A number of research papers, articles, books, journals and newspapers have been reviewed. Some of the important studies have been outlined here
Several authors associate the development of organizational commitment with variables such as the personal characteristics of the employee, personal values, organization characteristics like job satisfaction, and job characteristics.
The influence of personal characteristics on organizational commitment has been extensively studied with the focus on demographic variables such as age, gender, tenure and education level and disposition attributes (Nijhof et al., 1998).
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 though, Mowday et al (1992), Steers (1977), all investigated the role of personal characteristics and found that the characteristics and experiences that a person brings to an organization can predict their commitment to the organization.
Demographic factors such as age, gender, marital status, education level and work experience have been found to be significantly related to organizational commitment (Dodd- McCue and Wright, 1996; Mannheim et al., 1997; Morrow, 1993; Wiedmer, 2006). Santos and Not- Land (2006) found significant relationship between job tenure and organizational commitment. However, Wiedmer (2006) found that education level and age were not significant predictors of job satisfaction and organizational involvement 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.
Salami, (2008) studied demographic and psychological factors predicting organizational commitment among industrial workers in Nigeria. The study found significant positive correlations between organizational commitment and demographic factors like age, marital status, education, job tenure, achievement motivation, carrier salience, emotional intelligence and job satisfaction. While no significant correlation was found between organizational commitment and gender.
Land (2006) found significant relationship between job tenure and organizational- commitment. However, Wiedmer (2006) found that education level and age were not significant predictors of job satisfaction and organizational involvement. Studies have also found that employee traits such as leadership and communication styles have an affect on organizational commitment (Decottis & Summers, 1987).
Some researchers have studied the relationship between personal values, work values and organizational commitment. Finegan (1999) studied the relationship between personal values, organizational values, and organizational commitment, in a large petrochemical company. The study found that commitment was predicted by the employees’ perception of organizational values. Furthermore, affective, normative and continuance commitment were each predicted by different clusters of values. This study highlights the importance of recognizing that values are multidimensional and that each value cluster may affect behavior differently.
Elizur and Kolslowsky (2001) examined the relationship between work values, gender, and organizational commitment. The study concluded that that work values, especially cognitive ones, are positively related with commitment and the interaction of values with gender was also found to be a significant predictor of commitment. Khatib (1997) examined whether three custodial groups in the organization differ in their behavioral norms and shared values, and, if so, to what extent do these differences impact the organizational commitment. The custodians were located in three different workplaces and belonged to three different supervisory teams. The two basic research questions were of concern: (a) whether there were any differences in the perceptions of three custodial groups of their behavioral and shared values at the workplace; and (b) whether there were any relationships between these two components of organizational commitment of the custodians. The study concluded that all three groups reported similar perceptions about behavioral norms and shared values and all three groups reported a strong commitment to their organization.
A number of researchers have reported mixed findings on the relationship between job satisfaction and organizational commitment. For instance, Curry, Wakefield, Price and Mueller (1986) found no significant relationship between job satisfaction and organizational commitment. However, other researchers (Busch et al., 1998; Chiu-Yueh, 2000; Feinstein and Vondraek, 2006; Freund, 2005; Mannheim et al., 1997) found that job satisfaction was a significant predictor of organizational commitment.
Martin (2002) reported a strong relationship between job satisfaction and organizational commitment in a study of the health care staff in the United Kingdom. The aim of their study, which was carried out in a nursing home for older people, was to determine the feasibility of working with health care workers and very frail service users to investigate links between the levels of work satisfaction and organizational commitment. Similarly, Al-Aameri (2000) found a strong positive correlation between job satisfaction and organizational commitment with a sample of registered nurses in Saudi Arabia the results showed that nurses were satisfied with their jobs to some extent, and they were slightly committed to their hospitals. The study’s findings showed that age was significantly correlated with job satisfaction and commitment, but experience was correlated only with commitment. This finding is consistent with a large survey of qualified nurses in the United States conducted by Ingersoll, Olsan, Drew-Cates, DeVinney, and Davies (2002), which revealed a closely positive correlation between job satisfaction and organizational commitment.
A positive relationship between job satisfaction and organizational commitment has been reported by studies involving qualified professionals. A study was conducted by Wu & Norman (2005) in a nursing department of a medical university in China with a sample (75) of full time final year (clinical practice year) degree level nursing students. The authors found a positive correlation between job satisfaction and organizational commitment indicating that student nurses who were more satisfied with the nursing as a job were also more committed to the health care service.
Some researchers argued that job satisfaction reflects immediate affective reactions to the job while commitment to the organization develops more slowly after the individual forms more comprehensive valuations of the employing organization, its values, and expectations and one’s own future in it. Therefore, job satisfaction is seen as one of the determinants of organizational commitment (Mannheim et al., 1997). It is thus expected that highly satisfied workers will be more committed to the organization.
Narimawati (2007) studied the Influence of Work Satisfaction, Organizational Commitment and Turnover Intention towards the Performance of Lecturers at West Java’s Private Higher Education Institution. The study found the influence of work satisfaction on performance is significant and positive. It means that if a person has high work satisfaction, the person concerned will show high performance as well. The influence of organizational commitment towards the performance is significant and positive. It means that if a person has high organizational commitment, the person concerned will show high performance as well. The influence of turnover intention towards the performance is not significant and negative. It means that if the turnover intention does not influence much upon the performance of the lecturers.
Cote and Heslin (2003) examined the relationship between job satisfaction and organizational commitment on Sleep Well’s Seattle branch, the Downtown hotel. The study found a relatively strong correlation between job satisfaction and organizational commitment. The study concluded that higher job satisfaction will lead to higher level of organizational commitment.
Job satisfaction is defined as a pleasurable or positive emotional state resulting from the appraisal of one’s job or job experience. It is a result of employee’s perception of how well their job provides that thing that is viewed as important (Luthan, 1998). A number of previous researchers have reported mixed findings on the relationship between job satisfaction and organizational commitment. For instance, Curry, Wakefield, Price and Mueller (1986) found no significant relationship between job satisfaction and organizational commitment. However, other researchers (Busch et al., 1998; Chiu-Yueh, 2000; Feinstein and Vondraek, 2006; Freund, 2005; Mannheim et al., 1997) found that job satisfaction was a significant predictor of organizational commitment. Some researchers argued that job satisfaction reflects immediate affective reactions to the job while commitment to the organization develops more slowly after the individual forms more comprehensive valuations of the employing organization, its values, and expectations and one’s own future in it. Therefore, job satisfaction is seen as one of the determinants of organizational commitment (Mannheim et al., 1997). It is thus expected that highly satisfied workers will be more committed to the organization.
Relative effects of different sources of stress on job satisfaction have also been analyzed. Drory and Shamir (1988) examined the effects of intra-organizational factors, (e.g., role conflict, role ambiguity, management support), extra-organizational factors, (e.g., community support, family-role conflict), and task characteristics on the job satisfaction and burnout of 266 Israeli prison guards. They found that extra-organizational factors, especially community support, made the greatest contribution to explained variance (12%) in job satisfaction. Task characteristics accounted for 4.35% and organizational variables accounted for 3.4% of the explained variance. These results suggest that extra-organizational types of stresses are as important as intra-organizational sources in determining an individual's levels of job satisfaction in Israel. These results also emphasize the impact of the non-work factors on work outcomes in the Israeli context. However, in explaining job burnout, intra-organizational factors accounted for 9% and extra-organizational factors accounted for 5% of the variance. Task characteristics did not add significantly to the net explained variance in job burnout. Although both intra- and extra-organizational factors made unique contributions to the explained variance in burnout, internal factors accounted for a greater proportion. These results seem to suggest that though management support may be an important factor in preventing burnout, it is probably of lesser importance in preventing job dissatisfaction.
