Employee commitment in the workplace: Conceptual background Christian Vandenberghe HEC Montreal.

Employee commitment in the workplace:

Conceptual backgroundChristian Vandenberghe

HEC Montreal

What is commitment (Klein, Molloy, & Brinsfield, under review)

Definitional Core Essence Commitment Target (sample reference)

Attachment, Bond, or Being Bound Career (Darden, Hampton, & Howell, 1989)Organization (Mathieu & Zajac, 1990) Organizational Units (Mueller & Lawler, 1999)Union (Sjoberg & Sverke, 2001),Job (Rusbult & Farrell, 1983) Team (Pearce & Herbik, 2004)Supervisor (Becker, Billings, Eveleth, & Gilbert, 1996)Strategy (Geletkanycz & Black, 2001)Program (Neubert & Cady, 2001)Goal (Locke, Latham, & Erez, 1988)

Binding or Obliging Force Any (Meyer & Herscovitch, 2001)Any (Brown, 1996)Change (Herscovitch & Meyer, 2002)

Identification, Involvement, or Internalization

Profession (Aranya, Pollock, & Amernic, 1981)Professionalism (Morrow & Goetz, 1988)Career (Colarelli & Bishop, 1990) Organization (Porter et al., 1974)Client Organization (McElroy, Morrow, & Laczniak, 2001)Union (Fullagar et al., 2004)Team (Bishop & Scott, 2000)Project (Hoegl, Weinkauf, & Gemuenden, 2004)Program (Rodgers & Hunter, 1991)


Side Bets, Sunk Costs Organization (Hrebiniak & Alutto, 1972)Line of action (Becker, 1960) Project (Garland, 1990) Decision (Staw, 1981)

Goal and/or Value Congruence Profession (Aranya et al., 1981)Professionalism (Morrow & Goetz, 1988)Organization (Porter et al., 1974)Union (Gordon, Philpot, Burt, Thompson & Spiller, 1980)Team (Bishop & Scott, 2000)Project (Hoegl, Weinkauf, & Gemuenden, 2004)


Loyalty, Dedication, Unwillingness to Abandon

Any (Brown, 1996) Career (Mueller Finley, Iverson, & Price, 1999)Profession (Aranya et al., 1981)Organization (Porter et al., 1974) Organizational Units (Mueller & Lawler, 1999) Client Organization (McElroy et al., 2001)Union (Gordon et al., 1980) Job (Rusbult & Farrell, 1983)Team (Bishop & Scott, 2000) Strategy(Geletkanycz & Black, 2001) Project (Hoegl, Weinkauf, & Gemuenden, 2004)Goal (Campion & Lord, 1982)

Motivation, Willingness to Devote Effort, Determination or Persistence

All (Cooper-Hakim & Viswesvaran, 2005) Career (Hall, 1971)Profession (Aranya et al., 1981)Organization (Porter et al., 1974)Union (Gordon et al., 1980)Team (Bishop & Scott, 2000) Strategy (Ford, Weissbein, & Plamondon, 2003)Project (Hoegl, Weinkauf, & Gemuenden, 2004) Goal (Locke, Latham, & Erez, 1988)

Attitude toward, Affective /Emotional Connection

Career (Blau, 1985) Occupation (Lee, Carswell, & Allen, 2000)Union (Sverke & Kuruvilla, 1995)Job (Chusmir, 1982)

Porter, Steers, Mowday, & Boulian (1974; p. 604)

• Intensity of attachment and identification to the organization characterized by:

• (a) strong belief in the values and goals of the organization

• (b) willingness to put efforts on behalf of the organization

• (c) willingness to stay with the organization

Mayer & Schoorman (1992, 1998)

• Organizational commitment includes two forms:– Continuance commitment (commitment to

stay)– Value commitment (willingness to participate)

O’Reilly & Chatman (1986)

• Commitment as attachment• Three forms:

– Internalization (integrating the organization’s values into the self-identity)

– Identification (consciously adhering to the organization’s values)

– Compliance (instrumental or calculative attachment based on rewards)

Meyer and Allen (1991)

• Commitment is a global psychological state that– Characterizes the relationship of the individual

with the organization– Has implications for the decision to stay with

or to leave the organization

Meyer and Herscovitch (2001)

• Meyer and Herscovitch (2001) stated that «commitment is a force that binds an individual to a course of action to one or more targets» (p. 301)

• Behavior is focal or discretionary• Problem is:

– Confusion with antecedents and/or consequences• Alternative: «commitment is therefore best

defined as an individual’s perception that they are bound to a given target.» (Klein et al., under review).

The Three-Component Model

• Affective commitment (AC): « employees’ emotional attachment to, identification with, and involvement in the organization »

• Normative commitment (NC): « feeling of obligation to continue employment »

• Continuance commitment (CC): « refers to an awareness of the costs associated with leaving »

Meyer & Allen (1991, p. 67)

Solinger, van Olffen, & Roe (2008)• Use Eagley & Chaiken’s (1993) composite attitude-

behavior model

Attitude toward target(attachment)

Utilitarian outcome(cost)

Normative outcomes(reciprocity)

Attitude toward Behavior

(evaluation of leaving)

Intention(plan)

Behavior(leave)

Self-identity outcomes(socialization)

