The literature shows that there are two significant variables that are studied in terms of commitment-related attitudes and commitment-related behaviors, the variables being antecedents and outcomes. There are numerous studies on both the antecedents and the outcomes of organizational commitment and both of these variables offer highly desired information to managers, and others studying organizational behavior.
Often research examines one or two types of commitment. Affective and continuance commitment has been studied much more than normative commitment. All three types of commitment have been studied in both the public, private, and nonprofit sector, though there is much more research completed on employees in the private and public sector.
The literature shows that affective commitment antecedents are studied in the form of personal characteristics or what the employee contributes to the workplace. There have been mixed findings regarding what characteristics influence greater commitment.
DeCotis and Summers 1987, argued that a commitment profile does not exist. Therefore there can be no connection between one’s personal characteristics and their commitment to an organization. However, Mowday et al (1992), Steers (1977), investigated the role of personal .k3characteristics and found that the characteristics and experiences that a person brings to an organization can predict their commitment to the organization. Furthermore, Allen & Meyer, 1993, Buchanan, 1974, and Hall et al. (1977) have found a positive relationship between an employee’s age and time with the organization and their level of commitment.
Continuance commitment studies two antecedents: investments and alternatives. These studies often look at investments such as time, money, or effort. Florkowsi and Schuster, 1992, found a positive relationship between profit sharing and job satisfaction and commitment. Meyer and Allen (1997) recognize that in order for there to be continuance commitment between the employee and organization, the employee must be able to identify alternatives.
Studies examining different types of work sectors have found that government employees have higher levels of continuance commitment than other sectors (Perry, 1997; Meyer & Allen, 1997). This is due to the antecedents of public service motivation. Because public sector employees in the past have high levels of commitment to the organization and its goals because it is argued that they are a different type of employee, with strong ethics as well as job security (Perry, 1997). Lio (1995) states “facing today’s difficult times, many public employees appreciate the relatively secure job situation associated with public employment and consider it a major reason for their organizational commitment”.
Normative commitment because it is the more recently defined type of commitment does not have a lot of research identified. Meyer & Allen (1997) began to examine normative commitment in their most recent research. They look to understand the development of the psychological contract between the employee and the organization. Psychological contracts are the beliefs that a person has about what will be exchanged between them, the employee and the organization, therefore influencing their obligation to the organization (Meyer & Allen, 1997).
Outcomes of Organizational Commitment
Research on commitment outcomes examines whether the different components of commitment have certain consequences. Several reviews report consistent negative correlation between organizational commitment and both employee intention to leave the organization and actual turnover. Although correlation is strongest for affective commitment, significant relations between commitment and turnover variables are found for all three conceptualizations of commitment.
Employee retention, attendance, organizational citizenship, and job performance are commitment outcomes that are widely studied. Reichers (1985) says that “though the literature is fairly clear with respect to the outcomes of commitment, the antecedents of commitment seem to be much more varied and inconsistent due to the several different ways in which commitment has been defined and operational”. Various research studies take place examining the outcomes of employee commitment.
Several studies have examined the relation between organizational commitment and attendance. As expected, affective commitment is positively related to attendance. Steers (1997) found that employee commitment was highly related to the attendance of workers. Gellatlly (1995) found that continuance commitment was related with how often an employee was absent. In a study examining a group of nurses Somers (1995) found those nurses with lower levels of commitment had higher levels of absences. Blau and Boal (1987) studied a group of insurance workers and found that those employees who had higher levels of commitment had lower levels of absenteeism and turnover. However, affective commitment is expected to influence attendance, or not in when the employees had a choice about whether to come to work. Although commitment should be negatively correlated with voluntary absence from work, it is not ordinarily expected to be correlated with involuntary absence such as that due to illness or family emergencies. In contrast, to affective commitment, absenteeism does not seem to be significantly related to continuance commitment. On the other hand, the relation between normative commitment and absenteeism has received limited attention. Normative Commitment was found to correlate with voluntary absence in one study but not in others.