Further insights into the moderating effect of control may be gained by examining research on the relationship between job characteristics and satisfaction. Two meta-analyses (Fried & Ferris, 1987; Loher, Noe, Moeller, & Fitzgerald, 1985) provide support for the relationship between job characteristics identified by Hackman and Oldham (1975) and job satisfaction. Moreover, research stemming from Karasek's (1979) job strain model suggests that control may moderate some of the relationships described by the Job Characteristics Model. Karasek's model suggests that stress does not result from a single element of the work environment, but is instead the joint effects of work demands and the range of decision-making opportunities that are available to an individual. Using data from national surveys in the U.S. and Sweden, Karasek found that jobs characterized as "active" (i.e., high in decision latitude with high job demands), are associated with higher degrees of satisfaction and reduced depression. In contrast, "passive" jobs (i.e., low decision latitude and job demands), are associated with higher degrees of depression and dissatisfaction. However, most research on Karasek's model has failed to find the expected moderating effect of control, suggesting that other possible moderators of the stress/satisfaction relationship should be examined (e.g., Astrand, Hanson, & Isacsson, 1989; Melamed, Kushnir, & Meir, 1991; Newton & Keenan, 1990; Payne & Fletcher, 1983; Pieper, La Croix, & Karesek, 1989).
Beehr (1976) reported that group cohesiveness may strengthen, rather than weaken, the stress-outcome relationship. He examined the effects of group cohesion, supervisory support, and job autonomy on the relationship between role ambiguity and job dissatisfaction, life dissatisfaction, low self-esteem, and depressed mood. Group cohesiveness significantly moderated the relationship between role ambiguity and low self-esteem. For individuals in cohesive groups, the relationship between stress and low self-esteem was weaker than for individuals in non-cohesive groups. Similarly, group cohesiveness significantly moderated the stress-satisfaction relationship, but not in the predicted direction. Job dissatisfaction was related more strongly to role ambiguity in cohesive than in non-cohesive groups. Individuals in cohesive groups are more likely to communicate with each other compared to individuals in non-cohesive groups. Discussing work situations with peers may help individuals place blame for the experienced ambiguity on the role. In contrast, individuals in non-cohesive groups may internalize the blame. Supervisory support was not found to be a significant moderator of the stress-strain relationship. Job autonomy was a significant moderator of the relationships between stress and job dissatisfaction, low self-esteem, and depressed mood.
Lieb (2000) investigated the relationship between organizational commitment and performance appraisal systems as perceived by working college undergraduates and MBA students. The study examined whether an organization culture dimension and its corresponding performance appraisal dimension would significantly interact to affect the outcome variables of job-satisfaction, organizational commitment and turnover intention. The study revealed none of the seven dimensions had a significant effect on continuance, normative or total organizational commitment.
Emotional intelligence is the ability to perceive and express emotion, assimilate emotion in thought, understand and reason with emotion and regulate emotion in the self and others (Mayer et al., 2000). If one looks deeply at almost any factor that influences organizational effectiveness, one will find that emotional intelligence plays a role. Emotional intelligence (EI) has been linked to job performance and emotional labour (Prati, 2003; Law et al., 2004). Understanding and regulation of one’s emotions as well as understanding other’s emotions are factors that affect intrapersonal well-being and interpersonal relations which also affect workers’ attitudes to their colleagues, their bosses and their job. Thus EI may also affect organizational commitment. Cherniss (2001) reported that emotionally intelligent people display cooperation, commitment and creativity which are important for organizational effectiveness.
Also some researchers found that emotional intelligence was positively correlated with organizational commitment of some workers (Carmeli, 2003; Nikolaou and Tsaousis, 2002; Rozell et al., 2004). It is expected that workers having high emotional intelligence will also be highly committed to their organizations.
The influence of organizational commitment on job performance includes absenteeism and turnover.
In general, organizational commitment is considered a useful measure of organizational effectiveness (Steers, 1975). In particular, “organizational commitment is a “multidimensional construct” (Morrow, 1993) that has the potential to predict organizational outcomes such as performance, turnover, absenteeism, tenure, and organizational goals” (Meyer & Allen, 1997, p.12). For example, in a study involving 109 workers, Loui (1995) examined the relationship between the broad construct of organizational commitment and the outcome measures of supervisory trust, job involvement, and job satisfaction. In all three areas, Loui (1995) reported positive relationships with organizational commitment. More specifically, perceived trust in the supervisor, an ability to be involved with the job, and feelings of job satisfaction were major determinants of organizational commitment.
Angle & Perry (1991) undertook a study to determine the effect that organizational commitment had on turnover. The participants included 1,244 bus drivers. Findings revealed a negative relationship between turnover and organizational commitment. In short, employees who intended to leave the job were not committed to the organization. Wiener & Vardi (1980) looked at the effect that organizational commitment had on commitment to the job and career commitment. Their participants included 56 insurance agents and 85 staff professionals. The researchers reported positive relationships between organizational commitment and the two other types of commitment.
Jermier & Berkes (1979) collected data on organizational commitment from over 800 Police officers. The researchers were investigating the relationship between job satisfaction and organizational commitment. Findings revealed that employees who were more satisfied with their job had higher levels of organizational commitment.
DeCotiis & Summers (1987) undertook a study of 367 managers and their employees. The researchers examined the relationship between organizational commitment and the outcome measures of individual motivation, desire to leave, turnover, and job performance. Organizational commitment was found to be a strong predicator for each of these outcome areas.
Further investigation into the multidimensionality of organizational commitment revealed different relationships between commitment and relations-oriented and task-oriented leadership behaviors. For instance, Reichers (1986) claimed that organizational commitment was in reality a collection of commitments to multiple coalitions and constituencies (e.g. owners/managers, rank-and-file employees, customers/clients). In an examination of this claim, Reichers (1986) undertook a study to measure the commitment of 124 mental health professionals. Her only significant correlation was between organizational commitment and top management’s goals and values.
In another study involving 763 employees, Becker (1992) examined whether employees’ commitment to different constituencies or to the overall organization were better predictors of job satisfaction, intention to quit, and pro-social behavior. He discovered that employees' commitment to top management, supervisors, and work groups contributed significantly beyond commitment to the organization. During later research, Becker, Billings, Eveleth, & Gilbert (1996) also explored whether commitment to the supervisor or to the organization had the greatest impact on the performance ratings that supervisors gave to newly hired employees. From their study of 281 participants, the researchers found that commitment to the supervisor and the supervisor’s values was more strongly related to performance ratings than was employee commitment to the organization. Summarizing these multiple constituency findings, Meyer & Allen (1997) offered the following:
It should be kept in mind, however, that when we as researchers measure commitment to the organization as a whole, we are probably measuring employees’ commitment to “top management” (Reichers, 1986) or to a combination of top management and more local foci (Becker & Billings, 1993; Hunt & Morgan, 1994). If, on the one hand, our intention is to use commitment as a means of understanding or predicting behavior of relevance to the organization as a whole (or top management specifically), it would seem that our purpose can be well served with global measures of organizational commitment. (p. 19)
While Meyer & Allen (1991) have used affective, continuance, and normative commitment to capture the multidimensional nature of organizational commitment, affective commitment is considered a more effective measurement of organizational commitment.
Meyer & Allen (1997) buttressed their support for the importance of affective commitment by explaining that employees with strong affective commitment would be motivated to higher levels of performance and make more meaningful contributions than employees who expressed continuance or normative commitment.
Results of several recent studies, suggest 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).
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.
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 relation between normative commitment and citizenship behavior has received much less research attention. In a study Meyer et (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.
In nine studies involving 2,734 persons, Dunham, Grube, & Castaneda (1994) examined how participatory management and supervisory feedback influenced employee levels of affective, continuance, and normative commitment. The researchers found that when supervisors provided feedback about performance and allowed employees to participate in decision making, employee levels of affective commitment was stronger than both continuance and normative. That is, employees indicated staying with the organization was more related to wanting to, rather than needing to or feeling they ought to.
Irving, Coleman, & Cooper (1997) investigated the relationship between affective, continuance, and normative commitment and the outcome measures of job satisfaction and turnover intentions. Total participants for the study included 232 employees. Results revealed that job satisfaction was positively related to both affective and normative commitment. However, job satisfaction was negatively related to continuance commitment. All three types of commitment were negatively related to turnover intentions, with continuance commitment having the strongest negative relationship.
