The Influence of Cultural And

8/3/2019 The Influence of Cultural And

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-influence-of-cultural-and 1/24

Employee organizational commitment: the influence of cultural and

organizational factors in the Australian manufacturing industry

Sophia Su*, Kevin Baird and Bill Blair

Department of Accounting and Finance, EFS, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW, Australia

The importance of enhancing employee organizational commitment (EOC) ishighlighted by the extensive literature revealing its positive impact on employees’ jobperformance, reducing absenteeism and turnover rates, and improving employees’adaptability to organizational change. This study provides an insight into how EOClevels can be enhanced by examining the contextual factors that can influenceEOC. Specifically, the study examines the association between cultural, organizational,and demographic factors with the level of EOC in the Australian manufacturingindustry. Data were collected by a survey questionnaire from a random sample of 500managers with the results revealing that two cultural factors (outcome orientation andstability) and three organizational factors (organizational size, perceived organizationalsupport and job satisfaction) were found to be significantly associated with the level of EOC. Further analysis provides a preliminary insight into how to enhance the EOC of specific managers with different cultural and organizational factors found to beassociated with the EOC of managers at different levels in the organizational hierarchy.The findings have important implications for practitioners attempting to improve thelevel of EOC of their employees with the subsequent enhancements in the level of EOClikely to contribute to improvements in productivity and growth in the Australianmanufacturing industry.

Keywords: employee organizational commitment (EOC); job satisfaction; manufac-turing industry; organizational culture; perceived organizational support

Introduction

Employee organizational commitment (EOC) reflects employees’ identification with the

organization’s goals and values; their willingness to exert a great effort on behalf of the

organization; and their intention to stay with the organization (Porter, Steers, Mowday

and Boulian 1974). The importance of EOC is highlighted by the extensive literature

which has focused on EOC as a potential determinant of employee motivation, and staff

absenteeism and turnover rates (Porter et al. 1974; Mathieu and Zajac 1990; Hackett,Peter and Hausdorf 1994; Ko, Price and Mueller 1997; Agarwala 2003; Meyer, Becker

and Vandenberghe 2004; Smeenk, Eisinga, Teelken and Doorewaard 2006; Bhatnagar

2007). For example, Pool and Pool (2007) maintain that EOC plays a significant role in

creating an organizational environment that promotes motivation and job satisfaction in

the workplace. In addition, Gellatly (1995) suggested that EOC is a powerful predictor of

absenteeism while Stallworth (2004) found that there is a negative correlation between

the level of EOC and an employee’s intention to search for job alternatives and to leave

one’s job.

ISSN 0958 5192 i /ISSN 1466 4399 li

*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]

The International Journal of Human Resource Management ,

Vol. 20, No. 12, December 2009, 2494–2516



Given the importance of EOC, the overall objective of this study is to provide

practitioners with an insight into how they can enhance the level of EOC within their

organization. The study aims to achieve this objective by extending the literature

examining the contextual factors that can influence EOC. Accordingly, this study’s overall

objective is categorized into three main objectives: to examine the association between (i)cultural, (ii) organizational and (iii) demographic factors with the level of EOC in the

Australian manufacturing industry.

The first objective is to examine the association between cultural factors with the

level of EOC. Despite the claim that critical outcomes such as EOC and employee

performance are affected by an organization’s prevailing culture (Nystrom 1993), only a

few studies (Nystrom 1993; Lok and Crawford 1999, 2001; McKinnon, Harrison, Chow

and Wu 2003; McMurray, Scott and Pace 2004) have examined the association between

organizational culture and the level of EOC, with McMurray et al. (2004) the only

study conducted within the Australian manufacturing industry. Each of these studies

incorporated small sample sizes (maximum of 13 organizations). Accordingly, themotivation for examining the association between organizational culture and EOC is

the dearth of studies examining this relationship. Furthermore, the study aims to contribute

to the literature by examining this association using a large sample size and by focusing on

the Australian manufacturing industry. Specifically, the study will explore the association

between EOC with the six dimensions of culture attributed to O’Reilly, Chatham and

Caldwell’s (1991) Organizational Culture Profile (OCP) measure: team work; respect for

people; outcome orientation; innovation; stability; and attention to detail.

The second objective of the study is to examine the association between organizational

factors with the level of EOC. Specifically, the study hypothesizes the association between

five organizational factors (organizational size, training, link to rewards, perceived

organizational support, and job satisfaction) with the level of EOC. While the five

organizational factors examined do not represent an exhaustive list of factors associated with

the level of EOC, they are chosen as examples of the factors that have been examined in past

studies. Previous studies have produced mixed findings in respect to the association between

three of these factors (organizational size, training, and job satisfaction) and the level of EOC.

It is hoped that the current study can contribute to resolving such conflicts. In addition, the

study will contribute to the literature by examining the association between organizational

factors and the level of EOC for employees possessing specific demographic characteristics.

A third objective of the study is to assess the association between specific demographic

factors with the level of EOC. Consistent with previous research the study examines if there

is any association between gender, age, education, salary, duration of employment, and

position level1 with the level of EOC. While these relationships are examined they are

not the primary focus of the study and hence no formal hypotheses are developed. The

motivation for incorporating these demographic details in the study is two-fold. First,

the results should prove to be interesting and assist organizations by making them aware

of the manner in which EOC levels may differ amongst their managers based on the specific

demographic characteristics of individual employees. Second, the findings will facilitate a

more extensive examination of the association between the cultural and organizational

factors with the level of EOC. Specifically, it is intended that any identified divergences in

respect to the level of EOC based on demographics will be further explored by examining

the association between the cultural and organizational factors with the level of EOC foremployees with differing demographic characteristics. Such findings will assist

The International Journal of Human Resource Management 2495



This paper is organized as follows. The next section defines EOC and outlines the

benefits of higher levels of EOC for organizations. This is followed by a discussion of

the association between the cultural and organizational factors with the level of EOC.

We then discuss the use of the survey method to gather data, and provide details

concerning the measurement of each of the variables. The results are then presented and,finally, the conclusions, limitations and future directions for research are discussed.

Employee organizational commitment (EOC)

There are various definitions of EOC in the literature. Some studies define EOC from

an attitude perspective (Mowday, Porter and Steers 1982; O’Reilly 1989), while other

studies define EOC from a behavioral perspective (Meyer and Allen 1997). In this study, the

definition of EOC is adopted from Porter et al. (1974) who defined EOC as an employee’s

identification with the organization’s goals and values; their willingness to exert a great effort

on behalf of the organization; and their intention to stay with the organization. This definition

is preferred as it defines EOC from both the attitudinal and behavioural perspectives.Meyer and Allen (1991) provide a more in-depth analysis of EOC classifying it into

three components: affective; continuance; and normative commitment. Affective

commitment is defined as an employee’s emotional attachment to a particular organization

which makes them willing to assist in the achievement of the organization’s goals.

Continuance commitment refers to an employee’s awareness of the costs related to leaving

an organization, while normative commitment is defined as a feeling of obligation to

continue employment in the organization. Employees with a high level of normative

commitment feel that they ought to stay with the organization as it is the moral thing to do

(Meyer and Allen 1991).

Two of these three components are beyond the control of management. First, in regardto continuance commitment, employees who live closer to the company would be

expected to have a higher level of continuance commitment compared with those who live

further away from the company. Second, normative commitment may result from

employees’ internalization of normative pressures before they enter into the organization

such as familial socialization. For example, employees may have been told by their family

members that to be loyal to their organization is important. Hence, continuous

commitment and normative commitment are both beyond the control of management and

therefore outside the scope of the current study. Alternatively, the degree of an employee’s

affective commitment is dependent upon their attitude towards the organization which

may be influenced by their organizational environment. Accordingly, this study focuses on

the association between specific cultural and organizational factors with the level of EOC

as assessed by the level of affective commitment.