Retention of employee appears to be one of the most studied outcomes of organizational commitment. This is due to the numerous studies which have found a correlation between turnover and commitment (Porter et al, 1974; Meyer and Allen, 1997). Porter et al (1974) found that employees with lower levels of commitment were more likely to leave than their counterparts. On the basis of these findings, it might be tempting to conclude that if an organization’s goal is to develop stable workforce on whose continued membership it can count, any form of commitment would suffice. However, it was cautioned strongly against this conclusion unless employee retention is the organization’s only goal. An emphasis on employee retention to the exclusion of performance is unlikely to characterize many organizations. Indeed it is now widely recognized that some voluntary turnover is helpful, rather than harmful to the organization, in that it, includes resignations from employees who perform poorly or are disruptive. Most organizations – and most managers – want much more from committed employees than simply, their continued membership in the organization.
Meyer and Allen (1997) argued that the different components of commitment relate to different types of outcomes, therefore continuance commitment may or may not relate to employee performance. Citizen behavior, or extra-role behavior, has also been studied in regard to organizational commitment. Once again the research is inconclusive about the relationship between citizen behavior and organizational commitment due to the contradictory findings. For example, Meyer et al (1993) found a positive relationship between commitment and extra role behavior, while Van Dyne & Ang, (1998) found no significance between the relationships. Other studies have found that there was a negative relationship between commitment and citizen behavior (Shore and Wayne, 1993) and communication styles have an affect on organizational commitment (Decottis & Summers, 1987).
Thus, organizational commitment is a very important variable related to other factors. So much so there is no denying the fact that commitment plays important role not only in the lives of the employees but also in the lives of the organization. Therefore, differential commitment of employees of different organizations will influence differently the employees of organization depending on the nature of organization. Hence, it was deemed important to measure and compare the commitment of managers of public and private sector in the present study. Moreover, commitment being a multifaceted construct, may have in it parts of other variables like organizational citizenship behavior and organizational culture.
Performance at work can be assessed by studying various aspects such as attendance at work, performance of the assigned duties, organizational citizenship behavior, etc. Research on the links between commitment and work performance reflects this diversity. In regard to employee performance, the research is mixed on finding relationships between employee performance and their levels of commitment However, Meyer & Allen (1997), continue to describe reasons why performance and commitment may not be related. Meyer et al., (1993) and Baugh & Roberts, (1994) both find that committed employees had high expectations of their performance and therefore performed better. Roberts (1994) found that those employees who were committed to both their organization and their profession had high levels of job performance. Some of the factors include the seriousness with which supervisors value the appraisal process, the value of job performance by an organization and the amount of employee control over outcomes. Research has also found that those employees who are committed to their profession also have higher levels of commitment to the organization.
Results of several recent studies suggested that overall employees with strong affective commitment to the organization work harder at their jobs and perform better than those with weak commitment. Many of these findings are based on employee reports of their own behavior. Affective commitment has been positively correlated, for example, with various self-reported measures of work effort. Affective commitment has also been linked to managers of self-reported adherence to organizational policy.
The claim that employees with strong affective commitment outperform those with weak commitment does not rely exclusively on studies that use self-reported performance measures. However, numerous studies have included independent assessments of performance. In some of the studies for example, affective commitment has been linked to objective indicators such as sales figures and the control of operational costs. Significant positive relations have also been reported between employee’s affective commitment and their supervisors’ ratings of their potential for promotion and their overall performance on the job. In some studies, (e.g., Ganster Dwyer, 1995; Williams and Anderson, 1991) affective commitment and performance indicators are not related, whereas, in others, commitment is related to one, but not another, performance indicator (DeCotiis and Summers, 1987; Shim and Steers, 1994).
Several researchers have reported non-significant correlations between continuance commitment and various performance measures (Angle & Lawson, 1994; Bycio et al., 1995; Moorman et al., 1993). Shim and Steers (1994) reported that continuance commitment was unrelated to supervisors’ ratings in one organization but negatively related in another. Negative correlations have also been observed between continuance commitment and supervisor ratings of potential for promotion (Meyer et al., 1089) and overall job performance (Konovsky & Cropanzano, 1991; Meyer et al.)