Cohen & Kirchmeyer (1995) undertook a study to investigate the relationship between affective, continuance, and normative commitment and the non-work measure of resource enrichment. Their participants included 227 nurses from two hospitals. The researchers found positive relationships between resource enrichment and both affective and normative commitment. However, the relationship between continuance commitment and resource enrichment was negative. In effect, employees who were staying with the organization because they wanted to or felt they ought to, indicated higher involvement and enjoyment with work activities. Whereas, employees who were staying with the organization because they felt they needed to indicated less involvement and dissatisfaction with work activities.
While Meyer & Allen (1991) have used affective, continuance, and normative commitment to capture the multidimensional nature of organizational commitment, affective commitment is considered a more effective measurement of organizational commitment.
In a study of 238 nurses, Cohen (1996) investigated the relationship between affective, continuance, and normative commitment and the following other types of commitment: work involvement, job involvement, and career commitment. Findings revealed that affective commitment was more highly correlated with all the other types of commitment. In other words, employees who remained with the organization because they wanted to were more likely to exhibit higher levels of commitment to their work, their job, and their career.
Barbara, B.Brown (2003), explored organizational commitment and employee perception of Supervisors’ relation-oriented and task-oriented leadership behaviors. The study concluded that relations-oriented leadership behaviors which involve building trust inspiring a shared vision, encouraging creativity, emphasizing development, and recognizing accomplishments explains some of the variation in whether employees want to or do not want to stay with the city of Charlottesville. For normative commitment, these same relations-oriented leadership behaviors explain a little less of the variation in whether employees feel obligated to or do not feel obligated to stay with the city. Further investigation into the multidimensionality of organizational commitment revealed different relationships between commitment and relations-oriented and task-oriented leadership behaviors. For instance, Reichers (1986) claimed that organizational commitment was in reality a collection of commitments to multiple coalitions and constituencies (e.g. owners/managers, rank-and-file employees, customers/clients). In an examination of this claim, Reichers (1986) undertook a study to measure the commitment of 124 mental health professionals. Her only significant correlation was between organizational commitment and top management’s goals and values.
In nine studies involving 2,734 persons, Dunham, Grube, & Castaneda (1994) examined how participatory management and supervisory feedback influenced employee levels of affective, continuance, and normative commitment. The researchers found that when supervisors provided feedback about performance and allowed employees to participate in decision-making, employee levels of affective commitment was stronger than both continuance and normative. That is, employees indicated staying with the organization was more related to wanting to, rather than needing to or feeling they ought to.
Mathiew and Zajac (1990) were of the view that organizational commitment is an outcome of work centrality. According to them, it is only after the individual has developed a strong concern for and centrality of his/her work role that he/she is likely to look beyond the immediate job environment to the organizational at large. They believe that people’s involvement in their job is antecedent to organizational commitment. It is therefore expected that workers who have high career salience will be highly committed to their organization
Researchers found significant relationship between need for achievement and organizational commitment (Dodd-McCue and Wright, 1996; Mannheim et al., 1997). Most researchers agree that motivation is important in work organizations; and that individual employees attempt to satisfy many needs through their work and through their relationship with an organization (Li, 2006). Hence employees with high need for achievement will likely to be more committed to their organizations.
Achievement motivation is the desire to perform in terms of a standard of excellence or to be successful in competitive situations. Persons who have high need for achievement (nAch) assume personal responsibility for the solution Persons who have high need for achievement (nAch) assume personal responsibility for the solution of tasks or problems, set moderately difficult goals, take calculated risks, and have strong desire for feedback on their performance as indexed by compensation (Lawson and Shen, 1998). Previous researchers found significant relationship between need for achievement and organizational commitment (Dodd-McCue and Wright, 1996; Mannheim et al., 1997). Most researchers agree that motivation is important in work organizations; and that individual employees attempt to satisfy many needs through their work and through their relationship with an organization (Li, 2006). Hence employees with high need for achievement will likely to be more committed to their organizations.
Rubina Kazmi, Shehla Amjad, Delawar Khan (2008) studied the effect of occupational stress on job performance on 55 doctors of Ayub teaching hospital in Pakistan. The results showed that there is an inverse relationship between job stress and job performance indicating that there is high job stress in the house officers, resulting in low job performance. The study suggested that correct stress management should start from improved health and good intrapersonal relationships. The prevention and management of workplace stress requires organizational level interventions, because it is the organization that creates the stress. Success in managing and preventing stress will depend on the culture in the organization. A culture of openness and understanding, rather than of criticism, is essential. Those house officers who had high level of job stress had low job performance.
In another study involving 763 employees, Becker (1992) examined whether employees’ commitment to different constituencies or to the overall organization were better predictors of job satisfaction, intention to quit, and pro-social behavior. He discovered that employees' commitment to top management, supervisors, and work groups contributed significantly beyond commitment to the organization. During later research, Becker, Billings, Eveleth, & Gilbert (1996) also explored whether commitment to the supervisor or to the organization had the greatest impact on the performance ratings that supervisors gave to newly hired employees. From their study of 281 participants, the researchers found that commitment to the supervisor and the supervisor’s values was more strongly related to performance ratings than was employee commitment to the organization.Individual differences also influence the stress-performance relationship. Baker, Ware, Spires and Osborn (1966), using a sample of 80 career army officers, found that some individuals were stimulated by stress and were high performers, whereas, other individuals showed behavioral disorganization and a reduction in effectiveness. They suggest that a person's readiness to react to stress with negative or positive emotion due to their task involvement is a critical cause of performance. In his 1984 and 1985 studies, Jamal found evidence that commitment moderates the stress-performance relationship. In his study of managers and blue-collar workers, organizational commitment moderated over 50% of the relationship between stress and performance. Commitment also acted as a buffer against the aversive effects of stress on performance. In the study involving the nurses, Jamal found partial support for the moderating effects of professional and organizational commitment on stress-performance relationship.
Research has also been conducted using path analysis in order to examine the causal relationship between stress and performance. For example, Motowidlo, Packard, and Manning (1986) employed this technique in their study involving 171 nurses. Performance ratings from supervisor and/or co-workers were obtained. Organizational stress was significantly correlated with such performance outcomes as personal composure, quality of patient care, tolerance towards patients, warmth towards other nurses, tolerance towards nurses and physicians, and interpersonal effectiveness. However, stress was not significantly related to cognitive/motivational effectiveness. A path-analysis indicated that stress influenced performance primarily through feelings of depression rather than through feelings of anxiety or hostility. Depression had a significant negative effect on all types of performance outcomes except tolerance towards patients.
Job absence is very much a part of job performance: employees are not performing effectively if they do not even come to work. Introverted, conscientious employees are much less likely to be absent from work, as opposed to extraverted employees who are low on conscientiousness. Interestingly enough, neuroticism is not highly correlated with absence (Judge, Martocchio, & Thoresen, 1997). The Judge et al. (1997) study is interesting considering the Judge et al. (2002) research on job satisfaction and the five-factor model. The results of the latter research suggests that extraverted individuals are more satisfied in the workplace, because work gives them an opportunity to experience an optimal level of arousal, whereas introverted individuals are less satisfied in the workplace due to too much stimulation. Combining the results of these two studies suggests that conscientiousness is the deciding factor regarding job absence.
Perhaps another factor in absenteeism is that, although introverts may be less satisfied in the workplace, they go to work anyway. This behavior might imply either that introverts are more conscientious or simply that introverts have no compelling reason not to go to work (whereas extraverts may have friends who urge them to skip work and go see a movie). This conclusion is debatable, however, because introverts might be tempted to skip work to avoid the extra stimulation and might perhaps stay home and read a book (a book on psychology, no doubt). Judge and his colleagues will likely continue their research and perhaps provide answers in the future.
Oftentimes in the workplace the ability to be a team player is valued and is critical to job performance. Recent research has suggested that conscientiousness, extraversion, and agreeableness are all related to cooperative behavior but that they are not related to task performance. Although this fortifies the case that job performance is related to the five-factor model via increased cooperativeness among coworkers, it lays siege to the role of personality by implying that actual job performance (task performance) is related to cognitive ability and not to personality (LePine & Dyne, 2001).
