A Look at Organizational Commitment

The concept of organizational commitment has grown in popularity in the past few decades. To gain a better understanding of organizational commitment, it is necessary to review the literature, as well as the theories and factors behind it, so that one may understand its impact on employees, organizations, and its relationship to leadership style.

Several authors agree that a better understanding of organizational commitment and its processes helps members of organizations understand how it is directly related to the employee’s level of involvement and how it affects them rewardingly both extrinsically and psychologically; among them, Steers, Mowday, Porter, & Steers, 1982, Reichers, 1985.

Organizational Commitment Defined

Organizational commitment is defined as “The relative strength of an employee’s psychological identification with and involvement in the organization for which they work” (Blau & Boal, 1987). Organizational commitment is different from work commitment in that it is not work-based, but rather organization-based. Caught & Shadur, note that “Organizational commitment is the employee’s state of being committed to assist in the achievement of the organizational goals and involves the employee’s levels of identification, involvement, and loyalty” (2000). This sense of commitment is regarded as an emotional response which researchers have measured through the beliefs, actions, and attitudes of employees. Meyer and Herscovitch posit that commitment is “a force that binds an individual to a course of action of relevance to one or more targets” (2001, p. 301).

Meyer & Allen (1997) posit that there are three types of organizational commitment: normative, continuance, and affective.

Normative Commitment occurs when members are committed to the organization based on an ideology or a sense of obligation. They remain with an organization because of the expected standards of behavior or social norms. They tend to value cautiousness, formality, and obedience.

Affective Commitment develops when members align themselves personally with the goals and values of the organization. They tend internalize the values and become emotionally involved with it, and feel personally responsible for the success of the organization. They often exhibit superior levels of achievement, positive demeanors, and an eagerness to remain a part of the organization.

Continuance Commitment is related to an individual’s relationship with the organization and is based on what they receive in return for their performance, and what they would lose if they chose to leave. For example, benefits, compensation, and professional associations. These members will perform at their highest level based on the rewards that match their expectations.

An additional type of commitment was suggested by Zangaro, termed as Alienative Commitment (2001). Members perform at lower levels when this occurs as they feel they have no impact or very little control within the organization and have a desire or intent to leave.

Measurement of Organizational Commitment

In order to gather the necessary information to make assessments and manage the commitment levels of employees, the proper tools are necessary. There are several very widely-used tools of assessment in the study of organizational research today; most notably those of Mowday, Seers, and Porter’s 1979 Organizational Commitment Questionnaire (also known as OCQ) consisting of 15 items which have demonstrated good psychometric properties and has been used with a wide range of job categories

The other most widely-used tool of assessing organizational commitment is Meyer & Allen’s (1990) Three-Component Organizational Commitment Scale. As described earlier, according to the assessment by Meyers & Allen, individuals are theorized to experience this commitment in the form of three bases, or mindsets: affective, normative, and continuance, which reflect emotional ties, perceived obligations, and perceived costs in relation to a target, respectively (Allen and Meyer, 1990). Therefore, any computation that is intended to measure organizational commitment should follow one of these mindsets and should reference what the employee is committed to, whether it is the organization, a team, a change initiative, or a goal.

Factors Affecting Organizational Commitment

There are several factors related to organizational commitment. Meyer et al (2001, 28-32) posit that there are four categories which precede commitment. The first is Demographic variables related to gender, education, as well as the amount of time an individual has been with an organization. The next factor is the experience in the work environment such as organizational support, role conflict, and role ambiguity. The next factor related to the availability of opportunities and investments (i.e., the transferability of education and skills). Finally, there are differences pertaining to the individual such as self-efficacy. Wilson & Laschinger note that communication, opportunity for learning, and a flexible work schedule are closely tied to organizational commitment,” (Wilson & Laschinger, 1996).

Research on Organizational Commitment

Organizational commitment is viewed by researchers such as Blau, Surges, & Ward-Cook (2003) and Alutto, Hrbiniak, & Alonso, 1973) from a behavioral approach. However, Mowday et al, (1979) defines organizational commitment from an attitudinal perspective. Etzoni, 1965: Kanter, 1968) also define commitment from this point of view. Organizational commitment is, “the relative strength of an individual’s identification with and involvement in a particular organization that is characterized by three factors: 1) a strong belief in and acceptance of the organization’s goals and values, 2) a willingness to exert considerable effort on behalf of the organization, and 3) a strong desire to maintain membership in the organization” (Kanter, 1968).

From a behavioral perspective, organizational commitment is described as an individual’s resolve to make sacrifices for the benefit of the organization (Weiner & Vardi, 1980). The study of commitment from this perspective focuses on the individual’s preoccupation with the organization through the use of their personal time.