Only a few studies have examined normative commitment and in-role performance indicators. Relations are parallel to, albeit weaker than those found with affective commitment; normative commitment has been positively correlated with various self-reported measures of work effort (Randall et al., 1990) and with self-report measures of overall performance (Ashworth & Saks, 1996). Hackett et al., (1994), however, reported no significant relations between normative commitment and independently rated performance indicators.
The extra-role of organizational citizenship constructs include work-related behavior that “goes above and beyond” that dictated by organizational policy and one’s job description. Citizenship, or extra-role, measures typically include such things as providing extra help to coworkers, volunteering for special work activities, being particularly considerate of workers and customers, being on time, and making suggestions when problems arise.
As many managers have suspected all along, employees with strong affective commitment appear much more willing to engage in organizational citizenship behavior than those with weak affective commitment. Organ and Ryan (1995) reported significant average correlations between affective commitment and two forms of organizational citizenship behavior (a) altruistic acts toward specific members of the organization and (b) more generalized compliance with the implicit rules and norms of the organization.
The relation between normative commitment and citizenship behavior has received much less research attention. In a study, Meyer et al., (1993) examined the links between several self-reported measures of citizenship behavior and both affective and normative commitment to the organization. The relations between normative commitment and extra-role behavior, however, were weaker than those involving affective commitment.
A quite different pattern emerges when continuance commitment and citizenship behavior are examined. In one study, continuance commitment and citizenship behaviour were unrelated (Meyer et. al., 1993); in another, they were negatively related (Shore & Wayne, 1993). Moorman et al. (1993) reported weak but significantly positive correlations between continuance commitment and some, but not all measures of citizenship behaviors. Finally, in their meta-analysis, Organ and Ryan (1995) reported that continuance commitment was not related to either altruism or compliance behavior.
It might be argued that there are personal benefits of strong affective commitment – if for no other reason than it “feel better” to work in an environment about which one feels positively. Some evidence consistent with this argument comes from the stress literature. Several studies have reported significant negative correlations between affective commitment and various self-reported indices of psychological, physical and work-related stress (Begley & Czafka, 1993); Jamal, 1990; Ostroff & Kozoloski, 1992; Reilly & Orsak, 199). In one of these studies (Reilly & Orsak), continuance and normative commitment were also examined. Like affective commitment, normative commitment was negatively correlated with several measures of stress-elated variables (e.g., work stress, emotional exhaustion, and depersonalization); no significant correlations were found, however, between continuance commitment and these measures.
Begely and Czajka (1993) in their research measures affective commitment and job displeasure (a composite of food dissatisfaction, irritation and intent to quit) while the organization was operating in its usual mode. Interestingly, the stress that employees attributed to the organizational changes was positively correlated with the displeasure they felt, but only to those employees with weak affective commitment to the organization. In other words, those with weak affective commitment seemed to be buffered against the impact of stress on displeasure. Interestingly, continuance commitment was positively correlated to the organization, that is, employees with strong continuance commitment to the organization were significantly more likely to believe that work interfered with non-work experiences.
Intent to stay and search behaviors is investigated as consequences of the three components of commitment. With regard to intent to stay, commitment is psychological state that characterizes the link between the employee and the organization (Meyer & Allen, 1991). Therefore, all three components of commitment are expected to increase intent to stay. Search behavior is usually thought of as a precursor of intent to stay and thus signals the impending mobility of an employee (Halaby & Weakleim, 1989; Mobley, 1982). As such the three components of commitment are expected to decrease such behavior.
Several studies have examined the relation between organizational commitment and attendance. As expected, affective commitment is positively related to attendance. Steers (1997) found that employee commitment was highly related to the attendance of workers. Gellatlly (1995) found that continuance commitment was related with how often an employee was absent. In a study examining a group of nurses Somers (1995) found those nurses with lower levels of commitment had higher levels of absences. Blau and Boal (1987) studied a group of insurance workers and found that those employees who had higher levels of commitment had lower levels of absenteeism and turnover. However, affective commitment is expected to influence attendance, or not in when the employees had a choice about whether to come to work. Although commitment should be negatively correlated with voluntary absence from work, it is not ordinarily expected to be correlated with involuntary absence such as that due to illness or family emergencies. In contrast, to affective commitment, absenteeism does not seem to be significantly related to continuance commitment. On the other hand, the relation between normative commitment and absenteeism has received limited attention. Normative Commitment was found to correlate with voluntary absence in one study but not in others.