Benefits of EOC

From a broad perspective, a high level of EOC can benefit society because of the decrease

in job movement and the increase in national productivity and/or work quality (Mathieu

and Zajac 1990; Chow 1994). From a narrower perspective, EOC remains important for

organizations because of its potential impact on employees’ job performance (Mathieu and

Zajac 1990; MacKenzie, Podsakoff and Aheame 1998; Ketchand and Strawser 2001;

Riketta 2002), employee turnover (Mathieu and Zajac 1990; Ketchand and Strawser 1998;

Stallworth 2004) and acceptance of organizational change by employees (Lau and

S. Su et al.2496



According to Porter et al. (1974) employees who exhibit a higher level of EOC are

more likely to exert effort on behalf of their organization, thereby resulting in better

performance. This positive link between EOC and job performance has been supported by

a number of prior studies (Meyer, Paunonen, Cellatly, Goffin and Jackson 1989; Meyer,

Allen and Smith 1993; Hackett et al. 1994; Jaramillo, Mulki and Marshall 2005).Studies have consistently shown a strong negative relationship between EOC and

employee turnover (Ketchand and Strawser 1998; Meyer and Allen 1997; Iverson and

Buttigieg 1999; Stallworth 2004). Specifically, employees with a higher level of

organizational commitment are less likely to consider alternative job opportunities and are

less likely to actually leave their organization for other employment (Mathieu and Zajac

1990). Chow (1994) found that highly committed employees have greater loyalty and are

more likely to remain in their organizations. Given the high costs related to hiring and

training new staff and the low productivity and staff morale which tends to be associated

with employee turnover (Koh and Boo 2004), organizations should focus on EOC as a

means of reducing employee turnover rates.

In addition to the impact on employees’ job performance and turnover, EOC has been

found to play an important role in employees’ acceptance of organizational change.

In Australia, employees are experiencing various organizational changes such as

downsizing, the introduction of new plant and technology, and internationalization of

businesses (Savery and Luks 2000). The costs associated with organizational change

include the costs resulting from an employee’s resistance to change. Specifically,

employees’ uncertainty and fear in dealing with new situations can lower organizations’

productivity and morale (Mack, Nelson and Quick 1998; Nikolaou and Vakola 2005). As a

result, employees’ acceptance of organizational change becomes extremely important for

organizations to manage. Iverson (1996) suggested that EOC is one of the most important

determinants of employees’ attitudes towards organizational change. Similarly, Lau andWoodman (1995) argued that highly committed employees are more likely to accept

organizational change as they are more willing to expend more effort to adapt to new

situations.

Factors affecting the level of EOC

Organizational culture

Organizational culture refers to ‘a system of shared values and norms that define

appropriate attitudes and behaviours for organizational members’ (O’Reilly and Chatman

1996, p. 160). It is one of the fundamental factors in developing and maintaining a highlevel of organizational commitment among employees (O’Reilly 1989). However, few

studies have investigated the effect of organizational culture on the level of EOC (Nystrom

1993; Lok and Crawford 1999, 2001; McKinnon et al. 2003; McMurray et al. 2004).

Australian studies are limited to Lok and Crawford (1999, 2001) who tested the link

between organizational culture and the level of EOC in an Australian hospital context, and

McMurray et al. (2004) who conducted their study in three South Australian manufacturing

companies. Given that McMurray et al. (2004) is the only study conducted within the

Australian manufacturing industry, a gap exists in the literature in respect to studies

examining EOC in this industry in Australia.

In addition, prior studies examining the link between organizational culture and the level

of EOC have incorporated relatively small sample sizes (13 organizations in Nystrom

(1993); seven organizations in Lok and Crawford (1999, 2001); one organization in




Mathieu and Zajac (1990) there is little or no variance in employees’ perceptions of

organizational characteristics such as culture if employees are sampled from a single or a

limited number of settings. Therefore, this study seeks to overcome the limitations of prior

studies by examining the association between cultural factors and the level of EOC in the

Australian manufacturing industry using a large sample size (500 organizations).O’Reilly et al.’s (1991) Organizational Culture Profile (OCP) instrument is used as the

measure of organizational culture in the present study. This measure consists of 26 items

and has been used extensively (Sheridan 1992; Windsor and Ashkanasy 1996; McKinnon

et al. 2003; Baird, Harrison and Reeve 2004, 2007) with similar findings in regard to the

dimensions of culture: team work; respect for people; outcome orientation; innovation;

stability; and attention to detail.

Team work refers to the extent to which employees within a firm cooperate with each

other and work in unison towards overall organizational goals. The importance of teams

has been emphasized in the modern economy as they can increase employees’ flexibility

and productivity which are both essential components for organizational success(Cohen and Bailey 1997; Bishop, Scott and Burroughs 2000). Gil, Alcover and Peiro

(2005) suggested that teams empower greater responsibility to team members thereby

increasing their involvement and commitment to work. A positive association between

team work and the level of EOC was found by both Becker (1992) and Hayes (1997) and

hence, the level of EOC is expected to be higher in organizations where team work is

more prevalent.

Respect for people refers to the extent to which business units focus on fairness,

respect for the rights of the individual, and tolerance (Windsor and Ashkanasy 1996).

Being respected by the organization can increase employees’ commitment to their

organization (Tyler 1999). Specifically, employees who are treated with genuine respect

and fairness are more likely to behave with loyalty and hard work. McKinnon et al. (2003)

found a positive association between respect for people and the level of EOC in a Taiwan

organization. It is expected that a similar result will be found in Australia as the

importance of value and respect is universal (Bond 1991).

Outcome orientation refers to the extent to which business units emphasize action and

results, have high expectations for performance, and are competitive (O’Reilly et al. 1991,

p. 505). Nystrom (1993) argued that employees feel more committed in organizations that

focus on pragmatic values where results are more important than processes. Hofstede

(1998) also suggested that employees in organizations with a process-oriented culture

perceive themselves as risk-averse and only exert the minimum amount of effort on their

work, while in outcome oriented organizations, employees perceive that everyday can

bring new challenges and exert maximum effort into their work. McKinnon et al. (2003)

treated the link between outcome orientation and the level of EOC as an empirical question

with the results demonstrating a positive relationship. Similar findings are expected in the

current study.

Innovation represents a business unit’s receptivity and adaptability to change, and its

willingness to experiment (O’Reilly et al. 1991, p. 505). Innovative organizations are more

likely to experiment with new practices and their employees are more likely to respond

positively to new techniques (Baird et al. 2004, 2007). Drucker (1998) argues that

innovation requires focused and hard work everyday rather than just genius, and therefore

employees in innovative organizations will exhibit higher levels of EOC. A strong positiverelationship between the culture dimension ‘innovation’ and the level of EOC was found

S. Su et al.2498



Stability refers to security of employment (Windsor and Ashkanasy 1996). It

represents the extent to which an organization provides stable employment for

employees (Windsor and Ashkanasy 1996) and employees’ perceptions that the

employment will continue as long as they exert the appropriate effort in their job

(Valletta 1999). In terms of Armknecht and Early’s (1972) study, employees’ attitudes to job security are contingent on the behaviour of the labour market. Morris, Lydka and

O’Creevy (1993) argue that job security will only exhibit a strong positive relationship

with employees’ commitment to organizations during recessionary economic conditions.

Hence, given the study was conducted prior to the global financial crisis, economic

conditions in Australia were stable and job security was not expected to be related to the

level of EOC.

Attention to detail is defined as a strict compliance with detailed rules and procedures

in terms of precision and accuracy (O’Reilly et al. 1991). The phrase ‘initiation of

structure’ refers to the degree to which managers define the roles of their subordinates in

job-related activities, specify procedures, and assign tasks (Kohli 1989). Hence,

organizations with a high degree of initiation of structure are indicative of a culture which

emphasizes ‘attention to detail’. Agarwal, Decarlo and Vyas (1999) and Lok and Crawford

(2001) suggest that there is no direct relationship between initiation of structure and the

level of EOC. Similarly, Johnston, Parasuraman, Futrell and Black (1990) found that

the extent of specific information given by supervisors has no direct impact on employees’

commitment to their organization. As a result, attention to detail is not expected to be

associated with the level of EOC.

The above discussion leads to the development of the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 1: Organizations that value the organizational culture dimensions of team

work, respect for people, outcome orientation, and innovation to agreater extent are more likely to exhibit higher levels of EOC.

Organizational factors

This section discusses the association between five organizational factors (organizational

size, training, link to rewards, perceived organizational support and job satisfaction) and

the level of EOC.

Stevens, Beyer and Trice (1978) suggested that larger organizations have increased

opportunities for promotions and interpersonal interactions, thereby resulting in more

committed employees. Alternatively, Hodson and Sullivan (1985) argued that largerorganizations are perceived to be less personable and harder to identify with, thereby

resulting in lower levels of EOC. Employees working in smaller organizations feel

stronger personal relationships with their employers and co-workers, and are therefore

more committed to their organization. Given these inconsistent findings, the hypothesis

examining the association between organizational size and the level of EOC is stated in the

null form:

Hypothesis 2: The size of the organization does not affect the level of EOC.