Etzoni (1965) posits the existence of three types of organizational commitment: 1) moral, 2) calculative, and 3) alienative. These relate to how some individuals respond to organizational power and their attachment to an organization. Moral commitment and alienative commitment are treated as affective forms of organizational attachment, and calculative commitment is treated as an instrumental form of organizational attachment.

Moral commitment is seen as a positive orientation in which an employee exhibits value-based affirmation. The person who has a strong moral commitment feels that one should continue the relationship for moral or duty-related reasons (Bansal, Irving & Taylor, 2004, Gruen, Summers & Acito, 2000).

Calculative commitment can be viewed in both in a negative and positive light- negative from the individual’s view that the costs of leaving the organization outweigh those of staying with the organization. They become aware that their investments of time, effort, money, and knowledge may be lost or that new costs may result if their relationship with the organization comes to an end. Calculative commitment may also be positive in nature when it related to the individual’s future gains with regard to time, effort, money, knowledge, etc. (Sharma, Young & Wilkinson, 2006, Bansal, Irving & Taylor, 2004).

Alienative commitment is viewed as a commitment based on the individual’s perceived force or lack of control or options presented (Etzoni, 1965). Similar to moral commitment, alienative commitment is seen as an individual’s affective attachment to an organization. Etzoni (1961) likened alienative commitment to military basic training camp in which recruits must comply with a coercive system on a consistent basis. However, it is difficult to view of alienation as a basis for organizational commitment, but it is possible if an individual views his or her attachment to an organization as a consequence of 1) a lack of control over the internal organizational environment, and 2) the perceived absence of alternatives for organizational commitment

Becker (1960) described commitment as a disposition to engage in “consistent lines of activity as a result of the accumulation of “side bets” that would be lost if the activity were discontinued” (Becker, 1960).

Importance of Continued Study of Organizational Commitment

Meyer and Allen (1997) suggest three reasons for the continued study of organizational commitment:

• Organizations have become leaner in structure which uses fewer resources than the traditional organizational structure. Many of these organizations require more flexibility from their employees. This may require that an employee’s role may fall under a multiple job classifications. This helps improve the processes and the organization’s efficiency. This also means that there are fewer managers to provide oversight. Employees who are committed to the organization would help ensure the accuracy of their work or the correctness of their actions.
• The development of commitment to an organization is part of a natural response to becoming part of a group. Organizations must make the most of their employee’s responses otherwise they may alienate them, which may play a detrimental role in the reduction of the organization’s morale.
• Many organizations now outsource their work; relying on the caliber of temporary talent. These workers may not possess the same levels of commitment that permanent personnel would have. Maintaining the commitment of temporary talent is essential.

The importance of organizational commitment cannot be understated. Without it, “the most creative and sophisticated plans and programs of top managers don’t seem to get far. With it, the most modest plan and the most straightforward programs seem to come out well” (Albrecht, 1999, p. 173).

Organizational Commitment and Leadership Style and Organizational Performance

Leadership, as one of the building blocks of any organization, is perhaps the most important factor in motivating, encouraging, inspiring and developing an employee’s affective commitment to the common purpose of the organization. Leaders direct organization members to accomplish its goals. The manner or style in which a leader directs those members has a great influence on how well members perform their duties under their guidance and direction.

Leaders’ individualized consideration is positively linked with affective and normative commitment (Kent & Chelladurai, 2001). Bass and Avolio (1994) noted that leaders who encourage creative and analytical thinking among their followers will also positively influence their levels of commitment.

Researchers Kent and Chelladurai (2001) stated that a leader’s individualized consideration has a positive relationship with both affective commitment and normative commitment. Bass and Avolio (1994) discovered that transformational leaders who encourage their followers to think critically and creatively have an influence on their followers’ commitment. This is further supported by Walumbwa and Lawler (2003) that transformational leaders can motivate and increase followers’ motivation and organizational commitment by getting them to solve problems creatively and understanding their needs. Ko, Price and Mueller (1997) also propose that employees are far more likely to be committed to the organization if they have confidence in their leaders.

Poor leadership style may directly impact an organization’s overall performance. Leaders can impact morale, which results in employees applying minimal effort to the completion their tasks, or a lack of motivation in ensuring their work is done in a timely fashion. Depending on the leadership style, an organization may suffer from reduced productivity, a decrease in profits, or even fail as a business.

Conclusion

A better understanding of organizational commitment is gained when the literature on its theories and factors are reviewed. This study is essential in understanding the impact of commitment on organizations and with its relationship to leadership style. Meyer & Allen (1997) posit that there are three types of organizational commitment: normative, continuance, and affective; with an additional type of commitment, suggested by Zangaro, termed as Alienative Commitment (2001). Members perform at lower levels when this occurs as they feel they have no impact or very little control within the organization and have a desire or intent to leave.