Leadership abilities are often essential in the workplace, especially for individuals who aspire to move up into the ranks of management. Studies of Asian military units have found that neuroticism is negatively correlated with leadership abilities. Contrary to what the researchers hypothesized, agreeableness is negatively correlated with leadership abilities as well. Openness to experience is unrelated to leadership abilities, but extraversion is positively correlated with leadership abilities (Lim & Ployhart, 2004). This evidence is consistent with the long-standing idea that in teams there are leaders and there are followers; the leaders make decisions and the followers abide by them. Although agreeableness is positively correlated with working with a team, it is negatively correlated with being a leader. Those followers who do not always agree and are willing to voice their own opinions end moving up the ranks whereas those who blindly agree are left as followers.
Some researchers have studied the job performance as a function of personality. A person's personality may not necessarily have a very high impact on a person's job or productivity per se, depending on the type of work being done. Sean P. Neubert discussed the notion that salespeople who exhibit high levels of extroversion will have better overall job performance is pretty evident, for being a salesperson requires a lot of social interaction, and an introverted salesperson would obviously be less effective than an extravert. Given that point, another point brought up is about conscientiousness in addition to extraversion and its positive correlation with job performance in terms of the social atmosphere present in most workplaces: a conscientious person is obviously more likely to be a more productive worker and an extraverted person will experience an optimal level of arousal in a social workplace. Personality influence would perhaps become less palpable if an individual's place of work is not a highly social arena or the job is non-traditional.
If one's job does not require constant or high levels of social interaction, then one's cognitive ability can become a much greater factor. Depending on the type of job one holds, one's personality may have very little impact on the quality of work being done or other job performance indicators. As mentioned by Neubert, a job such as a writer may not necessarily require high levels of extraversion. Other types of jobs that do not require direct social interaction are probably similar in terms of cognitive abilities or other factors affecting overall job performance.
Openness to experience has not been shown to correlate significantly with job performance. This may seem counterintuitive, because openness to experience is sometimes also referred to intellect, and cognitive ability and intellect are presumably related. One's openness to experience should be indicative of creativity and originality; consequently, there may be a direct but unobvious connection to job performance in terms of creating and trying new things that may improve personal productivity or otherwise maybe even affect general productivity on a greater scale--for example, a new way of doing things may improve operation of an entire company. Openness would also then tie into working with other people--for example, a person who is more open to experience would be willing to try out new and different ideas presented by coworkers. Openness may not relate to job performance due to limitations in the methodology of past research, lack of a high enough correlation to reach statistical significance, or even perhaps because there really is no direct relation between openness to experience and overall job performance.
People's personalities obviously have an impact on many, many things that they do, if not everything. How profound the effect of personality is on job performance depends of course on the unique facets of an individual's personality. Does personality have a great impact on overall productivity in a social workplace? Yes, it does. Cognitive ability, however, has been shown to be more positively correlated to actual task performance. From this fact, one can argue that personality comes into play again, because if one is unwilling to perform the task and lacks conscientiousness, then the job will not get done, regardless of potential ability. Social aspects of many traditional work environments may overshadow some other unseen factors that affect overall workplace productivity. More research needs to be conducted on other types of work environments.
The five-factor model is correlated with overall level of job satisfaction experienced by employees. In general, satisfied employees are more likely to remain in a position and to avoid absences than are dissatisfied employees.
Initial research indicated that neuroticism is negatively correlated with job satisfaction, whereas conscientiousness, extraversion, and agreeableness are positively correlated with job satisfaction. Openness to experience has a negligible impact on job satisfaction. Additional research, however, has only been able to replicate correlations among the factors of neuroticism and extraversion, with extraversion being positively correlated with job satisfaction and neuroticism being negatively correlated. This could be due to the social nature of the workplace (Judge, Heller, & Mount, 2002).
This finding may be due to the low level of arousability for extraverted individuals (Hebb's theory). If the workplace is a social environment, then extraverted employees are more likely to be at a low level of arousal while at work, whereas at their home there is less stimulation. Introverts, on the other hand, are more likely at their optimal level of arousal outside of the workplace, where there is less stimulation, and therefore are more likely dissatisfied with the level of stimulation that they experience while at work
Pattrawadee Makmee, Siridej Sujiva and Sirichai Kanjanawasee (2010) developed a model of Organizational Effectiveness Evaluation for Faculties of Education’ in Thailand. A total of 1,024 samples were stratified randomly, and consisted 4 public autonomous universities and 4 public universities in Thailand. The research results showed that the perceptions of members in faculties of education in public autonomous universities regarding faculty of education effectiveness were quite high for all variables, except for academic development, which was moderate. In the case of public universities, the perceptions of faculty members were quite high for all variables, except for the ability to acquire resources and money, which was moderate. The proposed multilevel causal model of faculty of education effectiveness fits quite well with the empirical data set. The predictor variables at the field and department levels accounted for variance of the faculty of education effectiveness of about 73% and 56%, respectively.
Camp, (1993), assessed the Effects of Organizational Commitment and Job Satisfaction on Turnover among correctional workers. The study examines two separate aspects of organizational commitment, commitment to the overall organization and commitment to the specific institution. Organizational commitment was found to be a significant predictor of organizationally relevant behavior, in this case, turnover. This certainly lends support to the position of those such as Lincoln and Kalleberg (1990) who argued for the importance of organizational commitment. Conversely, there was no evidence from this study of workers in one public sector agency that job satisfaction has any effect on voluntary turnover.
Work role salience or career salience is the importance attached to building a career and the time and effort an individual is willing to invest in it. It is akin to job involvement or work centrality. A number of researchers have linked work-role salience or career salience with work attitude (Mannheim et al., 1997; van der Velde et al., 2003). For example van der Velde et al. (2003) found significant correlation between career salience and organizational commitment. Mathiew and Zajac (1990) were of the view that organizational commitment is an outcome of work centrality. According to them, it is only after the individual has developed a strong concern for and centrality of his/her work role that he/she is likely to look beyond the immediate job environment to the organizational at large. They believe that people’s involvement in their job is antecedent to organizational commitment. It is therefore expected that workers who have high career salience will be highly committed to their organizations.
Studies examining different types of work sectors have found that government employees have higher levels of continuance commitment then 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 hat 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” (p.241).
Research on commitment outcomes examines whether the different components of commitment have certain consequences. 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 operationalzed” (p. 467). Various research studies take place examining the outcomes of employee commitment.
Employee attendance is the most positively related outcome to affective commitment. Steers (1997) found that employee commitment was highly related to the attendance of workers. Gellatlly (1995) found that continuance commitment was related with the 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 also found that those employees who had higher levels of commitment had lower levels of absenteeism and turnover.
Retention of employee appears to be one of the most studied outcomes of organizational commitment. Several studies have found a correlation between turnover and commitment (Porter et al, 1974; Meyer & Allen, 1997). Porter et al (1974) found that employees with lower levels of commitment were more likely to leave then their counterparts. Meyer and Allen (1997) argue that the different components of commitment relate to different types of outcomes, therefore continuance commitment may or may not relate to employee performance.
Porter and his colleagues’ seminal work (Mowday, Porter, & Steers, 1982; Poerter Steers, Mowday, & Boulian, 1974) indicated that organizational commitment is a better predictor of turnover and absenteeism than job satisfaction
Meyer & Allen (1997) buttressed their support for the importance of affective commitment by explaining that employees with strong affective commitment would be motivated to higher levels of performance and make more meaningful contributions than employees who expressed continuance or normative
Despite its elusive nature, organizational effectiveness has been considered a critical concept in organizational theory (Goodman & Pennings, 1980). Some of the earliest models developed were goal based (Etzioni, 1960; Steers, 1977) but immediately identified as an unsatisfactory construct since the selection of inadequate goals cannot lead to an effective organization (Miles, 1980; Mohr, 1983). These early models gave way to system models, which focused on a broader set of variables and on measuring the means necessary to achieve the organizational goals (Miles, 1980). But like goal based models, relevant systems and key processes within the organizational systems could be misdirected and prove inefficient if they caused, even if unintended, undesirable external consequences (Mohr, 1983). From these concerns emerged the multiple-constituency models designed to measure effectiveness not only internally but also as a function of customer satisfaction (Connolly, Conlon & Deustch, 1980). The most recently developed models that have managed to obtain some level of agreement among organizational theorists assume a multidimensional construct (Robbins, 1983; Ridley & Mendoza, 1993).
