Tips & Tricks
Like this document? Why not share!
Percent, ratios, proportions, fraction
Avaliação diagnóstica de língua ing...
English Grammar Worksheets Free PDF...
by Larisa English
Email sent successfully!
Show related SlideShares at end
May 20, 2009
Comment goes here.
12 hours ago
Are you sure you want to
Your message goes here
Be the first to comment
Be the first to like this
Number of Embeds
No notes for slide
1. Educational and Psychological Measurement http://epm.sagepub.com Antecedents and Consequences of Organizational Commitment: A Comparison of Two Scales K. Michele Kacmar, Dawn S. Carlson and Robert A. Brymer Educational and Psychological Measurement 1999; 59; 976 DOI: 10.1177/00131649921970297 The online version of this article can be found at: http://epm.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/59/6/976 Published by: http://www.sagepublications.com Additional services and information for Educational and Psychological Measurement can be found at: Email Alerts: http://epm.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Subscriptions: http://epm.sagepub.com/subscriptions Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Citations (this article cites 37 articles hosted on the SAGE Journals Online and HighWire Press platforms): http://epm.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/59/6/976 Downloaded from http://epm.sagepub.com at Middlesex University on February 22, 2008 © 1999 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
EDUCATIONAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL MEASUREMENT KACMAR ET AL. ANTECEDENTS AND CONSEQUENCES OF ORGANIZATIONAL COMMITMENT: A COMPARISON OF TWO SCALES K. MICHELE KACMAR Florida State University DAWN S. CARLSON Baylor University ROBERT A. BRYMER Florida State University The structural properties of two measures of organizational commitment, the Organiza- tional Commitment Questionnaire and the Organizational Commitment Scale, were examined to establish similarities and differences in the measures. Next, the antecedents of age, gender, marital status, leader-member exchange, and justice and the conse- quences of job satisfaction, life satisfaction, nonwork satisfaction, intent to turnover, and job involvement were examined in relation to each scale. Results indicated that the scales differed with respect to the components of commitment each measured and the strength of the relationships each had with the antecedents and consequences. Suggestions for when the use of each scale might be appropriate are provided. Organizational commitment has been defined in a number of ways. Some view commitment to the organization as the strength of involvement one has with the organization (Brown, 1969; Hall & Schneider, 1972; Mowday, Steers, & Porter, 1979). Others suggest that commitment is shown through congruence between personal and organizational goals and values (Bucha- nan, 1974) or through an exchange of behavior for valued rewards (Becker, 1960; Meyer & Allen, 1984). However defined, researchers who include or- This article was greatly improved by comments provided by Wayne A. Hochwarter. A prior version of this article was presented at the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology meeting in St. Louis in April 1997. Educational and Psychological Measurement, Vol. 59 No. 6, December 1999 976-994 © 1999 Sage Publications, Inc. 976 Downloaded from http://epm.sagepub.com at Middlesex University on February 22, 2008 © 1999 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
KACMAR ET AL. 977 ganizational commitment in their work are essentially interested in examin- ing the psychological attachment an individual has to an organization. The variety of perspectives regarding the most appropriate definition of organizational commitment has led to some disagreement about how the con- struct should be measured (Brown, 1996). An assortment of scales exist that have been designed to measure organizational commitment (e.g., Balfour & Wechsler, 1996; Cook & Wall, 1980; Meyer & Allen, 1984; Mowday et al., 1979; O’Reilly & Chatman, 1986). The limited research that compared and contrasted the available measures (Becker, 1992; Cohen, 1996; Magazine, Williams, & Williams, 1996; Vandenberg, Self, & Seo, 1994) found a great deal of overlap in the items that comprise the scales. In fact, Vandenberg et al. (1994) noted that the identification component of O’Reilly and Chatman’s (1986) measure of organizational commitment contributed nothing beyond what the Mowday et al. (1979) scale captures. However, due to the lack of comparative research on the available scales, such conclusions cannot be drawn with respect to more recently developed measures of