Prior literature maintains that training plays a significant role in enhancing the level of

EOC. For instance, Taormina (1999) found that employees who felt they had received

good training exhibited a higher level of commitment to their organization. Similarly,

Lambooij, Flache, Sanders and Siegers (2007) suggested that employees are more willing




McGunnigle and Jameson’s (2000) study in UK hotels found little evidence to support

the relationship between training and the level of EOC. Such findings were consistent

with Davies, Taylor and Savery (2001) who found training was linked to improvements

in productivity and reduced employee turnover, but was not linked to increased levels

of EOC. Furthermore, there is concern that employees who are given significant levels of training may become more competent and consequently more likely to look for alternative

employment (Lermont-Pape 2002). Given these mixed findings, the hypothesis

concerning the relationship between training and the level of EOC is stated in the

null form:

Hypothesis 3: The level of training does not affect the level of EOC.

Phoenix (2006) argued that the extent of commitment to an employer is determined by

employees’ perceptions of how their performance is linked to their rewards. Employees

who are rewarded for their performances are more likely to be motivated to excel and

increase their commitment. In terms of path-goal theory, subordinates choose their level of

effort to be applied once leaders define the paths they must trace in order to receive

rewards for their performance (House 1996). Therefore, the provision of the mutual

benefits between performance and rewards can encourage employees’ extra effort and

involvement within their organization. Hence, employees whose rewards are contingent

on their performance are more likely to commit to their organization (Densten 2006). The

above discussion leads to the development of the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 4: Organizations with stronger links to rewards are more likely to exhibit

higher levels of EOC.

Social exchange theory treats commitment as an exchange commodity (Fuller, Barnett,

Hester and Relyea 2003) and suggests that employees will be more likely to commit to anorganization when they feel that the organization commits to them (Shore and Tetrick

1991; Guzzo, Noonan and Elron 1994; Tsui, Pearce, Porter and Tripoli 1997; Aube,

Rousseau and Morin 2007). Eisenberger, Fasolo and Valerie (1990) found that there is a

positive relationship between employees’ perceived organizational support and their

affective commitment to the organization. Employees experiencing higher perceived

organizational support will exhibit greater effort and will be less likely to leave. This

positive relationship was also found in Rhoades, Eisenberger and Armeil (2000). The

above discussion leads to the development of the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 5: Organizations that are perceived to provide a higher level of

organizational support are more likely to exhibit higher levels of EOC.

Many studies have examined the relationship between job satisfaction and EOC. Bateman

and Strasser (1984) found that job satisfaction was an outcome of EOC rather than a

predictor. They argued that employees’ job satisfaction was developed based on their

existing level of EOC. This result was supported by Paik, Parboteeah and Shim (2007).

Alternatively, Johnston et al. (1990) argued that job satisfaction was a direct determinant

of EOC rather than an outcome of organizational commitment. Similar results were found

in Koh and Boo (2004), Lok and Crawford (2001), MacKenzie et al. (1998), and

Mannheim, Baruch and Tai (1997). Alternatively, Shore, Barksdale and Shore (1995)

investigated the link between job satisfaction and the level of EOC, with the results

indicating that job satisfaction was not associated with the level of affective or continuous

commitment. In addition, Rayton (2006) argued that there is an interdependent correlation

S. Su et al.2500



relationship between job satisfaction and the level of EOC, the hypothesis is stated in the

null form:

Hypothesis 6 : The level of job satisfaction does not affect the level of EOC.

Method

A survey questionnaire was mailed to the managers from a random sample of 500

Australian manufacturing organizations chosen from the Kompass Australia database

(2006). The survey was administered using the Dillman Tailored Design Method (2007)

which provides guidelines in relation to the design and distribution of the questionnaire

and has been shown to improve response rates to mail survey questionnaires.

Variable measurement

The level of EOC

This study applies Cook and Wall’s (1980) nine-item scale to measure the level of

EOC. It has been shown to be a reliable measure of EOC in prior studies (Jaramillo

et al. 2005; Karami, Boojke and Sainfort 2005; Varona 1996). The scale consists of

three components (organizational identification, organizational involvement, and

organizational loyalty) with respondents required to indicate the extent to which they

agree with each of the statements using a five-point scale with anchors of ‘strongly

disagree’ and ‘strongly agree’ (see Appendix). The level of EOC was measured as the

combined score for the nine items (ranging from 9 to 45), with higher (lower) scores

representing a greater (lower) level of EOC. Reverse scoring was applied for the three

items that were negatively stated.


There are two main perspectives in relation to the measurement of organizational culture,

the quantitative and qualitative approaches. The quantitative approach maintains that

‘culture can be objectively determined and measured’ (Goddard 1997) with numerous

instruments having been developed to examine organizational culture (including the

Culture Gap Survey (Kilmann and Saxton 1983), the Corporate Culture Survey (Glaser

1983), the Organizational Beliefs Questionnaire (Sashkin 1984), the Organizational

Culture Inventory (Cooke and Lafferty 1989), and the Organizational Culture Profile

(O’Reilly et al. 1991)). The qualitative approach assesses organizational culture throughobservation thereby facilitating a more detailed insight into the prevailing culture.

The quantitative approach has been criticized by advocates of the qualitative

approach who maintain that the measures used fail to represent observed reality and

inhibit the ‘depth and breadth of cultural understanding’ (Martin 2002; Martin, Frost and

O’Neill 2006; Schein 1996). In addition, Alvesson (2002) argues that this approach

prevents the careful and detailed observation warranted to clear up ambiguities

concerning organizational culture. However, while the qualitative approach provides a

more detailed insight into the prevailing culture, the obtained data does not permit

systematic comparisons to be made (Siehl and Martin 1988). Quantitative approaches

overcome this problem by requiring respondents to evaluate organizational culture based

on the dimensions included in the questionnaire, thereby facilitating the comparison of

cultural attributes between organizations and across time (Hofstede, Neuijen, Ohayv and




differences in culture may affect the level of EOC, a quantitative approach was

considered appropriate.

Accordingly, organizational culture was measured using the 26 item version of

O’Reilly et al.’s (1991) Organizational Culture Profile (OCP) instrument. This instrument

was chosen as it has been widely used in many prior studies including Windsor andAshkanasy (1996), Sheridan (1992), McKinnon et al. (2003) and Baird et al. (2004, 2007).

The OCP measure required respondents to indicate the extent to which each item

was valued within their organization on a five-point Likert scale with anchors of ‘not at all’

and ‘to a great extent’. Factor analysis of the 26-item measure was performed with

five cultural dimensions obtained (67.2% of the total variance): team work/respect

for people,2 innovation, attention to detail, stability and outcome orientation. Scores for

each of these dimensions were calculated as the sum of the cultural value items

which loaded on those dimensions (see Appendix), with higher (lower) scores indicating

that the cultural dimension was valued to a greater (lesser) extent.

Organizational size

Organizational size was measured using the total number of full-time employees in the

organization, with part-time employees being treated as fractions of full-time employees.

Training

Training was measured by a single-item self-developed question. Specifically,

respondents were required to indicate the extent to which adequate training was provided

by their organization with anchors of ‘not at all’ and ‘to a great extent’. The level of adequate training was scored from 1 to 5, with higher (lower) scores representing a higher

(lower) level of adequate training provided by the organization.

Link to rewards

Link to rewards was also measured by a single-item self-developed question. Specifically,

respondents were required to indicate the extent of the link between performance and

rewards, with anchors of ‘not at all’ and ‘to a great extent’. The extent of link to rewards

was scored from 1 to 5, with higher (lower) scores representing a stronger (weaker) link to

rewards.

The level of perceived organizational support

Eisenberger, Armeli, Rexwinkel, Lynch and Rhoades’ (2001) six-item measure was used

to measure the level of perceived organizational support (see Appendix). Respondents

were required to indicate if their organization takes pride in their work accomplishments,

cares about their well-being, values their contribution to the organization’s well-being,

considers their goals and values, shows concern for them, and is willing to help them when

needed. The level of perceived organizational support was measured as the combined

score for the six items (ranging from 6 to 30), with higher (lower) scores representing a

higher (lower) level of perceived organizational support. Reverse scoring was applied for

S. Su et al.2502



The level of job satisfaction

Wright and Cropanzano’s (1998) five-item measure was applied to measure the level of

job satisfaction. This measure consists of five dimensions with respondents required to

indicate their degree of satisfaction with the tasks performed, co-workers, supervision,

remuneration and promotional opportunities using a five-point scale with anchors of

‘strongly disagree’ and ‘strongly agree’. The level of job satisfaction was measured as the

combined score for the five items (ranging from 5 to 25), with higher (lower) scores

representing a higher (lower) level of job satisfaction.

