and then they had the lanyards ready for the first game, they showed me where my seats were. There are definitely teams that are like, "Here are your tickets, figure it out" like nobody showed me anything or I had to ask around like "Hi, where's the family room?" … I didn't have any guidance and I was just thrown into it. (FM4) This family member emphasized that their current organization provided guidance and did not leave them to figure things out on their own as they had experienced with other organizations.
Restrictions on funding allotment for events and efforts to facilitate onboarding for family was also mentioned as a barrier to feeling valued. One organizational representative mentioned a request they had received from an athlete's family member to plan an event to get the families together to which they responded: I'd love to do that but that's not going to happen. It's not going to happen here … it's funding, but it's also just kind of the perspective that we're going with right now … we want to establish ourselves as a team-the family thing can happen in tandem. (Org7) Whereas it was assumed that organizations had no shortage of money, no funding was specifically allocated to supporting family members in these particular organizations.

Implications of hierarchy and status-a trickle down effect
For the incoming athletes, acquiring resources and value from quality social relationships (i.e., social capital) was naturally built throughout the onboarding process. For instance, through mentorship, shared experiences, and having a common goal with teammates, athletes were able to readily foster supportive connections with one another. For family members, social capital building had to be more purposeful through intentional efforts to facilitate supportive connections between new and current members. These participants emphasized the importance of building social ties with family members already in the organization. For instance, participants discussed their experiences with their respective team "wives group" or "family group" that were put together by the organization to connect family members. One individual stated: "I started a wives group that did charitable things, but it's also a way to connect and be social with each other and feel involved and support the team and do good things" (FM2). Notably, family members highlighted that charity initiatives and bonding activities were often run by more veteran members in the family room (e.g., coach's wife, veteran player's wife). For instance, they discussed the value they placed on being a strong and compassionate leader for other family members depending on previous experiences in the NBA: When we first got to [city], my husband was the lowest of the assistant coaches, so we weren't highly valued … I mean, people were nice to us, but we weren't high on the pecking order. As my husband moved up, my seat moved down [closer to the court], so those things I try to always be cognizant of how it felt to come in like that and seeing young women coming into the NBA with their boyfriend or whatever and it really became important to me. I focus on making everyone feel welcome. (FM2) Organizations also mentioned the importance of facilitating connections among family members. However, organizational representatives highlighted that many planned events had poor attendance and that providing such opportunities did not guarantee involvement. One family member noted that the age gap between individuals was often a barrier to attending these events: It's been hard for me personally to bring the young girls into that … when you're young some people just don't think that helping people is fun and I think that I'm trying to show that they might not think we're going to bond over it but we will and that makes the family room dynamic so much better. (FM6) Another barrier to establishing connections was the constant uncertainty associated with team turnover. One participant stated: "You don't know if you're connecting with somebody that you're never going to see again, which happens multiple times. So that's hard" (FM4). Athletes acknowledged that it was harder for their partner to build connections because they had built-in friends as teammates: "I got traded three times over a number of months so it's tough for her [partner]. It's tougher on her because I'm going to have teammates … she isn't always going to have friends" (A4). Whereas athletes had teammates, this was not the case for family members.
Interestingly, a salient topic that influenced family member experiences was the status of the athlete. In this regard, team hierarchy was a barrier to creating supportive relationships. One individual shared that based on the status of their respective athlete, significant others were actually physically separated within the arena in terms of their seating arrangements: Players that are higher status get more favours than those that aren't playing as many minutes. Simple things like where [partners] sit at the arena … some people get seats closer to the court whereas [partners for the] rookies or people that aren't playing as much, their seats can be pushed way back. So there's definitely a hierarchy (FM5).
Notably, this participant emphasized that sitting closer to the court was representative of being higher in status. In addition, one family member explained how the hierarchy affected their ability to create relations because they were treated differently within the organization: "The way [player's] family moves is different than everyone else. They don't come in the same entrance, they have a different family room, they don't exit the way we do" (FM1). Thus, the hierarchy made it difficult for support persons to bond because of their subsequent differentiation in treatment. In addition, it was expressed that there was even a hierarchy in terms of the status of the support person's relationship to the athlete: "Other family rooms wouldn't let girlfriends in and only wives. Even if they were dating for ten years, if not married, the girlfriend wouldn't be allowed in the family room. There's a lot of hierarchy and discrimination of people's relationships" (FM5).