Several authors associate the development of organizational commitment with variables such as the personal characteristics of the employee, personal values, organization characteristics like job satisfaction, and job characteristics.
The influence of personal characteristics on organizational commitment has been extensively studied with the focus on demographic variables such as age, gender, tenure and education level and disposition attributes (Nijhof et al., 1998).
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 though, Mowday et al (1992), Steers (1977), all investigated the role of personal characteristics and found that the characteristics and experiences that a person brings to an organization can predict their commitment to the organization.
Demographic factors such as age, gender, marital status, education level and work experience have been found to be significantly related to organizational commitment (Dodd- McCue and Wright, 1996; Mannheim et al., 1997; Morrow, 1993; Wiedmer, 2006). Santos and Not- Land (2006) found significant relationship between job tenure and organizational commitment. However, Wiedmer (2006) found that education level and age were not significant predictors of job satisfaction and organizational involvement 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.
Salami, (2008) studied demographic and psychological factors predicting organizational commitment among industrial workers in Nigeria. The study found significant positive correlations between organizational commitment and demographic factors like age, marital status, education, job tenure, achievement motivation, carrier salience, emotional intelligence and job satisfaction. While no significant correlation was found between organizational commitment and gender.
Land (2006) found significant relationship between job tenure and organizational- commitment. However, Wiedmer (2006) found that education level and age were not significant predictors of job satisfaction and organizational involvement. Studies have also found that employee traits such as leadership and communication styles have an affect on organizational commitment (Decottis & Summers, 1987).
Some researchers have studied the relationship between personal values, work values and organizational commitment. Finegan (1999) studied the relationship between personal values, organizational values, and organizational commitment, in a large petrochemical company. The study found that commitment was predicted by the employees’ perception of organizational values. Furthermore, affective, normative and continuance commitment were each predicted by different clusters of values. This study highlights the importance of recognizing that values are multidimensional and that each value cluster may affect behavior differently.
Elizur and Kolslowsky (2001) examined the relationship between work values, gender, and organizational commitment. The study concluded that that work values, especially cognitive ones, are positively related with commitment and the interaction of values with gender was also found to be a significant predictor of commitment. Khatib (1997) examined whether three custodial groups in the organization differ in their behavioral norms and shared values, and, if so, to what extent do these differences impact the organizational commitment. The custodians were located in three different workplaces and belonged to three different supervisory teams. The two basic research questions were of concern: (a) whether there were any differences in the perceptions of three custodial groups of their behavioral and shared values at the workplace; and (b) whether there were any relationships between these two components of organizational commitment of the custodians. The study concluded that all three groups reported similar perceptions about behavioral norms and shared values and all three groups reported a strong commitment to their organization.
A number of researchers have reported mixed findings on the relationship between job satisfaction and organizational commitment. For instance, Curry, Wakefield, Price and Mueller (1986) found no significant relationship between job satisfaction and organizational commitment. However, other researchers (Busch et al., 1998; Chiu-Yueh, 2000; Feinstein and Vondraek, 2006; Freund, 2005; Mannheim et al., 1997) found that job satisfaction was a significant predictor of organizational commitment.
Martin (2002) reported a strong relationship between job satisfaction and organizational commitment in a study of the health care staff in the United Kingdom. The aim of their study, which was carried out in a nursing home for older people, was to determine the feasibility of working with health care workers and very frail service users to investigate links between the levels of work satisfaction and organizational commitment. Similarly, Al-Aameri (2000) found a strong positive correlation between job satisfaction and organizational commitment with a sample of registered nurses in Saudi Arabia the results showed that nurses were satisfied with their jobs to some extent, and they were slightly committed to their hospitals. The study’s findings showed that age was significantly correlated with job satisfaction and commitment, but experience was correlated only with commitment. This finding is consistent with a large survey of qualified nurses in the United States conducted by Ingersoll, Olsan, Drew-Cates, DeVinney, and Davies (2002), which revealed a closely positive correlation between job satisfaction and organizational commitment.
A positive relationship between job satisfaction and organizational commitment has been reported by studies involving qualified professionals. A study was conducted by Wu & Norman (2005) in a nursing department of a medical university in China with a sample (75) of full time final year (clinical practice year) degree level nursing students. The authors found a positive correlation between job satisfaction and organizational commitment indicating that student nurses who were more satisfied with the nursing as a job were also more committed to the health care service.
Some researchers argued that job satisfaction reflects immediate affective reactions to the job while commitment to the organization develops more slowly after the individual forms more comprehensive valuations of the employing organization, its values, and expectations and one’s own future in it. Therefore, job satisfaction is seen as one of the determinants of organizational commitment (Mannheim et al., 1997). It is thus expected that highly satisfied workers will be more committed to the organization.
Narimawati (2007) studied the Influence of Work Satisfaction, Organizational Commitment and Turnover Intention towards the Performance of Lecturers at West Java’s Private Higher Education Institution. The study found the influence of work satisfaction on performance is significant and positive. It means that if a person has high work satisfaction, the person concerned will show high performance as well. The influence of organizational commitment towards the performance is significant and positive. It means that if a person has high organizational commitment, the person concerned will show high performance as well. The influence of turnover intention towards the performance is not significant and negative. It means that if the turnover intention does not influence much upon the performance of the lecturers.
Cote and Heslin (2003) examined the relationship between job satisfaction and organizational commitment on Sleep Well’s Seattle branch, the Downtown hotel. The study found a relatively strong correlation between job satisfaction and organizational commitment. The study concluded that higher job satisfaction will lead to higher level of organizational commitment.
Job satisfaction is defined as a pleasurable or positive emotional state resulting from the appraisal of one’s job or job experience. It is a result of employee’s perception of how well their job provides that thing that is viewed as important (Luthan, 1998). A number of previous researchers have reported mixed findings on the relationship between job satisfaction and organizational commitment. For instance, Curry, Wakefield, Price and Mueller (1986) found no significant relationship between job satisfaction and organizational commitment. However, other researchers (Busch et al., 1998; Chiu-Yueh, 2000; Feinstein and Vondraek, 2006; Freund, 2005; Mannheim et al., 1997) found that job satisfaction was a significant predictor of organizational commitment. Some researchers argued that job satisfaction reflects immediate affective reactions to the job while commitment to the organization develops more slowly after the individual forms more comprehensive valuations of the employing organization, its values, and expectations and one’s own future in it. Therefore, job satisfaction is seen as one of the determinants of organizational commitment (Mannheim et al., 1997). It is thus expected that highly satisfied workers will be more committed to the organization.
Relative effects of different sources of stress on job satisfaction have also been analyzed. Drory and Shamir (1988) examined the effects of intra-organizational factors, (e.g., role conflict, role ambiguity, management support), extra-organizational factors, (e.g., community support, family-role conflict), and task characteristics on the job satisfaction and burnout of 266 Israeli prison guards. They found that extra-organizational factors, especially community support, made the greatest contribution to explained variance (12%) in job satisfaction. Task characteristics accounted for 4.35% and organizational variables accounted for 3.4% of the explained variance. These results suggest that extra-organizational types of stresses are as important as intra-organizational sources in determining an individual's levels of job satisfaction in Israel. These results also emphasize the impact of the non-work factors on work outcomes in the Israeli context. However, in explaining job burnout, intra-organizational factors accounted for 9% and extra-organizational factors accounted for 5% of the variance. Task characteristics did not add significantly to the net explained variance in job burnout. Although both intra- and extra-organizational factors made unique contributions to the explained variance in burnout, internal factors accounted for a greater proportion. These results seem to suggest that though management support may be an important factor in preventing burnout, it is probably of lesser importance in preventing job dissatisfaction.