Table 1 shows the summary statistics for the independent and dependent variables. Forthe multi-item scales used to measure the level of perceived organizational support, job

satisfaction, EOC, and the five cultural dimensions, the actual range was comparable with

the theoretical range, and the Cronbach alpha (1951) coefficients exceeded the .70

threshold considered acceptable for scale reliability (Nunnally 1978, p. 245).

Results and discussion

The response rate was 45.4% with 227 responses. These comprised 154 (30.8%) from the

initial distribution of the questionnaires and 73 (14.6%) from the follow-up mail-out.

A test for non-response bias was conducted by comparing the responses of early and laterespondents for each of the independent variables and the dependent variable. The results

revealed that were no significant differences between early respondents and late

respondents for any of the variables. Hence, there are no problems regarding non-response

bias for the data obtained.

Factors affecting EOC: cultural and organizational factors

The association between the cultural and organizational factors with the level of EOC was

initially assessed using hierarchical regression. Table 2 presents the results of the

hierarchical regression analysis when the block of cultural factors were entered first and

the block of organizational factors were entered second. The results reveal that both

cultural and organizational factors are significant predictors of the level of EOC in

Table 1. Descriptive statistics of the independent variables and the dependent variable.

Variables N Mean Std dev.

Minimumactual

(theoretical)

Maximumactual

(theoretical)Cronbach’s

alpha

Team work/respectfor people

226 27.29 4.66 7 (7) 35 (35) .90

Outcome orientation 227 19.99 3.30 8 (5) 25 (25) .86Innovation 226 17.11 3.80 5 (5) 25 (25) .82Stability 226 11.00 2.08 5 (3) 15 (15) .77Attention to detail 226 10.97 2.15 4 (3) 15 (15) .79Size 225 1245.54 9222.65 1 (1) 130000 (infinity) –Training 226 3.44 0.96 1 (1) 5 (5) –Link to rewards 225 3.26 1.03 1 (1) 5 (5) –Perceived organizationalsupport

227 23.37 4.62 9 (6) 30 (30) .91

Job satisfaction 227 18.64 3.22 5 (5) 25 (25) .80

EOC 226 36.85 5.87 15 (9) 45 (45) .82




of EOC explained by the cultural factors was 0.48 (p ¼ 0.00), while organizational factors

explained an additional 0.15 (p ¼ 0.00) of the variation in the level of EOC.

Table 3 shows the results of the hierarchical regression analysis when the block of

organizational factors were entered first and the block of cultural factors were entered

second. The results again suggest that both organizational factors and cultural factors are

significant determinants of the level of EOC. Specifically, the organizational factors

explained 0.58 (p ¼ 0.00) of the total variation in the level of EOC, while the cultural

factors explained an additional 0.04 (p ¼ 0.00) of the total variation in the level of EOC.

Comparison of Tables 2 and 3 show that while the effects of both the cultural factors and

the organizational factors are statistically significant, the effect of the organizational factors

on the level of EOC is stronger both when entered first in the hierarchical regression and in

terms of the unique contribution when entered second. To explore this relationship further,

stepwise regression was performed to identify the specific factors that had the most

significant effect on the level of EOC.

Table 2. Hierarchical regression of cultural factors/organizational factors with the level of EOC(cultural factors entered first).

Block number Independent variables R2 change F change Significance

1 Cultural factors (team work/respectfor people, innovation, attention todetail, stability, and outcomeorientation)

0.48 38.48 0.00**

2 Organizational factors (size, training,link to rewards, perceivedorganizational support and jobsatisfaction)

0.15 16.24 0.00**

F-value 34.24p-value 0.00**R2 0.62Adjusted R2 0.60N 218

**Significant at the 0.01 level.

Table 3. Hierarchical regression of cultural factors/organizational factors with the level of EOC

(organizational factors entered first).

Block number Independent variables R2

change F change Significance

1 Organizational factors (size, training,link to rewards, perceived organizationalsupport and job satisfaction)

0.58 59.91 0.00**

2 Cultural factors (team work/respectfor people, innovation, attention todetail, stability, and outcome orientation)

0.04 4.15 0.00**

F-value 34.24p-value 0.00**R2 0.62

Adjusted R2

0.60N 218

S. Su et al.2504



The final model produced by the stepwise regression (Table 4) reveals that two cultural

factors (outcome orientation and stability) and three organizational factors (size, perceived

organizational support and job satisfaction) are significantly related to the level of EOC.

The results indicate that smaller organizations and organizations which have higher levels

of outcome orientation, stability, perceived organizational support and job satisfaction are

more likely to exhibit higher levels of EOC.

Table 4. Results of stepwise regression analysis of the effect of cultural and organizational factorson the level of EOC.

Level of EOC

Variables Coefficient T-statistics SignificanceOutcome orientation 0.126 2.571 0.01*Stability 0.140 2.981 0.00*Size 20.114 22.723 0.01*Perceived organizational support 0.434 6.668 0.00**Job satisfaction 0.250 3.885 0.00**F-value 70.47p-value 0.00**R2 0.62Adjusted R2 0.61N 217

*Significant at the 0.05 level; **Significant at the 0.01 level.

Table 5. Results of one way analysis of variance (ANOVA) comparing the level of EOC based onage.

Level of EOC

Age N Mean St. dev F-statistic Significance

21 – 30 6 29.83 9.1331 – 40 38 35.71 5.8441 – 50 83 36.92 5.80 4.01 0.00**

51 – 60 73 37.03 5.6060þ 26 39.46 4.62

**Significant at the 0.01 level.

Table 6. Results of one way analysis of variance (ANOVA) comparing the level of EOC based onposition levels.

Level of EOC

Position level N a Mean Std dev. F-statistic Significance

1. CEO 44 39.35 5.372. General manager 54 37.78 4.903. Product and IT manager 44 33.95 6.87 7.35 0.00**4. Plant and quality manager 55 36.42 5.33

**Significant at the 0.01 level;a

30 respondents who indicated that their job titles were slightly different from the above categories were excluded




a b l e 7 .

R e s u l t s o f s t e p w i s e r e g r e s s i o n a n a l y s i s o f t h e e f f e c t o f c u l t u r a l a n d o r g a n i z a t i o n a l f a c t o r s o n t h e l e v e l o f E O C .

L e v e l

1 a

L e v e l 2

b

L e v e l 3 c

L e v e l 4 d

a r i a b l e s

C o - e

f fi c i e n t

T - s t a t ( t - s i g . )

C o - e

f fi c i e n t

T - s t a t ( t - s i g . )

C o - e

f fi c i e n t

T - s

t a t ( t - s i g . )

C o - e

f fi c i e n t

T - s t a t ( t - s i g . )

t t e n t i o n

t o d e t a i l

0 . 5

5

2 . 3 8

( 0 . 0

2 * )

t a b i l i t y

1 . 1

9

3 . 4

8 ( 0 . 0

0 * * )

r a i n i n g

2

1 . 3

6

2 2 .

2 7 ( 0 . 0

3 * )

1 . 6

8

2 . 4 5

( 0 . 0

2 * )

z e

2

0 . 0

1

2

2 . 0

3 ( 0 . 0

4 * )

e r c e i v e d o r g a n i z a t i o n a l

u p p o r t

0 . 3

2

2 . 0

7 ( 0 . 0

4 * )

0 . 7

1

4 .

1 1 ( 0 . 0

0 * * )

0 . 6

9

5 . 5 8

( 0 . 0

0 * * )

o b s a t i s f a c t i o n

0 . 6

8

3 . 1

9 ( 0 . 0

0 * * )

0 . 7

4

3 . 3

1 ( 0 . 0

4 * )

0 . 8

3

3 .

2 1 ( 0 . 0

0 * * )

1 7 . 5

7

1 9 . 1 2

3 7 . 7 8

2 9 . 1

9

s i g .