Retention of employee appears to be one of the most studied outcomes of organizational commitment. This is due to the numerous studies which have found a correlation between turnover and commitment (Porter et al, 1974; Meyer and Allen, 1997). Porter et al (1974) found that employees with lower levels of commitment were more likely to leave than their counterparts. On the basis of these findings, it might be tempting to conclude that if an organization’s goal is to develop stable workforce on whose continued membership it can count, any form of commitment would suffice. However, it was cautioned strongly against this conclusion unless employee retention is the organization’s only goal. An emphasis on employee retention to the exclusion of performance is unlikely to characterize many organizations. Indeed it is now widely recognized that some voluntary turnover is helpful, rather than harmful to the organization, in that it, includes resignations from employees who perform poorly or are disruptive. Most organizations – and most managers – want much more from committed employees than simply, their continued membership in the organization.
Meyer and Allen (1997) argued that the different components of commitment relate to different types of outcomes, therefore continuance commitment may or may not relate to employee performance. Citizen behavior, or extra-role behavior, has also been studied in regard to organizational commitment. Once again the research is inconclusive about the relationship between citizen behavior and organizational commitment due to the contradictory findings. For example, Meyer et al (1993) found a positive relationship between commitment and extra role behavior, while Van Dyne & Ang, (1998) found no significance between the relationships. Other studies have found that there was a negative relationship between commitment and citizen behavior (Shore and Wayne, 1993) and communication styles have an affect on organizational commitment (Decottis & Summers, 1987).
Thus, organizational commitment is a very important variable related to other factors. So much so there is no denying the fact that commitment plays important role not only in the lives of the employees but also in the lives of the organization. Therefore, differential commitment of employees of different organizations will influence differently the employees of organization depending on the nature of organization. Hence, it was deemed important to measure and compare the commitment of managers of public and private sector in the present study. Moreover, commitment being a multifaceted construct, may have in it parts of other variables like organizational citizenship behavior and organizational culture.
Performance at work can be assessed by studying various aspects such as attendance at work, performance of the assigned duties, organizational citizenship behavior, etc. Research on the links between commitment and work performance reflects this diversity. In regard to employee performance, the research is mixed on finding relationships between employee performance and their levels of commitment However, Meyer & Allen (1997), continue to describe reasons why performance and commitment may not be related. Meyer et al., (1993) and Baugh & Roberts, (1994) both find that committed employees had high expectations of their performance and therefore performed better. Roberts (1994) found that those employees who were committed to both their organization and their profession had high levels of job performance. Some of the factors include the seriousness with which supervisors value the appraisal process, the value of job performance by an organization and the amount of employee control over outcomes. Research has also found that those employees who are committed to their profession also have higher levels of commitment to the organization.
Results of several recent studies suggested that overall employees with strong affective commitment to the organization work harder at their jobs and perform better than those with weak commitment. Many of these findings are based on employee reports of their own behavior. Affective commitment has been positively correlated, for example, with various self-reported measures of work effort. Affective commitment has also been linked to managers of self-reported adherence to organizational policy.
The claim that employees with strong affective commitment outperform those with weak commitment does not rely exclusively on studies that use self-reported performance measures. However, numerous studies have included independent assessments of performance. In some of the studies for example, affective commitment has been linked to objective indicators such as sales figures and the control of operational costs. Significant positive relations have also been reported between employee’s affective commitment and their supervisors’ ratings of their potential for promotion and their overall performance on the job. In some studies, (e.g., Ganster Dwyer, 1995; Williams and Anderson, 1991) affective commitment and performance indicators are not related, whereas, in others, commitment is related to one, but not another, performance indicator (DeCotiis and Summers, 1987; Shim and Steers, 1994).
