|
Article Excerpt
Organizational commitment persists as a primary variable of interest in studies of employment, organizations, and allied fields. The Article-First database reveals 202 article and abstract titles referencing "organizational commitment" in scholarly sources published between 2001 and 2004, and organizational commitment remains a perennial topic for management scholars (e.g., Hammer and Avgar, 2005; Jandeska and Kraimer, 2005; Payne and Huffman, 2005). Commitment has been studied by many because it is believed to affect organizational performance. For example, a primary aspect of organizational commitment is extra-role behavior. Organizations generally value the initiative and conscientiousness that such contributions represent. Although organizations appreciate individual performance that goes beyond job requirements, few would argue that job descriptions can adequately specify all valued contributions.
Numerous studies have shown that organizational commitment predicts important variables, including absenteeism, organizational citizenship, performance, and turnover (e.g., Mathieu and Zajac, 1990; Morrow, 1993; Wright and Bonett, 2002). Colbert and Kwon (2000) noted that organizational commitment has been related inversely to both intent to search for job alternatives and intent to leave one's job (also see Quarles, 1994). Also, it reduces absence frequency (Farrell and Stamm, 1988). In addition, organizational commitment has been related to more positive organizational outcomes, including job satisfaction (Williams and Hazer, 1986) and attendance motivation (Burton et al., 2002). These studies underscore organizational commitment's importance and thus the need to understand better its antecedents.
Many firms have moved rapidly from Tayloristic work systems, in which employees exercise limited discretion within narrow job descriptions, toward High Commitment Work Systems (HCWSs) that require considerable discretion, initiative, and judgment under reduced supervision (Osterman, 1994, 1995). Lincoln and Kalleberg (1985) described a similar earlier trend inspired by the apparent success of Japanese-style management. These trends have spurred increased interest in organizational commitment, and will likely enhance its importance in coming years (Osterman, 1995). Still, many issues concerning organizational commitment remain poorly understood (Price, 1990). For example, scholars contend that many organizations adopt Human Resources (HR) practices intended to maximize employee commitment (e.g., Guest, 1992), yet, with few exceptions (e.g., Ogilvie, 1986), little systematic research examines the influence of HR practices, including practices intended to promote commitment. Further, although prior work suggests that organizational structure influences commitment (Berger and Cummings, 1990), its effects have received only limited attention (see Lincoln and Kalleberg (1985) for a notable exception).
We examine effects of HR practices and organizational characteristics on commitment. Nearly all past studies rely on samples drawn from one (usually) or very few worksites (cf. Agarwala, 2003; Becker et al., 1996; Caldwell et al., 1990; Eaton, 2003). This severely restricts inferences on factors that tend to be constant within organizations, but vary across organizations, notably HR practices and organizational structures. The National Organizations Survey (NOS) used a hyper-sampling strategy to develop a nationally representative sample of employees and workplaces (Kalleberg et al., 1996). It provides matched employee-employer surveys, including employer responses on HR practices and organizational characteristics. In addition to providing meaningful variance on HR practices, this helps overcome common method variance and causal inference problems that plague single-source studies.
Our study provides two major contributions. First, we test hypothesized relationships that have received little attention in past studies. Specifically, we examine the influence of HR practices and organizational structure on organizational commitment. Second, our study uses a diverse national probability sample of U.S. workers and their employers, providing greater generality than prior studies.
In the following section, we discuss theoretical foundations of organizational commitment, and present hypotheses for its relationships with various HR practices and organizational characteristics. Next, data, measures, and methods are discussed. Then, results are presented. Finally, we conclude with a discussion section addressing limitations, contributions of our study, and future research.