commitment. Hence, one of the goals of the present study was to compare two measures of commitment: the Organizational Commitment Questionnaire (OCQ), devel- oped by Mowday et al. (1979), and Balfour and Wechsler’s (1996) Organiza- tional Commitment Scale (OCS). Another important area of study with respect to organizational commit- ment has been the examination of its antecedents (e.g., Luthans, Baack, & Taylor, 1987) and consequences (e.g., Blau & Boal, 1989). However, the majority of previous research in this area has examined either the antecedents or the consequences of commitment. The present study extends past research by considering both simultaneously. Furthermore, because we employed two measures of organizational commitment, we were able to explore differences in the antecedents and consequences for the two scales. Consequently, a sec- ond goal of the present study was to report any differences in the antecedents and consequences of the two measures of organizational commitment under investigation. Measuring Organizational Commitment The OCQ In 1979, Mowday et al. published a scale designed to measure organiza- tional commitment, which they named the OCQ. Commitment was defined by Mowday, Porter, and Steers (1982) as “the relative strength of an individu- al’s identification with and involvement in a particular organization” (p. 27). It is this definition on which the OCQ was developed. Mowday et al. (1979) characterized commitment as having three factors: “(1) a strong belief in and acceptance of the organization’s goals and values; (2) a willingness to exert Downloaded from http://epm.sagepub.com at Middlesex University on February 22, 2008 © 1999 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
978 EDUCATIONAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL MEASUREMENT considerable effort on behalf of the organization; (3) a strong desire to main- tain membership in the organization” (p. 226). Using these components as a framework, Mowday et al. (1979) developed 15 items (e.g., “I am proud to tell others that I am part of this organization”) to tap these three aspects of commitment. Although there are three underlying theoretical components of the OCQ, the authors intended the scale to be unidimensional, and a majority of researchers using this scale have reported or used a single-factor solution (Dunham, Grube, & Castaneda, 1994; Mathieu & Zajac, 1990; Morrow, 1993). In the original development article by Mowday et al. (1979), the OCQ was administered to more than 200 individuals employed in a variety of jobs in nine different organizations. In addition to the OCQ, 13 other scales (e.g., job involvement, intent to leave, job satisfaction) were completed by at least one of the samples. These additional scales were included as a means of assessing the convergent, discriminant, and predictive validity of the OCQ scores. The internal reliability estimates for the OCQ scores were strong across all of the samples (range .82 to .93), and the factor analyses for six of the samples “generally resulted in a single-factor solution” (Mowday et al., 1979, p. 232). With respect to the validity of the scale scores, Mowday et al. (1979) offered evidence of three types. First, they addressed convergent validity by showing that the OCQ scores were positively correlated with organizational attachment, intent to remain in the organization, intrinsic motivation, work-oriented life interest, and supervisor ratings of subordi- nates’ commitment. Evidence of discriminant validity was shown by lower correlations than those reported by other research between scores on the OCQ and scores for the outcome variables of job involvement, career satis- faction, and job satisfaction. Finally, predictive validity was addressed by examining the relationship between the OCQ scores and voluntary turnover, absenteeism, and job performance. The OCS Although a great deal of what we know about organizational commitment comes from research using the OCQ, the OCQ is not without faults. Many of the criticisms of the OCQ are based on the underlying definition used when developing the scale (Morrow, 1983; Osigweh, 1989). Using these criticisms as an impetus, Balfour and Wechsler (1996) developed a new scale, the OCS, which was designed to measure three components of organizational commit- ment: identification, exchange, and affiliation. Balfour and Wechsler’s (1996) scale development procedures included three steps. First, they interviewed 19 individuals about their attachment to their organization. Applying the repertory grid (RG) technique (Adams- Webber, 1979; Bannister & Fransella, 1971; Kelly, 1955), they were able to Downloaded from http://epm.sagepub.com at Middlesex University on February 22, 2008 © 1999 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