Discussion
The purpose of this study was to explore organizational onboarding in professional sport, with a specific emphasis on understanding how family members are included in the process. Using a critical realist approach, we engaged in discussions with organizational representatives, athletes, and their family members to best understand the perspectives and procedures that shaped their experiences. Overall, our results suggest that while onboarding is an integral process for successful transitions of both athletes and their families, organizations did not systematically plan onboarding practices for family members and that efforts differed greatly across organizations-perhaps due to the various considerations and barriers to implementation that were described in the results. Moreover, it is important to highlight the tensions that professional sport organizations may face when trying to develop onboarding practices that meet the individualized needs of both athletes and their families. In addition to situating these findings within existing onboarding literature, we discuss implications and potential avenues for continued research.
Whereas an institutionalized approach to socialization provides structure and reduces uncertainty for newcomers (Bauer et al., 2007), our results highlight that such tactics do not need to come at the expense of tailoring the approach to individual needs (Benson et al., 2016). That is, systematic and intentional onboarding efforts should include specific procedures that provide resources to help both athletes and their families navigate personal and idiosyncratic challenges. Our findings suggest that although current socialization approaches were often centered around the athlete, in several instances the needs of the athlete did not necessarily align with the demands encountered by family members. As such, in addition to implementing broad and established socialization tactics to benefit both family members and their respective athletes, personal strategies to meet the unique needs of family members are also warranted. Altogether, organizations must navigate the unique competing demands by not only onboarding one central person-in this case, the athlete-but family members who serve as an integral source of support for the athlete and must also be onboarded due to their own needs as individuals.
Further, organizations that holistically support members and recognize and consider their situations outside of work can enhance performance and satisfaction (Direnzo et al., 2015;Wong et al., 2020). Organizational representatives, athletes, and family members identified key characteristics that contributed to positive onboarding experiences, which aligned closely with established onboarding literature. Novel contributions that extend previous research were nevertheless uncovered. For instance, the fact that a preliminary process involved determining if in fact a family member would require onboarding is specific to this professional sport setting. It was described from the organizational perspective that athletes themselves could serve as barriers to the onboarding process of family members. Organizations explained that their main priority was the athlete, and if the athlete did not ask for them to help their families, they felt they should adhere to that request. Such a position demonstrates the status of incoming athletes within an organization, whereby in instances such as this, their preferences and requests dictate the actions of the organization. In this regard, this is an instance where onboarding processes in professional sport may not translate directly to those in the general organizational psychology literature. Our sample was also unique in that the athletes (i.e., NBA players) are some of the highest paid athletes in the world and enjoy international prominence, while nevertheless being employed in a highly precarious field where careers are notoriously short-lived (e.g., Burry & Fiset, 2020).
Although participants presented varying considerations and barriers to the effectiveness of onboarding, they all positioned resource and information sharing, demonstrating value in the individual, and facilitating connections/support as critical components of this process. These themes align with the practical Inform-Welcome-Guide framework (IWG; Klein & Heuser, 2008) that involves formal and informal onboarding practices, and will be discussed in greater detail alongside other relevant research in the subsequent sections.
Communication is an essential component of onboarding, as organizations must convey their norms and expectations to new members (Jones, 2002;Stanley, 2013). Within the current research, participants associated timely and transparent communication with positive onboarding experiences (e.g., being introduced to key people and resources). This aligns with meta-analytic findings from studies of workplace socialization (Bauer et al., 2007) and the IWG framework, which highlights the importance of informing new members by providing information and materials that will reduce uncertainty and assist in fulfilling new roles (Klein & Heuser, 2008). These findings also align with Bauer's (2010) building blocks of successful onboarding, three of which include clarifying expectations, culture, and connection. Indeed, family members appreciated receiving necessary information from the organization about what was important for the group (i.e., clarifying expectations, culture), and ways in which they could be introduced to other families to form interpersonal relationships (i.e., connection).
