Employee Commitment in the Workplace: Examination of Change Processes
39
Employee Commitment in the Workplace: Examination of Change Processes Kathleen Bentein May 2002
description
Employee Commitment in the Workplace: Examination of Change Processes. Kathleen Bentein May 2002. Organizational Commitment. A psychological state that characterizes an employee’s relationship with the organization - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Transcript of Employee Commitment in the Workplace: Examination of Change Processes
Employee Commitment in the Workplace:
Examination of Change Processes
Kathleen Bentein May 2002
Organizational Commitment A psychological state
that characterizes an employee’s relationship with the organization
which has implications for the employee’s intention to remain with the organization
Important evolution: From unidimensional to multidimensional perspectives…
The most frequently applied model: Meyer & Allen (1991; 1997)
Dimensions of Organizational Commitment Affective (AC) Normative (NC) Continuance (CC)
Meyer & Allen (1991; 1997)
Dimensions of Organizational Commitment Affective (AC) Normative (NC) Continuance (CC)
Meyer & Allen (1991; 1997)McGee & Ford (1987)
Dimensions of Organizational Commitment Affective (AC) Normative (NC)
Meyer & Allen (1991; 1997)McGee & Ford (1987)
High Sacrifice (HS) Low Alternatives (LA)
Dimensions of Organizational Commitment Affective (AC) Normative (NC)
All dimensions simultaneously…
High Sacrifice (HS) Low Alternatives (LA)
Purpose of this study No research paradigm to date has successfully modeled or
operationalized a process truly representing a concomitant existence of the four Allen and Meyer dimensions across time.
It has also been assumed that change in commitment across time will result in a change in turnover intention across time, and that the change in turnover intention will be associated with actual turnover behavior. But this assumption has never truly been tested.
WHY? Researchers were not able to correctly model change statistically
Purpose of this study
Concomitant existence of the four Allen and Meyer dimensions across time. Change in commitment change in turnover intention actual turnover behavior.
Using Latent Growth Modeling (LGM) To build change into commitment dimensions
Basic form of a Second Order Factor (SOF) Latent Growth Model (LGM)
Cov IS - CH
Initial Status -
AC
Change - AC
It.11
Affective Commit.Time 1
It.61 …
Affective Commit.Time 2
It.12 It.62 …
Affective Commit.Time 3
It.13 It.63 …
Cov IS - CH
Initial Status -
AC
Change - AC
It.11
Affective Commit.Time 1
It.61 …
Affective Commit.Time 2
It.12 It.62 …
Affective Commit.Time 3
It.13 It.63 …
Turnover Intention
…An augmented SOF LGM
Turnover Intention
Initial Status
Change
Turnover Behavior
Affective Commit.
Initial Status
Change
Normative Commit.
Initial Status
Change
High Sacrifice
Initial Status
Change
Low Alternatives
Initial Status
Change
Method: Procedure & Sample Procedure: longitudinal study
Sample: 330 employees (Alumni)
Time 1
AC, NC, HS, LA + Turn.
Intent.
Time 2
AC, NC, HS, LA + Turn.
Intent.
Time 3
AC, NC, HS, LA + Turn.
Intent.
Time 4
Turnover
+ 3 months
+ 3 months
+ 9 months
Method: MeasuresOrganizational Commitment: Affective Commitment - AC (6 items)
Example: “I really feel that I belong in this organization” Normative Commitment - NC (6 items)
Example: “It would not be morally right for me to leave this organization now”
High Sacrifice - HS (3 items)Example: “I would not leave this organization because of what I would stand to loose”
Low Alternatives - LA (3 items)Example: “I have no choice but to stay with this organization”
Method: MeasuresOrganizational Commitment: 18 items (6 AC, 6 NC, 3
HS, 3 LA)Turnover Intention (TI): 2 items “ I often think about quitting this organization ”
“ I intend to search for a position with another employer within the next year ”
Method: MeasuresOrganizational Commitment: 18 items (6 AC, 6 NC, 3
HS, 3 LA)Turnover Intention (TI): 2 items Turnover:Stayers were rated as 1 while Voluntary leavers were rated as 2. The percentage of turnover after Time 3 was 13%.