KACMAR ET AL. 979 elicit constructs that defined individuals’ attachment to the organization. In the second step, Balfour and Wechsler content analyzed the interviews and used the results to develop a cognitive map of the organizational commitment process (Axelrod, 1976; Bougon, 1983; Gioia, 1986; Weick & Bougon, 1986). Finally, items that measured the components of the cognitive maps were developed and tested. The items included in the scale were a combina- tion of items from other commitment scales and new items that used the actual words of the interviewees (e.g., “I am quite proud to be able to tell peo- ple who it is I work for”). Antecedents and Consequences of Organizational Commitment Researchers have found support for relationships between organizational commitment and a variety of personality, demographic, and organizational variables (Balfour & Wechsler, 1990; Blau & Boal, 1989; Luthans et al., 1987; McFarlin & Sweeney, 1992; O’Reilly & Chatman, 1986; Settoon, Ben- nett, & Liden, 1996; Vandenberg et al., 1994; Vandenberg & Lance, 1992). Figure 1 diagrams the antecedents and consequences of organizational com- mitment examined in the present study. The sections below further describe the expected relationships. Antecedents of Organizational Commitment Demographics. A variety of demographic variables have been found to be related to organizational commitment (Mathieu & Zajac, 1990). Age has been a positive predictor of commitment for a variety of reasons. As workers age, alternative employment options generally decrease, making their cur- rent jobs more attractive (Mathieu & Zajac, 1990). Furthermore, older indi- viduals may have more commitment to their organizations because they have a stronger investment and greater history with the organizations than do younger workers (Dunham et al., 1994). In general, women have reported more commitment to their organizations than have men (Mathieu & Zajac, 1990). This finding frequently is attributed to the fact that women have to overcome more barriers than men do to gain membership in an organization (Grusky, 1966). The extra effort required to enter an organization may be reflected in higher commitment by female employees. Marital status also has been found to be related to commitment, with married individuals having greater commitment to their organizations (Mathieu & Zajac, 1990). This relationship is predicted because married individuals have greater financial burdens and family responsibilities, thereby increasing their need to remain with the organization when compared to their single counterparts (Angle & Perry, 1983). Extant research provides empirical evidence for each of these Downloaded from http://epm.sagepub.com at Middlesex University on February 22, 2008 © 1999 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
980 EDUCATIONAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL MEASUREMENT Figure 1. Antecedents and consequences of organizational commitment. relationships (Blau & Boal, 1989; Cook & Wall, 1980; Green, Anderson, & Shivers, 1996; Luthans et al., 1987; McFarlin & Sweeney, 1992). Leader-member exchange (LMX). Several studies have examined the impact that the quality of the relationship between the supervisor and subor- dinate (measured using the LMX scale) has on organizational commitment. Three such studies used the same 9 items from the OCQ (Green et al., 1996; Nystrom, 1990; Settoon et al., 1996), but each used a different measure of the LMX: Green et al. (1996) used Graen, Novak, and Sommerkamp’s (1982) 7-item measure; Nystrom (1990) used the 5-item version by Graen, Liden, and Hoel (1982); and Settoon et al. (1996) used the 1993 version by Liden and Maslyn. Two other studies (Kinicki & Vecchio, 1994; Major, Kozlowski, Chao, & Gardner, 1995) used the Graen, Novak et al. (1982) 7-item version of LMX, but each used a different form of commitment. Kinicki and Vecchio (1994) used the 15-item OCQ, whereas Major et al. (1995) used 8 items from Porter and Smith (1970). Despite the wide range of measures used, all of these studies reported a statistically significant and positive relationship between LMX and commitment. Distributive justice. Distributive justice refers to the perceived fairness or equity in the amount and type of rewards organizational members receive (Folger & Konovsky, 1989). If individuals feel the rewards they receive are fair, distributive justice is present. Intuitively, distributive justice should be positively related to commitment. That is, individuals will exhibit more com- mitment to an organization they view as providing fair and equitable rewards for their performance than will individuals who feel cheated by their organi- zations. Although few studies have investigated this relationship, some empirical support for this positive relationship exists (McFarlin & Sweeney, 1992). Downloaded from http://epm.sagepub.com at Middlesex University on February 22, 2008 © 1999 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