The timing of the onboarding program was an important consideration that influenced the quality and type of communication that newcomers received. For instance, an acquisition from the draft or during the offseason would experience an organization's full onboarding process, whereas a trade during the season would involve a more expedited process. Midseason trades were especially difficult for family members as the abrupt nature of the trade often meant that they were left to organize the move to a new city and establish themselves quickly with little available guidance. Further, the age and career stage of the athlete affected the onboarding process, as these individuals required different information and resources. Ultimately, organizations appeared to tailor communication to accommodate the type of player that was being acquired (e.g., drafted/traded player or rookie/veteran) but there were no structured practices to support the different types of family members that were being onboarded (e.g., partner, parent, sibling).
Valuing new members and acknowledging their individual contributions to the organization are important features of effective onboarding (Benson et al., 2016;Caldwell & Peters, 2018). Notably, the welcome from the IWG framework (Klein & Heuser, 2008) explicitly emphasizes the need for employees to feel appreciated and celebrated. Family members in the current study described the significance of feeling valued in the onboarding process. However, organizational representatives revealed that there were different reasons for their consideration to express value in supporting family members. On one hand, organizations valued families out of a realization of their unique and sometimes difficult position. On the other hand, they also expressed the value of supporting individuals by way of their contribution to the athlete's success (e.g., ensuring support at home as a means to improve athletic performance; Wong et al., 2020), which in turn, benefited the organization. Although the intention seemed predominantly oriented toward the latter rather than the former, family members did describe feeling valued when organizations provided tailored resources.
Exploring these tailored resources (e.g., family rooms) uncovered barriers to effective onboarding in relation to making family members feel valued. In some cases, there was not enough funding to meet the requests of family members or the arena had structural restrictions that made it difficult to address certain needs. Professional sport organizations generate millions of dollars every season, as broadcast rights are sold at a high price and marketing turns athletes and their clubs into brands (Walsh & Giulianotti, 2006). It is likely that the organizations represented in this study had monetary resources to support athletes' families. Accordingly, the lack of resources could be due to disinterest or with having not considered the benefits of funding projects/establishing systems that could improve family experiences. Within organizational literature, it is interesting to note that employees value their organizations' understanding and support for family issues and quality of life (Cegarra-Leiva et al., 2012). Further, the nature of elite sport could negatively impact quality of life, as athletes and their families have to navigate the stressors of irregular work hours, scheduling, and the added pressure of high media attention (Maier et al., 2016). Organizations could meaningfully contribute to ensuring that family members feel included and supported in the organization, yet to do so, must navigate athlete approvals and athlete/family status.
One way that individuals have been found to engage with the stress and uncertainty of a transition is to make the environment more predictable and understandable. In this regard, uncertainty can be reduced through consistent social interactions with others (Saks & Ashforth, 1997). Graen (1976) suggested that new members begin to understand their roles by interacting with existing individuals who have a vested interest in their performance. One avenue to facilitate this process is through mentorship and social support. Quality mentorship relations can serve to clarify the roles, expectations, and norms of the organization to newer members (Benson et al., 2016;Caldwell & Peters, 2018;Ragins et al., 2000). Our findings align with existing literature as family members note the importance of receiving guidance from existing members. Indeed, Klein and Heuser (2008) IWG suggests that organizations guide their newcomers by providing them with a formal "buddy" or coordinator who handles aspects of the onboarding process. Similar findings exist in sport as quality relationships have been found to aid in career transitions (e.g., Bruner et al., 2008;Wylleman & Lavallee, 2004).
Organizational representatives highlighted this importance by explaining some of the ways that they attempted to facilitate connections between families (e.g., establishing early contact, creating physical spaces for them to connect such as family rooms). However, without formal established procedures for this process, some instances resulted in a high degree of "buy-in" or engagement whereas others did not. Notably, this seemed dependent on the willingness of current and veteran family members to engage in the process. For example, the family room is generally led by more senior and longstanding members (e.g., coach's/veteran's partner) and if these people were not available, it negatively affected the experience of incomers. This finding aligns with athlete leadership literature, whereby athletes are more satisfied when they are well peer mentored as opposed to non-peer mentored (Hoffmann & Loughead, 2016). In this regard, establishing a formal process in relation to leadership roles for current family members could provide autonomy and ownership that might improve engagement and continued involvement in events that serve to enhance social capital (Fransen et al., 2016).