Further insights into the moderating effect of control may be gained by examining research on the relationship between job characteristics and satisfaction. Two meta-analyses (Fried & Ferris, 1987; Loher, Noe, Moeller, & Fitzgerald, 1985) provide support for the relationship between job characteristics identified by Hackman and Oldham (1975) and job satisfaction. Moreover, research stemming from Karasek's (1979) job strain model suggests that control may moderate some of the relationships described by the Job Characteristics Model. Karasek's model suggests that stress does not result from a single element of the work environment, but is instead the joint effects of work demands and the range of decision-making opportunities that are available to an individual. Using data from national surveys in the U.S. and Sweden, Karasek found that jobs characterized as "active" (i.e., high in decision latitude with high job demands), are associated with higher degrees of satisfaction and reduced depression. In contrast, "passive" jobs (i.e., low decision latitude and job demands), are associated with higher degrees of depression and dissatisfaction. However, most research on Karasek's model has failed to find the expected moderating effect of control, suggesting that other possible moderators of the stress/satisfaction relationship should be examined (e.g., Astrand, Hanson, & Isacsson, 1989; Melamed, Kushnir, & Meir, 1991; Newton & Keenan, 1990; Payne & Fletcher, 1983; Pieper, La Croix, & Karesek, 1989).
Beehr (1976) reported that group cohesiveness may strengthen, rather than weaken, the stress-outcome relationship. He examined the effects of group cohesion, supervisory support, and job autonomy on the relationship between role ambiguity and job dissatisfaction, life dissatisfaction, low self-esteem, and depressed mood. Group cohesiveness significantly moderated the relationship between role ambiguity and low self-esteem. For individuals in cohesive groups, the relationship between stress and low self-esteem was weaker than for individuals in non-cohesive groups. Similarly, group cohesiveness significantly moderated the stress-satisfaction relationship, but not in the predicted direction. Job dissatisfaction was related more strongly to role ambiguity in cohesive than in non-cohesive groups. Individuals in cohesive groups are more likely to communicate with each other compared to individuals in non-cohesive groups. Discussing work situations with peers may help individuals place blame for the experienced ambiguity on the role. In contrast, individuals in non-cohesive groups may internalize the blame. Supervisory support was not found to be a significant moderator of the stress-strain relationship. Job autonomy was a significant moderator of the relationships between stress and job dissatisfaction, low self-esteem, and depressed mood.
Lieb (2000) investigated the relationship between organizational commitment and performance appraisal systems as perceived by working college undergraduates and MBA students. The study examined whether an organization culture dimension and its corresponding performance appraisal dimension would significantly interact to affect the outcome variables of job-satisfaction, organizational commitment and turnover intention. The study revealed none of the seven dimensions had a significant effect on continuance, normative or total organizational commitment.
Emotional intelligence is the ability to perceive and express emotion, assimilate emotion in thought, understand and reason with emotion and regulate emotion in the self and others (Mayer et al., 2000). If one looks deeply at almost any factor that influences organizational effectiveness, one will find that emotional intelligence plays a role. Emotional intelligence (EI) has been linked to job performance and emotional labour (Prati, 2003; Law et al., 2004). Understanding and regulation of one’s emotions as well as understanding other’s emotions are factors that affect intrapersonal well-being and interpersonal relations which also affect workers’ attitudes to their colleagues, their bosses and their job. Thus EI may also affect organizational commitment. Cherniss (2001) reported that emotionally intelligent people display cooperation, commitment and creativity which are important for organizational effectiveness.
Also some researchers found that emotional intelligence was positively correlated with organizational commitment of some workers (Carmeli, 2003; Nikolaou and Tsaousis, 2002; Rozell et al., 2004). It is expected that workers having high emotional intelligence will also be highly committed to their organizations.
The influence of organizational commitment on job performance includes absenteeism and turnover.
In general, organizational commitment is considered a useful measure of organizational effectiveness (Steers, 1975). In particular, “organizational commitment is a “multidimensional construct” (Morrow, 1993) that has the potential to predict organizational outcomes such as performance, turnover, absenteeism, tenure, and organizational goals” (Meyer & Allen, 1997, p.12). For example, in a study involving 109 workers, Loui (1995) examined the relationship between the broad construct of organizational commitment and the outcome measures of supervisory trust, job involvement, and job satisfaction. In all three areas, Loui (1995) reported positive relationships with organizational commitment. More specifically, perceived trust in the supervisor, an ability to be involved with the job, and feelings of job satisfaction were major determinants of organizational commitment.
Angle & Perry (1991) undertook a study to determine the effect that organizational commitment had on turnover. The participants included 1,244 bus drivers. Findings revealed a negative relationship between turnover and organizational commitment. In short, employees who intended to leave the job were not committed to the organization. Wiener & Vardi (1980) looked at the effect that organizational commitment had on commitment to the job and career commitment. Their participants included 56 insurance agents and 85 staff professionals. The researchers reported positive relationships between organizational commitment and the two other types of commitment.
Jermier & Berkes (1979) collected data on organizational commitment from over 800 Police officers. The researchers were investigating the relationship between job satisfaction and organizational commitment. Findings revealed that employees who were more satisfied with their job had higher levels of organizational commitment.
DeCotiis & Summers (1987) undertook a study of 367 managers and their employees. The researchers examined the relationship between organizational commitment and the outcome measures of individual motivation, desire to leave, turnover, and job performance. Organizational commitment was found to be a strong predicator for each of these outcome areas.
Further investigation into the multidimensionality of organizational commitment revealed different relationships between commitment and relations-oriented and task-oriented leadership behaviors. For instance, Reichers (1986) claimed that organizational commitment was in reality a collection of commitments to multiple coalitions and constituencies (e.g. owners/managers, rank-and-file employees, customers/clients). In an examination of this claim, Reichers (1986) undertook a study to measure the commitment of 124 mental health professionals. Her only significant correlation was between organizational commitment and top management’s goals and values.
In another study involving 763 employees, Becker (1992) examined whether employees’ commitment to different constituencies or to the overall organization were better predictors of job satisfaction, intention to quit, and pro-social behavior. He discovered that employees' commitment to top management, supervisors, and work groups contributed significantly beyond commitment to the organization. During later research, Becker, Billings, Eveleth, & Gilbert (1996) also explored whether commitment to the supervisor or to the organization had the greatest impact on the performance ratings that supervisors gave to newly hired employees. From their study of 281 participants, the researchers found that commitment to the supervisor and the supervisor’s values was more strongly related to performance ratings than was employee commitment to the organization. Summarizing these multiple constituency findings, Meyer & Allen (1997) offered the following:
It should be kept in mind, however, that when we as researchers measure commitment to the organization as a whole, we are probably measuring employees’ commitment to “top management” (Reichers, 1986) or to a combination of top management and more local foci (Becker & Billings, 1993; Hunt & Morgan, 1994). If, on the one hand, our intention is to use commitment as a means of understanding or predicting behavior of relevance to the organization as a whole (or top management specifically), it would seem that our purpose can be well served with global measures of organizational commitment. (p. 19)
While Meyer & Allen (1991) have used affective, continuance, and normative commitment to capture the multidimensional nature of organizational commitment, affective commitment is considered a more effective measurement of organizational commitment.
Meyer & Allen (1997) buttressed their support for the importance of affective commitment by explaining that employees with strong affective commitment would be motivated to higher levels of performance and make more meaningful contributions than employees who expressed continuance or normative commitment.
Results of several recent studies, suggest 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).
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.
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 relation between normative commitment and citizenship behavior has received much less research attention. In a study Meyer et (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.
In nine studies involving 2,734 persons, Dunham, Grube, & Castaneda (1994) examined how participatory management and supervisory feedback influenced employee levels of affective, continuance, and normative commitment. The researchers found that when supervisors provided feedback about performance and allowed employees to participate in decision making, employee levels of affective commitment was stronger than both continuance and normative. That is, employees indicated staying with the organization was more related to wanting to, rather than needing to or feeling they ought to.
Irving, Coleman, & Cooper (1997) investigated the relationship between affective, continuance, and normative commitment and the outcome measures of job satisfaction and turnover intentions. Total participants for the study included 232 employees. Results revealed that job satisfaction was positively related to both affective and normative commitment. However, job satisfaction was negatively related to continuance commitment. All three types of commitment were negatively related to turnover intentions, with continuance commitment having the strongest negative relationship.
Cohen & Kirchmeyer (1995) undertook a study to investigate the relationship between affective, continuance, and normative commitment and the non-work measure of resource enrichment. Their participants included 227 nurses from two hospitals. The researchers found positive relationships between resource enrichment and both affective and normative commitment. However, the relationship between continuance commitment and resource enrichment was negative. In effect, employees who were staying with the organization because they wanted to or felt they ought to, indicated higher involvement and enjoyment with work activities. Whereas, employees who were staying with the organization because they felt they needed to indicated less involvement and dissatisfaction with work activities.