0 . 0 0

* *

0 . 0

0 * *

0 . 0

0 * *

0 . 0

0 * *

2

0 . 6 8

0 . 5 4

0 . 7

4

0 . 6

3

d j u s t e d

R 2

0 . 4 7

0 . 5 1

0 . 7

2

0 . 6

1

4 1

5 3

4 3

5 4

S i g n i fi c a n t a t t h e 0 . 0

5 l e v e l ; * * S i g n i fi c a n t a t t h

e 0 . 0

1 l e v e l ; a

C E O ;

b

G e n e r a l m a n a g e

r s ; c

P r o d u c t a n d I T m a n a g e r s ;

d

P l a n t

a n d q u a l i t y m a n a g e r s .

S. Su et al.2506



These findings support the importance of organizational culture as an explanatory

factor of the level of EOC with two of the five cultural dimensions (outcome orientation

and stability) found to influence the level of EOC. These results provide partial support for

Hypothesis 1. In respect to the organizational factors, it was found that three of the five

factors (organizational size, perceived organizational support and job satisfaction)exhibited a significant relationship with the level of EOC. These results provide support

for Hypothesis 5 (perceived organizational support) and allow for the rejection of the null

hypotheses in respect to Hypothesis 2 (organizational size) and Hypothesis 6 (job

satisfaction). The fact that training had no effect on the level of EOC provides support for

Hypothesis 3 while the insignificant association between link to rewards and the level of

EOC indicates that Hypothesis 4 was not supported.

Factors affecting EOC: demographic factors

The association between gender, age, education, salary, duration of employment and level

of position with the level of EOC was also examined, with the results indicating that only

age and position are significantly related to the level of EOC. Table 5 reveals that the level

of EOC differed based on the age of employees with the post hoc tests revealing that those

respondents aged between 21 and 30 had significantly lower EOC than those respondents

in any of the other age brackets. However, no significant differences in the level of EOC

indicated by respondents in any of the other four age brackets were detected, and given

that only six responding employees were in the 21–30 age bracket no further analysis

of this situation was conducted.

Table 6 reveals that the comparison of the level of EOC based on position level was

significantly different with post hoc tests revealing that product and IT managers (level 3)

recorded a significantly lower level of EOC than all of the other managers. Given thesefindings subsequent data analysis was conducted to examine the association between the

cultural and organizational factors with the level of EOC for each of the four levels of

manager with the results of the stepwise regression analysis provided in Table 7.

Table 7 reveals that all four models were significant with high R2 values recorded

(0.54–0.74). Stability and job satisfaction were found to be positively associated with the

level of EOC of employees at the top of the hierarchical chain (CEOs). At the general

managers’ level, perceived organizational support and job satisfaction were positively

related to the level of EOC while organizational size was negatively related to the level of

EOC. Both perceived organizational support and job satisfaction were also positively

related to the level of EOC for product and IT managers (level 3), while training was foundto be negatively related to the level of EOC for these managers. Finally, in respect to plant

and quality managers (level 4), perceived organizational support, training and attention to

detail were all positively related to the level of EOC.

Conclusion

This study had three objectives, each aimed towards assisting practitioners in identifying

the contextual factors that could contribute to the enhancement of the EOC of their

employees. The first objective was to conduct an analysis of the association between

organizational cultural factors and the level of EOC in the Australian manufacturing

industry. We find that two cultural factors (outcome orientation and stability) were

identified as significant determinants of the level of EOC. These findings support previous




EOC and suggest that practitioners need to be aware of the prevailing culture within their

organization and its impact on EOC. The positive association between outcome

orientation and the level of EOC is in line with the expectations of Hofstede (1998) and

Nystrom (1993) and reinforces the findings of McKinnon et al. (2003). A clear outcome

orientation can improve employee motivation and commitment to their organization byreducing uncertainty and clarifying what they should achieve (Samson and Daft 2005).

Hence, the findings suggest that employees are more committed to organizations that focus

on results as opposed to processes. Managers should therefore emphasize action,

achievement, and results, and have high expectations for performance and

competitiveness.

The finding of a significant relationship between stability and the level of EOC was not

expected and suggests that employees in Australian manufacturing organizations now

regard job stability to be crucial. This finding while surprising may reflect the increasingly

competitive and changing work environments in which new employer – employee

contracts are based on the concept of employability rather than lifetime employment (Halland Moss 1998). Job insecurity can cause employees to feel more stressed and thereby

lower their commitment and enthusiasm to their organization (Samson and Daft 2005). To

address this situation, managers need to provide stable continuous employment to retain

valued employees and promote their commitment to their organization.

The second objective was to examine the effect of organizational factors on the level of

EOC. The results show a significant relationship between three of the organizational

factors (organizational size, perceived organizational support and job satisfaction) and the

level of EOC.

First, it was found that employees in smaller organizations exhibited higher levels of

EOC. This finding is consistent with Hodson and Sullivan’s (1985) argument that

employees will be more committed in smaller organizations as they are more personable

and it is easier to maintain positive relationships. Employees in smaller organizations are

more likely to develop stronger personal relationships with their employer and co-workers

and consequently exhibit a higher level of EOC. To address this situation, managers in

larger organizations will need to concentrate on implementing mechanisms which reduce

the level of estrangement of employees with their organization.

Consistent with previous studies (Eisenberger et al. 1990; Rhoades et al. 2000), the

level of EOC was found to be higher among employees who indicated that their

organization provided higher levels of perceived organizational support. Therefore, it is of

pragmatic benefit to managers to demonstrate their concerns and support for employees.

Specifically, managers should care about employees’ well-being and value their

contribution to the organizations’ success. Managers also need to consider their

employees’ goals and values, provide assistance when required, and recognize employees’

accomplishments at work.

The results reveal that the level of EOC was higher for employees who reported higher

levels of job satisfaction. This result supports the findings of many studies (Johnston et al.

1990; Mannheim et al. 1997; MacKenzie et al. 1998; Lok and Crawford 2001; Koh and

Boo 2004). This association is plausible, as employees with higher job satisfaction are

more willing to do extra work and they often work long hours because of their high

degree of job satisfaction (Byrne 1998). Accordingly, managers need to ensure that

employees have positive attitudes towards their job. Specifically, tasks given to employeesshould match their abilities and interests and the remuneration provided should be

S. Su et al.2508



employees’ relationship with their co-workers and supervisors, and ensure that appropriate

promotional opportunities are provided.

These findings extend the literature examining the association between organizational

factors and the level of EOC and highlight their importance to those practitioners who are

intent on enhancing the level of EOC. In addition, given the mixed findings obtained inprevious studies, the findings in respect to size and job satisfaction provide a further

insight into the nature of their association with EOC. The third objective was to examine

the association between specific demographic factors with the level of EOC. The results

indicate that age and position were the only two factors significantly associated with the

level of EOC. Further analysis was undertaken to identify the specific cultural and

organizational factors which affected the EOC of managers across the four different

position levels with several interesting findings.

The results revealed that stability was significantly associated with the level of EOC

for top managers (CEOs). Samson and Daft (2005) indicated that the achievement of

strategic success needs more than 5 and even up to 10 years’ consistent strategic direction

and policy. Accordingly, the results clearly suggest that organizations need to

acknowledge that outcomes from strategic decisions will take time and provide CEOs

with job stability if they wish to enhance their EOC.

Perceived organizational support was found to have a positive significant effect on the

level of EOC for general, product, IT, plant and quality managers. Organizations today

face increasingly tough global competition, uncertain environments, and massive

worldwide economic, political and social change (Samson and Daft 2005). Hence, lower

level managers are suffering more work stress from task demands3 and role demands4

(Samson and Daft 2005). In this work environment, perceived organizational support

becomes extremely important. Specifically, lower level managers will be more willing to

commit to their organization if they feel that their organization understands their work environment and provides them with assistance in fulfilling their responsibilities.

Organizational size was negatively related to the level of EOC for general managers

indicating that the level of EOC of these managers is higher in smaller organizations. This

finding suggests that CEOs in larger organizations need to concentrate on developing more

personal relationships with these managers in an attempt to improve their EOC.

Further, the results indicate that training was negatively associated with the level of

EOC for product and IT managers (level 3) while positively associated with the level

of EOC for plant and quality managers (level 4). As managers in the lowest level in the

organizational hierarchy, plant and quality managers are more directly responsible for

the production of goods and the provision of services. Therefore, such managers requiremore technical skills that can be improved by training. Providing necessary training can

enable them to succeed on the job and thereby promote their commitment to their

organization (Samson and Daft 2005). However, while managers at lower levels may be

stimulated by training programmes, managers at higher levels have less interest and

enthusiasm towards training. Hence, the findings suggest that training provided to higher

level managers (CEOs and general managers) has no impact on their level of EOC. This

result is also in line with the comments of McMurray et al. (2004) which suggested that

training should be implemented at the lower organizational levels rather than at higher

management levels.