KACMAR ET AL. 981 Consequences of Organizational Commitment Job satisfaction. Using nine items from the OCQ and a six-facet measure of job satisfaction (i.e., manager, job in general, career progress opportuni- ties, job transfer opportunities, department, and occupation), Vandenberg and Lance (1992) examined the relationship between job satisfaction and organizational commitment. Specifically, they tested four possible relation- ships between these constructs: job satisfaction would predict commitment, commitment would predict job satisfaction, a reciprocal relationship would exist between job satisfaction and organizational commitment, and there would be no relationship between job satisfaction and organizational com- mitment. Support was found for the organizational commitment leading to job satisfaction relationship as is predicted in the present study. Furthermore, this relationship was found to be positive. A positive relationship between job satisfaction and organizational commitment, using a variety of satisfaction and commitment measures, has been consistently reported in past research as well (Balfour & Wechsler, 1990, 1991; Cook & Wall, 1980; Green et al., 1996; Major et al., 1995; McFarlin & Sweeney, 1992; Mowday et al., 1979). Given this robust finding, we predicted that other forms of satisfaction (i.e., life and nonwork) would produce the same positive relationship with both organizational commitment scales used in the present study. Intentions to turnover. Consistent with our predictions, results from previ- ous studies concerning the relationship between organizational commitment and intentions to turnover support a negative relationship. For example, Blau and Boal (1989) using nine items from the OCQ and three intent-to-turnover items from Mobley (1977) reported a statistically significant negative rela- tionship. Vandenberg et al. (1994) reported a similar finding using nine items from the OCQ and a one-item intent-to-leave measure. Mowday et al. (1979) also found a negative relationship between the OCQ and intent to leave on four different samples. However, Vandenberg et al. noted that compliance commitment (O’Reilly & Chatman, 1986) and intent to turnover produced a positive relationship. Both the positive relationship between intent to turn- over and compliance commitment and the negative relationship for the other commitment facets also received support from Balfour and Wechsler (1991) using O’Reilly and Chatman’s (1986) commitment measure and a one-item intention measure. Finally, Balfour and Wechsler (1996) reported a negative correlation between intent to turnover and all three components of the OCS. Job involvement. Using a six-item measure of job involvement by Kanungo (1982) and nine items from the OCQ, Blau and Boal (1989) reported a positive relationship between commitment and job involvement. Similarly, a positive relationship between work involvement, overall Downloaded from http://epm.sagepub.com at Middlesex University on February 22, 2008 © 1999 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
982 EDUCATIONAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL MEASUREMENT commitment, and three components of commitment (i.e., identification, involvement, and loyalty) was reported by Cook and Wall (1980). Mowday et al. (1979) also reported a positive correlation between job involvement and the OCQ for four different samples. These results lead us to predict a positive relationship between job involvement and both measures of commitment. Method Sample A total of 196 hospitality managers and supervisors participating in a management skills workshop participated in the study. Respondents were employed by the same parent company but were working in a variety of dif- ferent locations. The sample consisted of 86 (44%) males and 110 (56%) females. With respect to race, 55 (28%) were minorities. The average age of the sample was 34.42 years (range 18 to 66 years), the average organizational tenure was 4.5 years (range 1 month to 16 years), and 106 (54%) were married. Measures Organizational commitment. Two scales were used to measure organiza- tional commitment. The first scale was the 15-item OCQ developed by Mowday et al. (1979). Example items include “I talk up this organization to my