While Meyer & Allen (1991) have used affective, continuance, and normative commitment to capture the multidimensional nature of organizational commitment, affective commitment is considered a more effective measurement of organizational commitment.
In a study of 238 nurses, Cohen (1996) investigated the relationship between affective, continuance, and normative commitment and the following other types of commitment: work involvement, job involvement, and career commitment. Findings revealed that affective commitment was more highly correlated with all the other types of commitment. In other words, employees who remained with the organization because they wanted to were more likely to exhibit higher levels of commitment to their work, their job, and their career.
Barbara, B.Brown (2003), explored organizational commitment and employee perception of Supervisors’ relation-oriented and task-oriented leadership behaviors. The study concluded that relations-oriented leadership behaviors which involve building trust inspiring a shared vision, encouraging creativity, emphasizing development, and recognizing accomplishments explains some of the variation in whether employees want to or do not want to stay with the city of Charlottesville. For normative commitment, these same relations-oriented leadership behaviors explain a little less of the variation in whether employees feel obligated to or do not feel obligated to stay with the city. Further investigation into the multidimensionality of organizational commitment revealed different relationships between commitment and relations-oriented and task-oriented leadership behaviors. For instance, Reichers (1986) claimed that organizational commitment was in reality a collection of commitments to multiple coalitions and constituencies (e.g. owners/managers, rank-and-file employees, customers/clients). In an examination of this claim, Reichers (1986) undertook a study to measure the commitment of 124 mental health professionals. Her only significant correlation was between organizational commitment and top management’s goals and values.
In nine studies involving 2,734 persons, Dunham, Grube, & Castaneda (1994) examined how participatory management and supervisory feedback influenced employee levels of affective, continuance, and normative commitment. The researchers found that when supervisors provided feedback about performance and allowed employees to participate in decision-making, employee levels of affective commitment was stronger than both continuance and normative. That is, employees indicated staying with the organization was more related to wanting to, rather than needing to or feeling they ought to.
Mathiew and Zajac (1990) were of the view that organizational commitment is an outcome of work centrality. According to them, it is only after the individual has developed a strong concern for and centrality of his/her work role that he/she is likely to look beyond the immediate job environment to the organizational at large. They believe that people’s involvement in their job is antecedent to organizational commitment. It is therefore expected that workers who have high career salience will be highly committed to their organization
Researchers found significant relationship between need for achievement and organizational commitment (Dodd-McCue and Wright, 1996; Mannheim et al., 1997). Most researchers agree that motivation is important in work organizations; and that individual employees attempt to satisfy many needs through their work and through their relationship with an organization (Li, 2006). Hence employees with high need for achievement will likely to be more committed to their organizations.
Achievement motivation is the desire to perform in terms of a standard of excellence or to be successful in competitive situations. Persons who have high need for achievement (nAch) assume personal responsibility for the solution Persons who have high need for achievement (nAch) assume personal responsibility for the solution of tasks or problems, set moderately difficult goals, take calculated risks, and have strong desire for feedback on their performance as indexed by compensation (Lawson and Shen, 1998). Previous researchers found significant relationship between need for achievement and organizational commitment (Dodd-McCue and Wright, 1996; Mannheim et al., 1997). Most researchers agree that motivation is important in work organizations; and that individual employees attempt to satisfy many needs through their work and through their relationship with an organization (Li, 2006). Hence employees with high need for achievement will likely to be more committed to their organizations.
Rubina Kazmi, Shehla Amjad, Delawar Khan (2008) studied the effect of occupational stress on job performance on 55 doctors of Ayub teaching hospital in Pakistan. The results showed that there is an inverse relationship between job stress and job performance indicating that there is high job stress in the house officers, resulting in low job performance. The study suggested that correct stress management should start from improved health and good intrapersonal relationships. The prevention and management of workplace stress requires organizational level interventions, because it is the organization that creates the stress. Success in managing and preventing stress will depend on the culture in the organization. A culture of openness and understanding, rather than of criticism, is essential. Those house officers who had high level of job stress had low job performance.
In another study involving 763 employees, Becker (1992) examined whether employees’ commitment to different constituencies or to the overall organization were better predictors of job satisfaction, intention to quit, and pro-social behavior. He discovered that employees' commitment to top management, supervisors, and work groups contributed significantly beyond commitment to the organization. During later research, Becker, Billings, Eveleth, & Gilbert (1996) also explored whether commitment to the supervisor or to the organization had the greatest impact on the performance ratings that supervisors gave to newly hired employees. From their study of 281 participants, the researchers found that commitment to the supervisor and the supervisor’s values was more strongly related to performance ratings than was employee commitment to the organization.Individual differences also influence the stress-performance relationship. Baker, Ware, Spires and Osborn (1966), using a sample of 80 career army officers, found that some individuals were stimulated by stress and were high performers, whereas, other individuals showed behavioral disorganization and a reduction in effectiveness. They suggest that a person's readiness to react to stress with negative or positive emotion due to their task involvement is a critical cause of performance. In his 1984 and 1985 studies, Jamal found evidence that commitment moderates the stress-performance relationship. In his study of managers and blue-collar workers, organizational commitment moderated over 50% of the relationship between stress and performance. Commitment also acted as a buffer against the aversive effects of stress on performance. In the study involving the nurses, Jamal found partial support for the moderating effects of professional and organizational commitment on stress-performance relationship.
Research has also been conducted using path analysis in order to examine the causal relationship between stress and performance. For example, Motowidlo, Packard, and Manning (1986) employed this technique in their study involving 171 nurses. Performance ratings from supervisor and/or co-workers were obtained. Organizational stress was significantly correlated with such performance outcomes as personal composure, quality of patient care, tolerance towards patients, warmth towards other nurses, tolerance towards nurses and physicians, and interpersonal effectiveness. However, stress was not significantly related to cognitive/motivational effectiveness. A path-analysis indicated that stress influenced performance primarily through feelings of depression rather than through feelings of anxiety or hostility. Depression had a significant negative effect on all types of performance outcomes except tolerance towards patients.
Job absence is very much a part of job performance: employees are not performing effectively if they do not even come to work. Introverted, conscientious employees are much less likely to be absent from work, as opposed to extraverted employees who are low on conscientiousness. Interestingly enough, neuroticism is not highly correlated with absence (Judge, Martocchio, & Thoresen, 1997). The Judge et al. (1997) study is interesting considering the Judge et al. (2002) research on job satisfaction and the five-factor model. The results of the latter research suggests that extraverted individuals are more satisfied in the workplace, because work gives them an opportunity to experience an optimal level of arousal, whereas introverted individuals are less satisfied in the workplace due to too much stimulation. Combining the results of these two studies suggests that conscientiousness is the deciding factor regarding job absence.
Perhaps another factor in absenteeism is that, although introverts may be less satisfied in the workplace, they go to work anyway. This behavior might imply either that introverts are more conscientious or simply that introverts have no compelling reason not to go to work (whereas extraverts may have friends who urge them to skip work and go see a movie). This conclusion is debatable, however, because introverts might be tempted to skip work to avoid the extra stimulation and might perhaps stay home and read a book (a book on psychology, no doubt). Judge and his colleagues will likely continue their research and perhaps provide answers in the future.
Oftentimes in the workplace the ability to be a team player is valued and is critical to job performance. Recent research has suggested that conscientiousness, extraversion, and agreeableness are all related to cooperative behavior but that they are not related to task performance. Although this fortifies the case that job performance is related to the five-factor model via increased cooperativeness among coworkers, it lays siege to the role of personality by implying that actual job performance (task performance) is related to cognitive ability and not to personality (LePine & Dyne, 2001).