Several researchers have reported non-significant correlations between continuance commitment and various performance measures (Angle & Lawson, 1994; Bycio et al., 1995; Moorman et al., 1993). Shim and Steers (1994) reported that continuance commitment was unrelated to supervisors’ ratings in one organization but negatively related in another. Negative correlations have also been observed between continuance commitment and supervisor ratings of potential for promotion (Meyer et al., 1089) and overall job performance (Konovsky & Cropanzano, 1991; Meyer et al.)
Only a few studies have examined normative commitment and in-role performance indicators. Relations are parallel to, albeit weaker than those found with affective commitment; normative commitment has been positively correlated with various self-reported measures of work effort (Randall et al., 1990) and with self-report measures of overall performance (Ashworth & Saks, 1996). Hackett et al., (1994), however, reported no significant relations between normative commitment and independently rated performance indicators.
The extra-role of organizational citizenship constructs include work-related behavior that “goes above and beyond” that dictated by organizational policy and one’s job description. Citizenship, or extra-role, measures typically include such things as providing extra help to coworkers, volunteering for special work activities, being particularly considerate of workers and customers, being on time, and making suggestions when problems arise.
As many managers have suspected all along, employees with strong affective commitment appear much more willing to engage in organizational citizenship behavior than those with weak affective commitment. Organ and Ryan (1995) reported significant average correlations between affective commitment and two forms of organizational citizenship behavior (a) altruistic acts toward specific members of the organization and (b) more generalized compliance with the implicit rules and norms of the organization.
The relation between normative commitment and citizenship behavior has received much less research attention. In a study, Meyer et al., (1993) examined the links between several self-reported measures of citizenship behavior and both affective and normative commitment to the organization. The relations between normative commitment and extra-role behavior, however, were weaker than those involving affective commitment.
A quite different pattern emerges when continuance commitment and citizenship behavior are examined. In one study, continuance commitment and citizenship behaviour were unrelated (Meyer et. al., 1993); in another, they were negatively related (Shore & Wayne, 1993). Moorman et al. (1993) reported weak but significantly positive correlations between continuance commitment and some, but not all measures of citizenship behaviors. Finally, in their meta-analysis, Organ and Ryan (1995) reported that continuance commitment was not related to either altruism or compliance behavior.
It might be argued that there are personal benefits of strong affective commitment – if for no other reason than it “feel better” to work in an environment about which one feels positively. Some evidence consistent with this argument comes from the stress literature. Several studies have reported significant negative correlations between affective commitment and various self-reported indices of psychological, physical and work-related stress (Begley & Czafka, 1993); Jamal, 1990; Ostroff & Kozoloski, 1992; Reilly & Orsak, 199). In one of these studies (Reilly & Orsak), continuance and normative commitment were also examined. Like affective commitment, normative commitment was negatively correlated with several measures of stress-elated variables (e.g., work stress, emotional exhaustion, and depersonalization); no significant correlations were found, however, between continuance commitment and these measures.
Begely and Czajka (1993) in their research measures affective commitment and job displeasure (a composite of food dissatisfaction, irritation and intent to quit) while the organization was operating in its usual mode. Interestingly, the stress that employees attributed to the organizational changes was positively correlated with the displeasure they felt, but only to those employees with weak affective commitment to the organization. In other words, those with weak affective commitment seemed to be buffered against the impact of stress on displeasure. Interestingly, continuance commitment was positively correlated to the organization, that is, employees with strong continuance commitment to the organization were significantly more likely to believe that work interfered with non-work experiences.
Intent to stay and search behaviors is investigated as consequences of the three components of commitment. With regard to intent to stay, commitment is psychological state that characterizes the link between the employee and the organization (Meyer & Allen, 1991). Therefore, all three components of commitment are expected to increase intent to stay. Search behavior is usually thought of as a precursor of intent to stay and thus signals the impending mobility of an employee (Halaby & Weakleim, 1989; Mobley, 1982). As such the three components of commitment are expected to decrease such behavior.
No comments:
Post a Comment