friends as a great organization to work for” and “I feel very little loyalty to this organization” (reverse coded). The second scale used to measure organ- izational commitment was the 9-item OCS developed by Balfour and Wechsler (1996). Example items include “What this organization stands for is important to me” and “I feel like ‘part of the family’ at this organization.” The respondents used a 5-point Likert-type scale to indicate their agreement (1 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree) with each of the items in these scales. The internal consistency reliability for the OCQ scores was .87. The subscale scores for the OCS produced the following reliabilities: identifica- tion = .69, affiliation = .73, exchange = .74. Demographics. Respondents provided us with their current age, selected either male (coded 0) or female (coded 1) to indicate their gender, and checked one of four marital options provided (single, married, divorced, or widowed). The single, divorced, and widowed were recoded into one cate- gory (coded 1) and married was a second category (coded 2). LMX. The seven-item measure of exchange commitment was used (Graen, Novak et al., 1982). A sample item from this scale is “My immediate Downloaded from http://epm.sagepub.com at Middlesex University on February 22, 2008 © 1999 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
KACMAR ET AL. 983 supervisor understands my problems and needs.” The items in this scale were responded to on a 5-point Likert-type scale with the anchors of strongly dis- agree for 1 and strongly agree for 5. The Cronbach alpha coefficient for scores on this scale was .92. Justice. Perceptions of organizational justice were measured with a six- item scale by Price and Mueller (1986). The alpha reliability coefficient for scores on these items was .94. A sample item was “To what extent are you fairly rewarded considering the responsibilities you have?” The 5-point scale had very fairly as the anchor for 1 and not at all fairly as the anchor for 5. Job satisfaction. Job satisfaction was measured with five items from Cam- mann, Fichman, Jenkins, and Klesh (1979). This is a global job satisfaction scale as can be seen by examining a sample item from the scale: “In general, I am satisfied with my job.” The anchors on the 5-point response scale were strongly disagree for 1 and strongly agree for 5. The internal consistency reli- ability estimate for scores on these five items was .87. Life satisfaction. Diener, Emmons, Larsen, and Griffin’s (1985) five-item scale was used to measure life satisfaction. A sample item is “The conditions of my life are excellent.” Respondents indicated their agreement with each of the five items using a response format with strongly agree the anchor for 5 and strongly disagree the anchor for 1. The coefficient alpha for the scores obtained for this scale was .86. Nonwork satisfaction. Eight items from Romzek (1989) were included to tap nonwork satisfaction. Scores on this scale produced an internal consis- tency reliability estimate of .70. Respondents used a 5-point scale (1 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree) to indicate their level of agreement with the eight items. A sample item from this scale is “I am satisfied with my non-working activities, hobbies, and so on.” Intent to turnover. The degree to which the respondents were considering leaving the organization was measured with Mobley, Horner, and Hollings- worth’s (1978) seven-item intent-to-turnover scale. A sample item from this scale is “I will probably look for a new job in the near future.” The Cronbach alpha coefficient for scores on this scale was .86. The response format for these items was a 5-point Likert-type scale anchored with strongly disagree at the low end and strongly agree at the high end. Job involvement. Three items (e.g., “I live, eat, and breathe my job”) developed by Lodahl and Kejner (1965) were used to measure job involve- ment. Respondents indicated, on a 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) Downloaded from http://epm.sagepub.com at Middlesex University on February 22, 2008 © 1999 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