Method: MeasuresOrganizational Commitment: 18 items (6 AC, 6 NC, 3
HS, 3 LA)Turnover Intention (TI): 2 items Turnover: stayers were rated as 1 / voluntary leavers
rated as 2
All items were anchored with a 5-point Likert-type
scale
1 = strongly disagree
5 = strongly agree
to
Method: Data Analysis
Measurement invariance Latent Growth Modeling (LGM)
analyses Univariate SOF LGM analyses
The form of the growth trajectory for each variable
Multivariate SOF LGM model The relationships between the initial status
and change variables across the four dimensions
Turnover Intention
Initial Status
Change
Turnover Behavior
Affective Commit.
Initial Status
Change
Normative Commit.
Initial Status
Change
High Sacrifice
Initial Status
Change
Low Alternatives
Initial Status
Change
Method: Data Analysis
Measurement invariance Latent Growth Modeling (LGM)
analyses Univariate SOF LGM analyses
The form of the growth trajectory for each variable
Multivariate SOF LGM model The relationships between the initial status
and change variables across the four dimensions
Augmented multivariate SOF LGM model The relationships between commitment dimensions and outcomes
Turnover Intention
Initial Status
Change
Affective Commit.
Initial Status
Change
Normative Commit.
Initial Status
Change
High Sacrifice
Initial Status
Change
Low Alternatives
Initial Status
Change
Turnover Behavior
Method: Data Analysis
Measurement invariance Latent Growth Modeling (LGM)
analyses Univariate SOF LGM analyses
The form of the growth trajectory for each variable
Multivariate SOF LGM model The relationships between the initial status
and change variables across the four dimensions
Augmented multivariate SOF LGM model The relationships between commitment dimensions and outcomes
Growth Parameters Estimates
The optimal form of change for each construct
that must be carried into the remaining analyses:
AC: a linear decreasing trajectory (Cov IS-CH = -.04**)
NC: a linear decreasing trajectory (Cov IS-CH = -.09*)
HS: a flat trajectory
LA: a flat trajectory
TI: a linear increasing trajectory (Cov IS-CH = -.01 NS)
Turnover Intention
Initial Status
Change
Affective Commit.
Initial Status
Change
Normative Commit.
Initial Status
Change
High Sacrifice
Initial Status
Change
Low Alternatives
Initial Status
Change
Turnover Behavior
Turnover Intention
Initial Status
Change
Affective Commit.
Initial Status
Change
Normative Commit.
Initial Status
Change
High Sacrifice
Initial Status
Low Alternatives
Initial Status
Change
Turnover Behavior
Turnover Intention
Initial Status
Change
Affective Commit.
Initial Status
Change
Normative Commit.
Initial Status
Change
High Sacrifice
Initial Status
Low Alternatives
Initial Status
Turnover Behavior
Turnover Intention
Initial Status
Change
Affective Commit.
Initial Status
Change
Normative Commit.
Initial Status
Change
High Sacrifice
Initial Status
Low Alternatives
Initial Status
Turnover Behavior
Examination of the Interplay among the Commitment Dimensions across
Time
Turnover Intention
Initial Status
Change
Turnover Behavior
Affective Commit.
Initial Status
Change
Normative Commit.
Initial Status
Change
High Sacrifice
Initial Status
Low Alternatives
Initial Status
Examination of the Interplay among the Commitment Dimensions across
TimeAffective Commit.
Initial Status
Change
Normative Commit.
Initial Status
Change
High Sacrifice
Initial Status
Low Alternatives
Initial Status
.39*** .06 -.12* .17 -.28***6. Initial S - LA
.06 .13* .16 .25***5. Initial S - HS
-.37** .67*** -.27**4. Change - NC
-.36*** .46***3. Initial S - NC
-.32**2. Change - AC
1. Initial S - AC
54321Parameter
Affective Commit.
Initial Status
Change
Normative Commit.
Initial Status
Change
High Sacrifice
Initial Status
Low Alternatives
Initial Status
Examination of the Interplay among the Commitment Dimensions across
Time
.39*** .06 -.12* .17 -.28***6. Initial S - LA
.06 .13* .16 .25***5. Initial S - HS
-.37** .67*** -.27**4. Change - NC
-.36*** .46***3. Initial S - NC
-.32**2. Change - AC
1. Initial S - AC
54321Parameter
Affective Commit.
Initial Status
Change
Normative Commit.