An association between attention to detail and the level of EOC for managers at the

lowest level of the hierarchy (plant and quality managers) was identified. Given that these

managers are normally under the supervision of managers from more than one position




from different managers are inconsistent. Hence, the provision of sufficient information

about role expectations and minimization of potential confusion about performance

requirements is important in reducing role ambiguity and will have a positive impact on

the level of EOC for these managers (Johnston et al. 1990). This is consistent with

Rayton (2006) suggesting that clear job expectations enhance EOC.Finally, job satisfaction was related to the level of EOC across all position levels

except level 4 (plant and quality managers).5 Job satisfaction refers to a positive attitude

towards one’s job and greater job satisfaction can lead to greater EOC (Johnston et al.

1990; Mannheim et al. 1997; MacKenzie et al. 1998; Lok and Crawford 2001; Koh and

Boo 2004). Therefore, in order to enhance employees’ level of EOC, managers should

create a work environment where employees can work with a positive emotional state.

These findings have important implications for both practitioners and researchers. The

findings highlight the fact that in attempting to enhance EOC, organizations need to be

aware of the usefulness of specific organizational and cultural attributes in enhancing the

EOC of specific employees within their organization. Similarly, researchers need be aware

of the complexities involved in enhancing EOC with future studies considering EOC in

respect to different employee positions.

The study has provided an important insight into the cultural and organizational factors

which can influence the level of employee organizational commitment. Importantly the

findings reveal the association of these factors with the level of employee organizational

commitment for specific types of managers. Hence, the findings will assist organizations

by providing them with an insight into the factors that can enable them to create an

organizational environment conducive to enhancing the EOC of their managers. Such

findings are crucial given improved EOC can lead to better employee performance,

decreased employee absenteeism and turnover rates and result in subsequent

improvements in productivity and growth.

Limitations and suggestions for future research

The study is subject to the usual limitations associated with the use of the survey method.

For instance, due to the inability to eliminate rival explanations, surveys can only find

associations rather than causal relationships between independent variables and dependent

variables (Singleton and Straits 2005). Future studies could combine other methods

such as interviews with surveys to get a deeper insight into the factors that affect the level

of EOC.

In addition, given the self-report survey approach used in the current study, there is apotential threat of measurement error as respondents may answer questions in the direction

of social desirability rather than their real feelings (Singleton and Straits 2005). However,

given that relatively full ranges were obtained for the variables for which data were

gathered suggests that social desirability bias is not a problem.

Another potential problem relates to the fact that the measures of training and link to

rewards were self-developed and both consisted of a single item. Future studies could test

the validity and reliability of these measures, or develop more detailed measures to

examine the association between training and link to rewards with the level of EOC. Future

studies could also explore the association between organizational culture and EOC in

greater detail by adopting a qualitative approach to measure organizational culture.

In addition, the survey questionnaires were only distributed to four levels of managers

in the organizations’ hierarchy. Consequently, the data provided may only represent

S. Su et al.2510



the level of EOC. Future studies could improve the generalizability of the results by

collecting data from front-line employees.

Finally, given the current study only investigated the association between cultural and

organizational factors with the level of EOC in the Australian manufacturing industry,

future studies could make a comparison of the factors that affect the level of EOC acrossother industries, or between the manufacturing industry in Australia and manufacturing

industries in other countries.

Notes

1. Position level was operationalized using four levels of management: chief executive officers;general managers; product and information technology (IT) managers; and plant and qualitymanagers.

2. Items relating to the team work and respect for people dimensions loaded onto the samedimension and were therefore treated as one combined dimension in the subsequent analysis.

3. Task demands are stressors arising from the tasks such as time pressure and incompleteinformation.

4. Role demands are challenges associated with a role such as role ambiguity and role conflict.5. The lack of association of this relationship for these managers may be attributed to the routine

tasks performed by such managers.

References

Agarwal, S., Decarlo, T.E., and Vyas, S.B. (1999), ‘Leadership Behaviour and OrganizationalCommitment: A Comparative Study of American and Indian Salespersons,’ Journal of

International Business Studies, 30, 4, 727–743.

Agarwala, T. (2003), ‘Innovative Human Resource Practices and Organizational Commitment: AnEmpirical Investigation,’ International Journal of Human Resource Management , 14, 2,175–197.

Alvesson, M. (2002), Understanding Organizational Culture, London: Sage.Armknecht, P.A., and Early, J.F. (1972), ‘Quits in Manufacturing: A Study of Their Causes,’

Monthly Labor Review, 95, November, 31– 37.Aube, C., Rousseau, V., and Morin, E.M. (2007), ‘Perceived Organizational Support and

Organizational Commitment,’ Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22, 5, 479–495.Baird, K.M., Harrison, G.L., and Reeve, R.C. (2004), ‘Adoption of Activity Management Practices:

A Note on the Extent of Adoption and the Influence of Organizational and Cultural Factors,’ Management Accounting Research, 15, 4, 383–399.

Baird, K., Harrison, G., and Reeve, R. (2007), ‘Success of Activity Management Practices: TheInfluence of Organizational and Cultural Factors,’ Accounting and Finance, 47, 4, 47– 67.

Bateman, T.S., and Strasser, S. (1984), ‘A Longitudinal Analysis of the Antecedents of Organizational Commitment,’ The Academy of Management Journal, 27, 1, 95 –112.

Becker, T.E. (1992), ‘Foci and Bases of Commitment: Are They Distinctions worth Making?,’ Academy of Management Journal, 35, 1, 222–244.

Bhatnagar, J. (2007), ‘Predictors of Organizational Commitment in India: Strategic HM Roles,Organizational Learning Capability and Psychological Empowerment,’ International Journal of

Human Resource Management , 18, 10, 1782–1811.Bishop, J.W., Scott, K.D., and Burroughs, S.M. (2000), ‘Support, Commitment, and Employee

Outcomes in a Team Environment,’ Journal of Management Development , 26, 6, 1113–1132.Bond, M.H. (1991), Beyond the Chinese Face: Insights from Psychology, Hong Kong: Oxford

University Press.Byrne, J.A. (1998), ‘Virtual Management,’ Business Week , 80–82.

Chow, I.H. (1994), ‘Organizational Commitment and Career Development of Chinese Managers inHong Kong and Taiwan,’ The International Journal of Career Management , 6, 4, 3–9.

Cohen, S.G., and Bailey, D.E. (1997), ‘What Makes Teams Work: Group Effectiveness Research




Cook, J., and Wall, T. (1980), ‘New Work Attitude Measures of Trust, Organizational Commitmentand Personal Need Non-fulfillment,’ Journal of Occupational Psychology, 53, 1, 39– 52.

Cooke, R.A., and Lafferty, J.C. (1989), Organizational Culture Inventory, Plymouth, MI: HumanSynergistics.

Cronbach, L.J. (1951), ‘Coefficient Alpha and the Internal Structure of Tests,’ Psychometrika, 16,

297–334.Davies, D., Taylor, R., and Savery, L. (2001), ‘The Role of Appraisal, Remuneration and Training in

Improving Staff Relations in the Western Australian Accommodation Industry: A ComparativeStudy,’ Journal of European Industrial Training, 25, 7, 366–373.

Densten, I.L. (2006), ‘Negotiating Extra Effort through Contingent Rewards,’ Leadership &

Organization Development Journal, 27, 1, 38– 49.Dillman, D.A. (2007), Mail and Internet Surveys: The Tailored Design Method , New York: John

Wiley and Sons, Inc.Drucker, P.F. (1998), ‘The Discipline of Innovation,’ Harvard Business Review, 76, 6, 149–157.Eisenberger, R., Armeli, S., Rexwinkel, B., Lynch, P.D., and Rhoades, L. (2001), ‘Reciprocation of

Perceived Organizational Support,’ Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 1, 42– 51.Eisenberger, R., Fasolo, P., and Valerie, D.L. (1990), ‘Perceived Organizational Support and

Employee Diligence, Commitment, and Innovation,’ Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 1,51–59.Fuller, J.B., Barnett, T., Hester, K., and Relyea, C. (2003), ‘A Social Identity Perspective on the

Relationship Between Perceived Organizational Support and Organizational Commitment,’ Journal of Social Psychology, 143, 6, 789–791.