Leadership abilities are often essential in the workplace, especially for individuals who aspire to move up into the ranks of management. Studies of Asian military units have found that neuroticism is negatively correlated with leadership abilities. Contrary to what the researchers hypothesized, agreeableness is negatively correlated with leadership abilities as well. Openness to experience is unrelated to leadership abilities, but extraversion is positively correlated with leadership abilities (Lim & Ployhart, 2004). This evidence is consistent with the long-standing idea that in teams there are leaders and there are followers; the leaders make decisions and the followers abide by them. Although agreeableness is positively correlated with working with a team, it is negatively correlated with being a leader. Those followers who do not always agree and are willing to voice their own opinions end moving up the ranks whereas those who blindly agree are left as followers.
Some researchers have studied the job performance as a function of personality. A person's personality may not necessarily have a very high impact on a person's job or productivity per se, depending on the type of work being done. Sean P. Neubert discussed the notion that salespeople who exhibit high levels of extroversion will have better overall job performance is pretty evident, for being a salesperson requires a lot of social interaction, and an introverted salesperson would obviously be less effective than an extravert. Given that point, another point brought up is about conscientiousness in addition to extraversion and its positive correlation with job performance in terms of the social atmosphere present in most workplaces: a conscientious person is obviously more likely to be a more productive worker and an extraverted person will experience an optimal level of arousal in a social workplace. Personality influence would perhaps become less palpable if an individual's place of work is not a highly social arena or the job is non-traditional.
If one's job does not require constant or high levels of social interaction, then one's cognitive ability can become a much greater factor. Depending on the type of job one holds, one's personality may have very little impact on the quality of work being done or other job performance indicators. As mentioned by Neubert, a job such as a writer may not necessarily require high levels of extraversion. Other types of jobs that do not require direct social interaction are probably similar in terms of cognitive abilities or other factors affecting overall job performance.
Openness to experience has not been shown to correlate significantly with job performance. This may seem counterintuitive, because openness to experience is sometimes also referred to intellect, and cognitive ability and intellect are presumably related. One's openness to experience should be indicative of creativity and originality; consequently, there may be a direct but unobvious connection to job performance in terms of creating and trying new things that may improve personal productivity or otherwise maybe even affect general productivity on a greater scale--for example, a new way of doing things may improve operation of an entire company. Openness would also then tie into working with other people--for example, a person who is more open to experience would be willing to try out new and different ideas presented by coworkers. Openness may not relate to job performance due to limitations in the methodology of past research, lack of a high enough correlation to reach statistical significance, or even perhaps because there really is no direct relation between openness to experience and overall job performance.
People's personalities obviously have an impact on many, many things that they do, if not everything. How profound the effect of personality is on job performance depends of course on the unique facets of an individual's personality. Does personality have a great impact on overall productivity in a social workplace? Yes, it does. Cognitive ability, however, has been shown to be more positively correlated to actual task performance. From this fact, one can argue that personality comes into play again, because if one is unwilling to perform the task and lacks conscientiousness, then the job will not get done, regardless of potential ability. Social aspects of many traditional work environments may overshadow some other unseen factors that affect overall workplace productivity. More research needs to be conducted on other types of work environments.
The five-factor model is correlated with overall level of job satisfaction experienced by employees. In general, satisfied employees are more likely to remain in a position and to avoid absences than are dissatisfied employees.
Initial research indicated that neuroticism is negatively correlated with job satisfaction, whereas conscientiousness, extraversion, and agreeableness are positively correlated with job satisfaction. Openness to experience has a negligible impact on job satisfaction. Additional research, however, has only been able to replicate correlations among the factors of neuroticism and extraversion, with extraversion being positively correlated with job satisfaction and neuroticism being negatively correlated. This could be due to the social nature of the workplace (Judge, Heller, & Mount, 2002).
This finding may be due to the low level of arousability for extraverted individuals (Hebb's theory). If the workplace is a social environment, then extraverted employees are more likely to be at a low level of arousal while at work, whereas at their home there is less stimulation. Introverts, on the other hand, are more likely at their optimal level of arousal outside of the workplace, where there is less stimulation, and therefore are more likely dissatisfied with the level of stimulation that they experience while at work
Pattrawadee Makmee, Siridej Sujiva and Sirichai Kanjanawasee (2010) developed a model of Organizational Effectiveness Evaluation for Faculties of Education’ in Thailand. A total of 1,024 samples were stratified randomly, and consisted 4 public autonomous universities and 4 public universities in Thailand. The research results showed that the perceptions of members in faculties of education in public autonomous universities regarding faculty of education effectiveness were quite high for all variables, except for academic development, which was moderate. In the case of public universities, the perceptions of faculty members were quite high for all variables, except for the ability to acquire resources and money, which was moderate. The proposed multilevel causal model of faculty of education effectiveness fits quite well with the empirical data set. The predictor variables at the field and department levels accounted for variance of the faculty of education effectiveness of about 73% and 56%, respectively.
Camp, (1993), assessed the Effects of Organizational Commitment and Job Satisfaction on Turnover among correctional workers. The study examines two separate aspects of organizational commitment, commitment to the overall organization and commitment to the specific institution. Organizational commitment was found to be a significant predictor of organizationally relevant behavior, in this case, turnover. This certainly lends support to the position of those such as Lincoln and Kalleberg (1990) who argued for the importance of organizational commitment. Conversely, there was no evidence from this study of workers in one public sector agency that job satisfaction has any effect on voluntary turnover.
Work role salience or career salience is the importance attached to building a career and the time and effort an individual is willing to invest in it. It is akin to job involvement or work centrality. A number of researchers have linked work-role salience or career salience with work attitude (Mannheim et al., 1997; van der Velde et al., 2003). For example van der Velde et al. (2003) found significant correlation between career salience and organizational commitment. Mathiew and Zajac (1990) were of the view that organizational commitment is an outcome of work centrality. According to them, it is only after the individual has developed a strong concern for and centrality of his/her work role that he/she is likely to look beyond the immediate job environment to the organizational at large. They believe that people’s involvement in their job is antecedent to organizational commitment. It is therefore expected that workers who have high career salience will be highly committed to their organizations.
Studies examining different types of work sectors have found that government employees have higher levels of continuance commitment then 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 hat 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” (p.241).
Research on commitment outcomes examines whether the different components of commitment have certain consequences. 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 operationalzed” (p. 467). Various research studies take place examining the outcomes of employee commitment.
Employee attendance is the most positively related outcome to affective commitment. Steers (1997) found that employee commitment was highly related to the attendance of workers. Gellatlly (1995) found that continuance commitment was related with the 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 also found that those employees who had higher levels of commitment had lower levels of absenteeism and turnover.
Retention of employee appears to be one of the most studied outcomes of organizational commitment. Several studies have found a correlation between turnover and commitment (Porter et al, 1974; Meyer & Allen, 1997). Porter et al (1974) found that employees with lower levels of commitment were more likely to leave then their counterparts. Meyer and Allen (1997) argue that the different components of commitment relate to different types of outcomes, therefore continuance commitment may or may not relate to employee performance.
Porter and his colleagues’ seminal work (Mowday, Porter, & Steers, 1982; Poerter Steers, Mowday, & Boulian, 1974) indicated that organizational commitment is a better predictor of turnover and absenteeism than job satisfaction
Meyer & Allen (1997) buttressed their support for the importance of affective commitment by explaining that employees with strong affective commitment would be motivated to higher levels of performance and make more meaningful contributions than employees who expressed continuance or normative
Despite its elusive nature, organizational effectiveness has been considered a critical concept in organizational theory (Goodman & Pennings, 1980). Some of the earliest models developed were goal based (Etzioni, 1960; Steers, 1977) but immediately identified as an unsatisfactory construct since the selection of inadequate goals cannot lead to an effective organization (Miles, 1980; Mohr, 1983). These early models gave way to system models, which focused on a broader set of variables and on measuring the means necessary to achieve the organizational goals (Miles, 1980). But like goal based models, relevant systems and key processes within the organizational systems could be misdirected and prove inefficient if they caused, even if unintended, undesirable external consequences (Mohr, 1983). From these concerns emerged the multiple-constituency models designed to measure effectiveness not only internally but also as a function of customer satisfaction (Connolly, Conlon & Deustch, 1980). The most recently developed models that have managed to obtain some level of agreement among organizational theorists assume a multidimensional construct (Robbins, 1983; Ridley & Mendoza, 1993).
No comments:
Post a Comment