There are several very widely-used tools of assessment in the study of organizational research today; most notably those of Mowday, Seers, and Porter’s (1979 Organizational Commitment Questionnaire (also known as OCQ) as well as Meyer & Allen’s (1990) Three-Component Organizational Commitment Scale.

Organizational commitment is viewed by researchers from a behavioral approach or from an attitudinal perspective. Etzoni (1965) posits the existence of three types of organizational commitment: 1) moral, 2) calculative, and 3) alienative. These relate to how some individuals respond to organizational power and their attachment to an organization.

Leadership, as one of the building blocks of any organization, is perhaps the most important factor in motivating, encouraging, inspiring and developing an employee’s affective commitment to the common purpose of the organization. Leaders direct organization members to accomplish the goals. The manner or style in which a leader directs those members has a great influence on how well members perform their duties under their guidance and direction.

The importance of organizational commitment cannot be understated. Through careful assessment, organizations may create ideal conditions for individuals for them to feel committed, to be more satisfied with their job, and motivated to perform on a higher level of effectiveness.

References

1. Albrecht, K. (1999). Successful management by objectives: An action manual (p. 173). New York: Prentice Hall.
2. Bansal, HS, Irving, PG & Taylor, SF 2004, 'A three-component model of customer to service providers', Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, vol. 32, no. 3, pp. 234-250.
3. Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1994). Transformational leadership and organizational culture. The International Journal of Public Administration, 17(3-4), 541-554.
4. Becker, H.S. (1960, July). Notes on the Concept of Commitment. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org.ezproxy.nyack.edu/stable/pdf/2773219.pdf?refreqid=excelsior%3Ada4f4113af91754802cc2aea7e3ab4ba
5. Blau, G & Boal, K. (1987). Conceptualizing how job involvement and organizational commitment affect turnover and absenteeism. The Academy of Management Review 12(2), 288-300.
6. Caught, K & Shandur, (2000). The measurement artifact in the organizational commitment questionnaire. Psychological Reports, 87,777-788.
7. Etzoni, A. (1965, October 1). Dual Leadership in Complex Organizations. Retrieved from http://eds.a.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.nyack.edu/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=f9dc27cc-a2ce-430c-a744-d80c44d347b6%40sessionmgr4007&vid=0&hid=4102
8. Gruen, T, Summers J, Acito, F. (2000). Relationship Marketing Activities, Commitment, and Membership Behaviors in Professional Associations. Journal Of Marketing, (3), 34.
9. Kent, A., & Chelladurai, P. (2001). Perceived transformational leadership, organizational commitment, and citizenship behavior: A case study in intercollegiate athletics. Journal of Sport Management, 15(2), 135-159.
10. Ko, J. W., Price, J. L., & Mueller, C. W. (1997). Assessment of Meyer and Allen's three-component model of organizational commitment in South Korea. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(6), 961-973. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.82.6.961
11. Meyer, J & Allen N. (1997). Commitment in the workplace: Theory, research, and application. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
12. Meyer, J & Allen N. (1991. A three-component conceptualization of organizational commitment. Human Resources Management Review, 1(2), 81-89
13. Kanter, R. (1968, August 1). Commitment and Social Organization:: A study of commitment mechanisms in Utopian Communities. Retrieved from http://eds.a.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.nyack.edu/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=f9dc27cc-a2ce-430c-a744-d80c44d347b6%40sessionmgr4007&vid=0&hid=4102
14. Mowday, R.T., Steers, R.M., & Porter, L.W. (1979). The Measurement of Organizational Commitment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 14, 224–227.
15. Sharma, N, Young, L & Wilkinson, I 2006, 'The commitment mix: Dimensions of commitment in international trading relationships in india', Journal of International Marketing, vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 64-91.
16. Walumbwa, F. O., & Lawler, J. J. (2003). Building effective organizations: transformational leadership, collectivist orientation, work-related attitudes and withdrawal behaviours in three emerging economies. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 14(7), 1083-1101. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0958519032000114219
17. Weiner, Y., & Vardi, Y. (1980). Relationships between job, organization, and career commitments and work outcomes: An integrative approach. Organizational Behavior & Human Performance, 26(1), 81-96
18. Wilson, B., & Laschinger, H.K. (1996, May 1). Staff Nurse Perception of job empowerment and organizational commitment. Retrieved from http://eds.a.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.nyack.edu/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=29e976aa-a720-48f7-94fb-423e5c65102f%40sessionmgr4006&vid=0&hid=4102
19. Zangaro, G. (2001). Organizational commitment: A concept analysis. Nursing Forum, 36(2), 14-22