THEORY, LITERATURE, AND HYPOTHESES
Organizational commitment is an individual attitude that reflects one's identification with and involvement in a particular organization (e.g., Mowday et al., 1979). It can be characterized by three related factors: 1) strong belief in the organization's goals and values, 2) willingness to exert extra effort on its behalf, and 3) strong desire to maintain membership. The extant literature has included important debates, or alternative perspectives, on several important issues, including the focus and conceptualization of organizational commitment. Various foci of employee commitment are possible. These include commitments to one's employer, profession, immediate supervisor, and union (Morrow, 1993). Our concern is with commitment to the employer. This aligns with our emphasis on organizational-level variables (i.e., HR practices, organizational characteristics) rather than supervisor or coworker attributes. Also, we emphasize a "global" or unidimensional conception of organizational commitment rather than a faceted approach. Commitment facets are sufficiently correlated such that one may speak meaningfully of overall (unidimensional) commitment (Morrow, 1993), and thus focus on it as a useful concept, even though it may be useful for some purposes to examine its facets in greater detail.
Organizational Commitment
Critics have argued that research on organizational commitment lacks strong theoretical grounding (cf. Mathieu and Zajac, 1990; Morris and Sherman, 1981). At least three compatible theoretical streams apply. First, common to all social exchange theories is the notion that individuals seek favorable outcomes relative to their inputs (Cook et al., 1993). Consistent with social exchange theory, perceived organizational support (POS) addresses the organization's commitment to its employees. Specifically, POS refers to the extent employees perceive that employers value employee contributions and care about their wellbeing (Eisenberger et al., 1986). Finally, psychological contract theory refers to the implicit, reciprocal rights and obligations that individuals perceive within exchange relations (Rousseau, 1995), and can also be used to understand commitment (Rousseau and Wade-Benzoni, 1995). Each perspective suggests that commitment is contingent on perceived exchanges. More favorable exchanges should strengthen employee attraction to the employment relationship and increase commitment. In addition, all three theories allow for exchange of either instrumental or affective outcomes. Finally, implicit or explicit within each theory is the notion that employees hold expectations of what employers should provide (e.g., comparison level (CL) standards or expectations, expectations of support, psychological contract expectations).
Meta-analyses (e.g., Matheiu and Zajac, 1990) and more qualitative reviews (e.g., Morrow, 1993) show that prior study of antecedents varies greatly. Mathieu and Zaiac (1990) were able to incorporate 41 prior estimates relating commitment and employee age, but only three on "organizational characteristics" (size and centralization). None of the antecedents examined could be termed a "human resource practice." This is both interesting and problematic, given that such practices are a principal means organizations use to influence commitment (Guest, 1992).
Variables such as age, gender, and tenure are often studied because they vary within a single site, are readily available, and are easy to measure. Prior studies typically focus on a single site where HR practice variation is limited or non-existent; thus, HR practices are not examined (Caldwell et al., 1990). Although a few studies have examined effects of specific HR practices (e.g., Agarwala, 2003; Bills, 1987; Bemmels, 1995; Eaton, 2003; Florkowski and Schuster, 1992; Lincoln and Kalleberg, 1985), HR measures tend to be unique and not comparable across studies. Tiffs makes the accumulation of findings difficult at best. Hence, little is known about the influence of HR practices and most organizational characteristics. Despite this, prior research provides a basis for predictions on effects of HR practices and organizational characteristics. Testing such predictions is needed to establish the empirical relationship between HR practices and commitment (Meyer and Allen, 1997).
Human Resource Practices
Prior work (especially Delaney and Huselid, 1996) suggests distinct HR concepts that should influence commitment. Using that research as a foundation, the present study posits that internal labor markets, hiring selectivity, training, grievance resolution mechanisms, benefits, employee involvement, incentive pay, union pressure, compensation cuts, and downsizing all affect organizational commitment.
Internal Labor Markets. An internal labor market (ILM) exists when external hiring is limited to entrylevel positions, job "ladders" exist to advance internally, and promotion from within is favored (e.g., Althauser, 1989). Bills (1987) suggested that a primary motivation to establish and maintain ILMs is to secure employee commitment. Since ILMs favor current employees over external rivals, employees should...
|