Gellatly, L. (1995), ‘Individual and Group Determinants of Employee Absenteeism: Test of a CausalModel,’ Journal of Organizational Behaviour , 16, 5, 469–485.

Gil, F., Alcover, C., and Peiro, J. (2005), ‘Work Team Effectiveness in Organizational Contexts,’ Journal of Managerial Psychology, 20, 3/4, 193–218.

Glaser, R. (1983), The Corporate Culture Survey, Bryn Mawr, PA: Organizational Design andDevelopment.

Goddard, A. (1997), ‘Organisational Culture and Budgetary Control in a UK Local GovernmentApplication,’ Accounting and Business Research, 27, 2, 111–123.

Guzzo, R.A., Noonan, K.A., and Elron, E. (1994), ‘Expatriate Managers and the PsychologicalContract,’ Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 4, 617–626.

Hackett, R.D., Peter, B., and Hausdorf, P.A. (1994), ‘Further Assessments of Meyer and Allen’s1991 Three-component Model of Organizational Commitment,’ Journal of Applied Psychology,79, 1, 15– 23.

Hall, D.T., and Moss, J.E. (1998), ‘The New Protean Career Contract: Helping Organizations andEmployees Adapt,’ Organizational Dynamics, 26, 3, 22– 37.

Hayes, N. (1997), Successful Team Management , London: International Thomson Business Press.Hodson, R., and Sullivan, T.A. (1985), ‘Totem or Tyrant? Monopoly, Regional, and Local Sector

Effects on Work Commitment,’ Social Forces, 63, 7, 716–731.Hofstede, G. (1998), ‘Attitudes, Values and Organizational Culture: Disentangling the Concepts,’

Organization Studies, 19, 3, 477–492.

Hofstede, G., Neuijen, B., Ohayv, D.D., and Sanders, G. (1990), ‘Measuring OrganizationalCultures: A Qualitative and Quantitative Study Across Twenty Cases,’ Administrative ScienceQuarterly, 35, 286–316.

House, R.J. (1996), ‘Path-goal Theory of Leadership Lessons, Legacy, and a Reformulated Theory,’The Leadership Quarterly, 7, 3, 323–352.

Iverson, R.D. (1996), ‘Employee Acceptance of Organizational Change: The Role of Organizational Commitment,’ The International Journal of Human Resource Management ,7, 1, 122–149.

Iverson, R.D., and Buttigieg, D.M. (1999), ‘Affective, Normative and Continuance Commitment:Can the “Right Kind” of Commitment be Managed?’ Journal of Management Studies, 36, 3,307–333.

Jaramillo, F., Mulki, J.P., and Marshall, G.W. (2005), ‘A Meta-analysis of the Relationship between

Organizational Commitment and Salesperson Job Performance: 25 Years Research,’ Journal of Business Research, 58, 6, 705–714.

Johnston, M.W., Parasuraman, A., Futrell, C.M., and Black, W.C. (1990), ‘A Longitudinal

S. Su et al.2512



Organizational Commitment During Early Employment,’ Journal of Marketing Research, 27, 3,333–344.

Karami, B., Boojke, C., and Sainfort, F. (2005), ‘Job and Organizational Determinants of NursingHome Employee Commitment, Job Satisfaction and Intention to Turnover,’ Ergonomics, 48, 10,1260–1281.

Ketchand, A.A., and Strawser, J.R. (1998), ‘The Existence of Multiple Measures of OrganizationalCommitment and Experience-related Differences in a Public Accounting Setting,’ Behavioural

Research in Accounting, 10, 109–137.Ketchand, A.A., and Strawser, J.R. (2001), ‘Multiple Dimensions of Organizational Commitment:

Implications for Future Accounting Research,’ Behavioural Research in Accounting, 13,221–251.

Kilmann, R.H., and Saxton, M.J. (1983), The Kilmann-Saxton Culture-Gap Survey, Pittsburgh, PA:Organizational Design Consultants.

Ko, J., Price, J.L., and Mueller, C.W. (1997), ‘Assessment of Meyer and Allen’s Three-componentModel of Organizational Commitment in South Korea,’ Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 6,961–973.

Koh, H.C., and Boo, E.H.Y. (2004), ‘Organizational Ethics and Employee Satisfaction and

Commitment,’ Management Decision, 42, 5, 677–693.Kohli, A.K. (1989), ‘Effects of Supervisory Behaviour: The Role of Individual Differences amongSalespeople,’ Journal of Marketing Research, 53, October, 275– 290.

Kompass Australia (2006), Victoria: Peter Isaacson Publications.Lambooij, M., Flache, A., Sanders, K., and Siegers, J. (2007), ‘Encouraging Employees to Co-

operate: The Effects of Sponsored Training and Promotion Practices on Employees’ Willingnessto Work Overtime,’ International Journal of Human Resource Management , 18, 10,1748–1767.

Lau, C., and Woodman, R.C. (1995), ‘Understanding Organizational Change: A SchematicPerspective,’ Academy of Management Journal, 38, 2, 537–554.

Lermont-Pape, H. (2002), ‘Getting the Maximum Return,’ Rural Telecommunications, May/June27–30.

Lok, P., and Crawford, J. (1999), ‘The Relationship between Commitment and Organizational

Culture, Subculture, Leadership Style and Job Satisfaction in Organizational Change andDevelopment,’ Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 20, 7, 365–373.

Lok, P., and Crawford, J. (2001), ‘Antecedents of Organizational Commitment and the MediatingRole of Job Satisfaction,’ Journal of Managerial Psychology, 16, 8, 594–613.

Mack, D.A., Nelson, D.L., and Quick, J.C. (1998), ‘The Stress of Organizational Change:A Dynamic Process Model,’ Applied Psychology: An International Review, 47, 2, 219–232.

Mackenzie, S.B., Podsakoff, M., and Aheame, M. (1998), ‘Some Possible Antecedents andConsequences of In-role and Extra-role Salesperson Performance,’ Journal of Marketing, 62, 3,87–98.

Mannheim, B., Baruch, Y., and Tal, J. (1997), ‘Alternative Models for Antecedents and Outcomes of Work Centrality and Job Satisfaction of High-tech Personnel,’ Human Relations, 50, 12,1537–1562.

Martin, J. (2002), Organizational Culture: Mapping the Terrain, London: Sage.Martin, J., Frost, P.J., and O’Neil, O.A. (2006), ‘Organizational Culture: Beyond Struggles for

Intellectual Dominance,’ in The Handbook of Organization Studies (2nd ed.), eds. S.R. Clegg, C.Hardy, T.B. Lawrence and W.R. Nord, Newbury Park, CA: Sage, pp. 725–753.

Mathieu, J.E., and Zajac, D.M. (1990), ‘A Review and Meta-analysis of the Antecedents, Correlates,and Consequences of Organizational Commitment,’ Psychological Bulletin, 108, 2, 171–194.

McGunnigle, P.J., and Jameson, S.M. (2000), ‘HRM in UK Hotels: A Focus on Commitment,’Employee Relations, 22, 4, 403–422.

McKinnon, J.L., Harrison, G.L., Chow, C.W., and Wu, A. (2003), ‘Organizational Culture:Association with Commitment, Job Satisfaction, Propensity to Remain, and Information Sharingin Taiwan,’ International Journal of Business Studies, 11, 1, 25– 44.

McMurray, J.A., Scott, D.R., and Pace, R.W. (2004), ‘The Relationship between Organizational

Commitment and Organizational Climate in Manufacturing,’ Human Resource Development Quarterly, 15, 4, 473–488.Meyer, J.P., and Allen, N.J. (1991), ‘A Three Component Conceptualization of Organizational




Meyer, J.P., and Allen, N.J. (1997), Commitment in the Workplace, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Meyer, J.P., Allen, N.J., and Smith, C.A. (1993), ‘Commitment to Organizations and Occupations:

Extension and Test of a Three-component Conceptualization,’ Journal of Applied Psychology,78, 4, 538–551.

Meyer, J., Becker, T., and Vandenberghe, C. (2004), ‘Employee Commitment and Motivation:

A Conceptual Analysis and Integrative Model,’ Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 6,991–1007.