Initial Status
Change
High Sacrifice
Initial Status
Low Alternatives
Initial Status
Examination of the Interplay among the Commitment Dimensions across
Time
.39*** .06 -.12* .17 -.28***6. Initial S - LA
.06 .13* .16 .25***5. Initial S - HS
-.37** .67*** -.27**4. Change - NC
-.36*** .46***3. Initial S - NC
-.32**2. Change - AC
1. Initial S - AC
54321Parameter
Affective Commit.
Initial Status
Change
Normative Commit.
Initial Status
Change
High Sacrifice
Initial Status
Low Alternatives
Initial Status
Examination of the Interplay among the Commitment Dimensions across
Time
.39*** .06 -.12* .17 -.28***6. Initial S - LA
.06 .13* .16 .25***5. Initial S - HS
-.37** .67*** -.27**4. Change - NC
-.36*** .46***3. Initial S - NC
-.32**2. Change - AC
1. Initial S - AC
54321Parameter
Change patterns of AC and NC strongly interrelated
Examination of the Interplay among the Commitment Dimensions across
Time
.39*** .06 -.12* .17 -.28***6. Initial S - LA
.06 .13* .16 .25***5. Initial S - HS
-.37** .67*** -.27**4. Change - NC
-.36*** .46***3. Initial S - NC
-.32**2. Change - AC
1. Initial S - AC
54321Parameter
Affective Commit.
Initial Status
Change
Normative Commit.
Initial Status
Change
High Sacrifice
Initial Status
Low Alternatives
Initial Status
Examination of the Interplay among the Commitment Dimensions across
Time
.39*** .06 -.12* .17 -.28***6. Initial S - LA
.06 .13* .16 .25***5. Initial S - HS
-.37** .67*** -.27**4. Change - NC
-.36*** .46***3. Initial S - NC
-.32**2. Change - AC
1. Initial S - AC
54321Parameter
Change in AC and NC independent of HS and LA
Affective Commit.
Initial Status
Change
Normative Commit.
Initial Status
Change
High Sacrifice
Initial Status
Low Alternatives
Initial Status
Examination of the Structural Effects of Growth Parameters on Outcomes
Turnover Intention
Initial Status
Change
Turnover Behavior
Affective Commit.
Initial Status
Change
Normative Commit.
Initial Status
Change
High Sacrifice
Initial Status
Low Alternatives
Initial Status
.42*** .30***Turnover
-.05-.22*-.43*-.12-.74** .09Change - TI
.10*-.31***-.16**-.42***Initial S - TI
CH - TIIS - TIIS - LAIS - HSCH -NCIS - NCCH - ACIS - AC
The primary drivers for the increase in TI were the declines in AC and NC
Turnover Intention
Initial Status
Change
Turnover Behavior
Affective Commit.
Initial Status
Change
Normative Commit.
Initial Status
Change
High Sacrifice
Initial Status
Low Alternatives
Initial Status
.42*** .30***Turnover
-.05-.22*-.43*-.12-.74** .09Change - TI
.10*-.31***-.16**-.42***Initial S - TI
CH - TIIS - TIIS - LAIS - HSCH -NCIS - NCCH - ACIS - AC
Turnover Intention
Initial Status
Change
Turnover Behavior
Affective Commit.
Initial Status
Change
Normative Commit.
Initial Status
Change
High Sacrifice
Initial Status
Low Alternatives
Initial Status
Change in TI strongly associated
with turnover
Conclusion
Successfully isolating change -> a more accurate picture as to how the dimensions are simultaneously processed by
individuals Change only on AC and NC, HS and LA more stable. Change in AC and NC strongly interrelated.
At the core of both AC and NC is sets of attributes that are more personnal in nature and very sensitive and responsive to organizational events.
Change in AC and NC independent of HS and LA.This might advocate against a rationalization process.
Conclusion
Successfully isolating change -> a more accurate picture as to how the dimensions are simultaneously processed by individuals
as to how shifts in the processing impact important employee behaviors
- IS-TI and CH-TI dissociated from one another
- positive association between IS and CH for AC and NC
- primary drivers for CH-TI = CH-AC and CH-NC
- CH-TI = strong predictor of turnover behavior Reducing turnover must be a sustained effort over time.
Conclusion
The present study…
- advances our knowledge of the commitment dimensions
- represents a contribution to the comprehension of the LGM methodology