Another issue described that related to building interpersonal relationships was team member turnover. It was apparent that support persons were hesitant to make connections with other partners/family members in fear that they (i.e., the athlete) would be traded away and those connections would be lost. Researchers have noted different agents that can play a role in mentoring new members such as coaches or athletes (Sandardos & Chambers, 2019). Sawiuk and colleagues (2017) discussed the value of having multiple mentors as one person may not have the capacity or resources necessary. Thus, it is suggested for organizations to combat the issue of unavailable or unwilling mentors by creating a network of support, so that when a mentor is not available or does not have the appropriate resources to assist the mentee, they are able to refer them to another qualified individual (Sawiuk et al., 2017).
Family members also expressed their awareness of team hierarchy and how this influenced relationships. Although sport explicitly involves competition between teams, it is also inherently present within teams (e.g., positional competition; Harenberg et al., 2021). It was evident through the family member interviews, that these issues filtered through and affected everyone. Status hierarchy refers to the rank ordering of individuals based on the amount of respect obtained from others (Magee & Galinsky, 2008). In this study, hierarchy affected relations between family members and feelings of organizational justice (Jordan et al., 2004). For example, several participants discussed how competition between athletes for positions affected relationships between their subsequent partners. Some organizations may unintentionally exacerbate this through established policies such as having separate rooms for families versus partners and friends. Though Halevy et al. (2012) argue the potential of adaptive outcomes to originate from hierarchy from a performance perspective, they suggest that members should see the hierarchy as justified. In our study, family members viewed the hierarchy within teams as unfair and expressed how it negatively affected their ability to develop quality connections. Indeed, meta-analytic findings suggest that hierarchical differentiation tends to harm group functioning due to its conflict-enabling properties (Greer et al., 2018). Thus, it is critical for organizations to be aware of structural barriers that reinforce a hierarchical divide between members and foster environments that are conducive for families to develop quality relationships with one another regardless of their respective athlete's position within the team.
Altogether, it was evident that despite the lack of systematic onboarding present for families-which may be due to the aforementioned considerations and barriers-family members benefited from obtaining tailored resources, feeling valued, and developing social capital during their transition process.

Strengths and limitations
A strength of this study was the diverse range of perspectives obtained from organizational representatives, athletes, and family members. Further, most of the participants had transitioned to several teams within the league and thus, could collectively speak to onboarding programs associated with 24 of the 30 teams in the NBA-providing a more holistic perspective of onboarding processes that occur across the league. Despite study strengths, various limitations should be acknowledged. Given this study required participants to reflect on all previous onboarding experiences, there is always a chance of recall bias (e.g., Co^t e et al., 2005). Future research may benefit from applying a longitudinal design to follow athletes and their families from the time they find out they are being traded/drafted through the onboarding process. A longitudinal study could help identify pertinent features that influence onboarding experiences during specific periods (Ruspini, 2002). Moreover, this research was situated within the NBA and thus, onboarding practices may differ across professional sport contexts. Future research would benefit from applying a similar research question across sport types and sexes (e.g., WNBA) to gauge how family members are considered during transition periods and if the onboarding programs that they encounter differ.

Practical implications
To enhance the onboarding experience of families, we provide various practical recommendations for organizations, athletes, and family members. First, it appears that the provision of resources to family members is based on the athlete's request/approval. During transition periods, athletes are likely preoccupied with responsibilities specifically pertaining to their new role on their team. It may be worthwhile for organizations to take initiative in ensuring that families are taken care of during this stressful transition. Such a suggestion aligns with the ISSP position for providing career assistance to athletes, by prioritizing key relationships and support individuals (Stambulova et al., 2021). Second, to ensure family members feel informed and valued, it is integral that sport organizations are implementing proactive programs that are customized to meet family-specific needs at different stages of their transition (e.g., veteran players with families versus rookie players with partners; Hong & Coffee, 2018). Finally, ensuring that more formal and strategic onboarding processes are in place that empower existing social agents to participate in mentoring efforts (e.g., forming a mentoring network) could promote the development of high-quality relationships between families.
In summary, though organizations generally recognized the need to onboard family members, it is evident that there were no consistent systems or procedure(s) in place. Thus, more concerted onboarding efforts are needed from organizations that purposefully engage with families to ensure that they receive tailored communication, feel valued, and can build social capital that in combination, will enhance the overall onboarding experience.