AC

CC

NC

NC

Attitudinal vs. Behavioral Commitment

Conditions Psychological state Behavior

Attitudinal perspective

Attitudinal vs. Behavioral Commitment

Conditions•Irrevocability

•Choice•Publicness

Psychological state

Behavior

Behavioral perspective

Behavior

Needs

Values/ Personality

Commitment to Social Foci (organization, supervisor, team, etc.) Affective

Normative

Continuance

Goal Commitment Affective

Normative

Continuance

Bases of Commitment Identification; value congruence; involvement

Socialization; reciprocity norm

Investments; lack of alternatives

Goal Mechanisms Direction

Effort

Persistence

Task Strategies

Behavior Non-discretionary

Discretionary

Outcomes & Satisfaction

Goal Choice

Difficulty Specificity

Goal Moderators

Feedback

Ability

Task complexity

Self-efficacy & outcome expectancy

Incentives

Goal Regulation Perceived Locus of Causality

Intrinsic Regulation

Integrated Regulation

Identified Regulation

Introjected Regulation

External Regulation

Perceived Objective

Promotion Focus

Prevention Focus

CommitmentStrengthRationales

Approach/avoidance toward target

Stay/LeaveAttendance/AbsenteeismWorkplace deviance Well-being

State goal orientationLearningPerformance-prove

PerformanceIn-role performanceExtra-role performanceCreative performance

Meta-analytic results

• Turnover (AC)– Cooper-Hakim & Viswesvaran (2005): rho = -.20– Griffeth, Hom, & Gaertner (2000): rho = -.23– Mathieu & Zajac (1990): rho = -.29 – Meyer, Stanley, Herscovitch, & Topolnytsky

(2002): rho = -.17


• Turnover (AC)– Tett and Meyer (1993): the relationship between

AC and turnover was nearly totally mediated by withdrawal cognitions

– Moderators: time interval (Cohen, 1993; Griffeth et al., 2000), occupational group (Cohen & Hudecek, 1993), and career stage (Cohen, 1991)

Meta-analytic results• Turnover (NC, CC)

– NC: • Cooper-Hakim & Viswesvaran (2005): rho = -.16• Meyer et al. (2002): rho = -.16

– CC:• Cooper-Hakim & Viswesvaran (2005): rho = -.25• Meyer et al. (2002): rho = -.10

• Interactions among the components?


• Absenteeism– Attendance has been found to be positively

correlated, albeit weakly, with AC (rho = .12 in Mathieu & Zajac, 1990) while correlations between NC or CC and absenteeism have been found to be close to zero (rho = .06 and .05, respectively, in Meyer et al., 2002)


• Absenteeism– Voluntary absence has also been found to be

more strongly (and negatively) associated with AC than involuntary absence (rho = -.22 vs. -.09 in Meyer et al., 2002).

Meta-analytic results• Absenteeism

– The relationship between organizational commitment and absenteeism has been reported to vary across career stages (Cohen, 1991). Cohen actually found that the relationship between AC and absenteeism was stronger in the late career stage (rho = -.27 among employees tenured 9+ years vs. -.07 among employees tenured 3-9 years), plausibly reflecting the constraining effect of CC with increased tenure in the organization.

Meta-analytic results• Performance

– Meta-analytic reviews have consistently reported modest positive correlations between AC and job performance, be it measured through supervisor ratings (e.g., rho = .13 in Cohen, 1991; rho = .14 in Mathieu & Zajac, 1990; rho = .16 in Meyer et al., 2002; Randall, 1990; rho = .19 in Riketta, 2002) or objective indicators (e.g., rho = .05 in Mathieu & Zajac, 1990; rho = .13 in Riketta, 2002).


• Performance– The correlation has generally been found to be

stronger with extra-role performance or organizational citizenship behavior (rho = .23 with altruism and .30 with generalized compliance in Organ & Ryan, 1995; rho = .25 in Riketta, 2002) than with in-role performance (rho = .18 in Riketta, 2002).


• Performance– Jaramillo, Mulki, and Marshall (2005) found the

correlation between AC and in-role performance to be stronger for salespeople (rho = .25) than for nonsales employees (rho = .18), which they suggest is due to salespeople having more control over their work outcomes than nonsales employees.


– Wright and Bonett (2002) found that the correlation between AC and performance tended to decrease exponentially with increasing tenure, which they interpreted as evidence supporting the notion of a honeymoon effect.

– As to NC and CC, in Meyer et al.’s (2002) review, NC correlated weakly but positively with job performance (rho = .06) while CC correlated negatively with it (rho = -.07).


– Sinclair, Tucker, Cullen, and Wright (2005) found that a profile characterized by moderate CC and low AC was associated with the poorest supervisor ratings of performance and organizational citizenship behavior, as well as the highest levels of antisocial behavior. Presumably, individuals included in that commitment profile feel weak emotional attachment to the organization but have accumulated side-bets. They would be inclined to leave but know it would be difficult to find a more desirable job and are thus resentful about that. This psychological state is akin to what Becker (2005) calls “alienation”.

Meta-analytic results• Stress and health

– Research has reported AC to be negatively and CC positively associated with perceived stress (rho = -.33 for AC in Mathieu & Zajac, 1990; rho = -.21 for AC and .14 for CC in Meyer et al., 2002).

Lazarus & Folkman’s (1984) stress model

Stressor Strain CopingAppraisal Consequences

Moderators


1. Commitment as a moderator

Commitment

Strain

Stressor

High AC

Low AC

Begley et Czajka, 1993; King et Sethi, 1997; Schmidt, 2007

Irving et Coleman, 2003; Reilly, 1994

Strain

Stressor

High AC

Low AC

Strain

Stressor

Low CC

High CC

Maltin & Meyer (in press)


2. Commitment, a mediator

Commitment


3. Commitment, a source of stress

Commitment


4. Commitment, a stress outcome

Commitment

Employee commitment in the workplace: Conceptual background Christian Vandenberghe HEC Montreal.

Documents

Transcript of Employee commitment in the workplace: Conceptual background Christian Vandenberghe HEC Montreal.