Meyer, J.P., Paunonen, S.V., Cellatly, I.R., Goffin, R.D., and Jackson, D.N. (1989), ‘OrganizationalCommitment and Job Performance: It’s The Nature of the Commitment that Counts,’ Journal of

Applied Psychology, 74, 1, 152–156.Morris, T., Lydka, H., and O’Creevy, M.F. (1993), ‘Can Commitment be Managed? A Longitudinal

Analysis of Employee Commitment and Human Resource Policies,’ Human Resource

Management Journal, 3, 4, 21–42.Mowday, R.T., Porter, L.W., and Steers, R.M. (1982), Employee-organizational Linkages: The

Psychology of Commitment, Absenteeism, and Turnover , New York: Academic Press.Nikolaou, I., and Vakola, M. (2005), ‘Attitudes towards Organizational Change: What is the Role of

Employees’ Stress and Commitment?,’ Employee Relations, 27, 2, 160–174.

Nunnally, J.C. (1978), Psychometric Theory, New York: McGraw-Hill.Nystrom, P.C. (1993), ‘Organizational Cultures, Strategies, and Commitments in Health CareOrganizations,’ Health Care Management Review, 18, 1, 43– 49.

O’Reilly, C.A. (1989), ‘Corporations, Culture, and Commitment: Motivation and Social Control inOrganizations,’ California Management Review, 31, 4, 9–25.

O’Reilly, C.A., and Chatman, J.A. (1996), ‘Culture as Social Control: Corporations, Cults andCommitment,’ Research in Organizational Behaviour , 18, 157–200.

O’Reilly, C., Chatman, J., and Caldwell, D.F. (1991), ‘People and Organizational Culture: A ProfileComparison Approach to Assessing Person– organization Fit,’ Academy of Management

Journal, 34, 3, 487–516.Paik, Y., Parboteeah, K.P., and Shim, W. (2007), ‘The Relationship between Perceived

Compensation, Organizational Commitment and Job Satisfaction: The Case of MexicanWorkers in the Korean Maguiladoras,’ International Journal of Human Resource Management ,

18, 10, 1768– 1781.Phoenix, T. (2006), ‘Benefits Compensation,’ International Foundation of Employee Benefit Plans,

43, 9, 11– 14.Pool, S., and Pool, B. (2007), ‘A Management Development Model: Measuring Organizational

Commitment and its Impact on Job Satisfaction among Executives in a Learning Organization,’ Journal of Management Development , 26, 4, 353–369.

Porter, L.W., Steers, R.M., Mowday, R.T., and Boulian, P.V. (1974), ‘Organizational Commitment,Job Satisfaction, and Turnover among Psychiatric Technicians,’ Journal of Applied Psychology,59, 5, 603–609.

Rayton, B.A. (2006), ‘Examining the Interconnection of Job Satisfaction and OrganizationalCommitment: An Application of the Bivariate Probit Model,’ International Journal of Human

Resource Management , 17, 1, 139–154.

Rhoades, L., Eisenberger, R., and Armeil, S. (2000), ‘Affective Commitment to the Organization:The Contribution of Perceived Organizational Support,’ American Psychological Association,86, 5, 825–836.

Riketta, M. (2002), ‘Attitudinal Organizational Commitment and Job Performance: A Meta-analysis,’ Journal of Organizational Behaviour , 23, 3, 257–266.

Samson, D., and Daft, R.L. (2005), Management , Sydney: Thomson.Sashkin, M. (1984), Pillars of Excellence: Organizational Beliefs Questionnaire, Bryn Mawr, PA:

Organizational Design and Development.Savery, L.K., and Luks, J.A. (2000), ‘Organizational Change: The Australian Experience,’ Journal

of Management Development , 19, 4, 309–317.Schein, E.H. (1996), ‘Culture: The Missing Concept in Organization Studies,’ Administrative

Science Quarterly, 41, 2, 229–240.

Sheridan, J.E. (1992), ‘Organizational Culture and Employee Retention,’ Academy of Management Journal, 35, 5, 1036–1056.Shore, L.M., Barksdale, K., and Shore, T.H. (1995), ‘Managerial Perceptions of Employee

S. Su et al.2514



Shore, L.M., and Tetrick, L.E. (1991), ‘A Construct Validity Study of the Survey of PerceivedOrganizational Support,’ Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 5, 637–643.

Siehl, C., and Martin, J. (1988), ‘Mixing Qualitative and Quantitative Methods,’ in InsideOrganizations: Understanding the Human Dimension, eds. M.O. Jones, M.D. Moore andR.C. Snyder, London: Sage, pp. 79–103.

Singleton, R.A., and Straits, B.C. (2005), Approaches to Social Research, New York: OxfordUniversity Press.

Smeenk, S.G.A., Eisinga, R.N., Teelken, J.C., and Doorewaard, J.A.C.M. (2006), ‘The Effects of HRM Practices and Antecedents on Organizational Commitment among University Employ-ees,’ International Journal of Human Resource Management , 17, 12, 2035–2054.

Stallworth, L. (2004), ‘Antecedents and Consequences of Organizational Commitment toAccounting Organizations,’ Managerial Auditing Journal, 19, 7, 945–955.

Stevens, J.M., Beyer, J.M., and Trice, H.M. (1978), ‘Assessing Personal, Role and OrganizationalPredictors of Managerial Commitment,’ Academy of Management Journal, 21, 3, 46– 56.

Taormina, R.J. (1999), ‘Predicting Employee Commitment and Satisfaction: The Relative Effects of Socialization and Demographics,’ International Journal of Human Resource Management , 10,6, 1060– 1076.

Tsui, A.S., Pearce, J.L., Porter, L.W., and Tripoli, A.M. (1997), ‘Alternative Approaches to theEmployee–organization Relationship: Does Investment in Employees Pay Off?,’ Academy of

Management Journal, 40, 5, 1089–1121.Tyler, T.R. (1999), ‘Why People Cooperate with Organizations: An Identity-based Perspective,’

Research in Organizational Behaviour , 21, 201–246.Valletta, R. (1999), ‘Declining Job Security,’ Journal of Labour Economics, 17, 4, S170–S197.Varona, F. (1996), ‘Relationship between Communication Satisfaction and Organizational

Commitment in Three Guatemalan Organizations,’ The Journal of Business Communication,33, 2, 111–140.

Windsor, C.A., and Ashkanasy, N.M. (1996), ‘Auditor Independence Decision Making: The Role of Organizational Culture Perceptions,’ Behavioural Research in Accounting, 8, supplement,80–97.

Wright, T.A., and Cropanzano, R. (1998), ‘Emotional Exhaustion as a Predictor of Job Performance

and Voluntary Turnover,’ Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 3, 486–493.Yousef, D.A. (2000), ‘Organizational Commitment and Job Satisfaction as Predictors of

Attitudes toward Organizational Change in a Non-Western Setting,’ Personnel Review, 29, 5,567–592.

Appendix

The level of EOC

Please indicate the extent to which you agree with the following statements:

(a) I am quite proud to be able to tell people who it is I work for.(b) I sometimes feel like leaving this employment for good.(c) I am not willing to put myself out just to help the organization.(d) Even if my organization was not doing well financially, I would be reluctant to change to

another employer.(e) I feel that I am a part of the organization.(f) In my work I like to feel I am applying some effort not just for myself but for the

organization as well.(g) The offer of a small increase in remuneration by another employer would not seriously

make me think of changing my job.(h) I would not advise a close friend to join my organization.(i) I am determined to make a contribution for the good of my organization.





The level of perceived organizational supportPlease indicate the extent to which you agree with the following statements relating to your current

job.

(a) My organization takes pride in my accomplishments at work.(b) My organization really cares about my well-being.(c) My organization values my contribution to its well-being.(d) My organization strongly considers my goals and values.(e) My organization shows very little concern for me.(f) My organization is willing to help me when I need a special favour.

Team work/respect for people Attention to detailFairness Being carefulRespect for the rights of the individual Paying attention to detailTolerance Being precise

Being socially responsible StabilityBeing people oriented Security of employmentBeing team oriented StabilityWorking in collaboration with others Predictability

Innovation Outcome orientationA willingness to experiment Being competitiveNot being constrained by many rules Being achievement orientedBeing quick to take advantage of opportunities Having high expectation for performanceBeing innovative Being results orientedRisk taking Being action oriented

S. Su et al.2516



Copyright of International Journal of Human Resource Management is the property of Routledge and its content

may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express

written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

The Influence of Cultural And

Documents

Transcript of The Influence of Cultural And