984 EDUCATIONAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL MEASUREMENT scale, their agreement with each item. Scores on the three items produced an internal consistency reliability estimate of .73. Results Correlations The means, standard deviations, and correlations among the variables examined in the present study are provided in Table 1. As expected, the two commitment scales were highly correlated (rs ranged from .77 to .56). Also of interest is a similarity in the pattern and intensity of the correlations between the two commitment scales and the remaining variables. Structural Analysis of the Scales Before the antecedents and consequences of organizational commitment could be examined, the structural components of the two scales were estab- lished. To accomplish this, each scale was analyzed separately via confirma- tory factor analysis (CFA) using LISREL 8 (Jöreskog & Sörbom, 1993). The results for these analyses follow. OCQ. A single-factor model, shown in Figure 2, was estimated using LISREL 8 to determine whether the OCQ was unidimensional as intended by its developers (Mowday et al., 1979). The fit statistics (Jöreskog & Sörbom, 1993) for this model are presented in Table 2. For comparison purposes, a two-factor model (i.e., value commitment and commitment to stay) reported by Angle and Perry (1981) also was estimated. The value commitment factor included Items 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, 12, 13, and 14. The commitment-to-stay factor included Items 3, 7, 9, 11, and 15. The fit statistics for the comparison model also can be found in Table 2. To directly compare the one-factor model to the two-factor model, a chi-square difference test was conducted. Results (χ2diff(1) = 114.02, p < .05) indicated that the unidimensional model was the better of the two. Further examination of the unidimensional model indicated that the path coefficients for two items, 3 and 7, fell below the .40 cutoff (Ford, MacCallum, & Tait, 1986). These items were removed, and the model was reestimated producing completely standardized path coefficients for all remaining items of .40 or higher (see Figure 2). This modification also increased the fit statistics for five of the seven statistics reported in Table 2. OCS. The model estimated for the OCS (see Figure 3) had nine items lead- ing to three different subcomponents of commitment as intended by the scale developers. The completely standardized path coefficients, shown in Figure 3, were all greater than .40. Some of the model fit statistics (see Table 2) were Downloaded from http://epm.sagepub.com at Middlesex University on February 22, 2008 © 1999 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
Table 1 © 1999 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution. Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations Among Variables of Interest Downloaded from http://epm.sagepub.com at Middlesex University on February 22, 2008 Scale Mean SD N 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 1. OCQ 3.83 0.64 196 — 2. Identification commitment (OCS) 4.28 0.70 196 .77 — 3. Affiliation commitment (OCS) 3.94 0.84 196 .63 .65 — 4. Exchange commitment (OCS) 3.60 0.92 196 .56 .55 .71 — 5. Age 34.42 9.54 186 .11 .15 .06 .09 — 6. Gender 1.56 0.50 195 –.05 –.03 –.03 –.04 –.09 — 7. Marital status 1.54 0.49 195 .09 .09 .03 .04 .23 –.06 — 8. LMX 3.53 1.02 196 .41 .38 .47 .45 –.05 –.05 .02 — 9. Justice 3.18 0.90 196 .45 .43 .52 .61 .00 .03 .05 .45 — 10. Job satisfaction 4.19 0.71 196 .68 .59 .57 .55 .06 –.06 .12 .36 .44 — 11. Life satisfaction 3.70 0.86 196 .19 .16 .19 .26 .21 .02 –.03 .22 .20 .25 — 12. Nonwork satisfaction 4.10 0.74 196 .15 .17 .15 .24 .14 .14 .04 .26 .19 .17 .63 — 13. Turnover 1.99 0.98 196 –.71 –.61 –.48 –.46 –.08 –.00 –.05 –.30 –.42 –.54 –.10 –.09 — 14. Job involvement 3.15 0.95 196 .36 .21 .21 .12 –.02 –.14 –.03 .11 .16 .31 –.02 –.11 –.13 — Note. Correlations greater than .14 are statistically significant at p < .05. OCQ = Organizational Commitment Questionnaire; OCS = Organizational Commitment Scale; LMX = leader-member exchange. 985
986 EDUCATIONAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL MEASUREMENT Figure 2. LISREL 8 model for Organizational Commitment Questionnaire (OCQ). acceptable, but none was as strong as the fit statistics for the OCQ models. For comparison purposes, we estimated a unidimensional model with all nine OCS items constituting one factor, consistent with the factor structure of the OCQ. However, the fit statistics for this model (see Table 2) were substan- tially worse than the original model. A chi-square difference test (χ2diff (3) = 39.31, p < .05) further confirmed that the three-factor model was the better of the two models. Therefore, the best fitting model was determined to be the one intended by the developers of the scale, three items leading to each of the three subcomponents of organizational commitment. Downloaded from http://epm.sagepub.com at Middlesex University on February 22, 2008 © 1999 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
KACMAR ET AL. 987 Table 2 Fit Statistics for OCQ and OCS Models OCQ OCQ OCQ OCS OCS Both OCQ 15 Items 15 Items 13 Items 9 Items 9 Items 13 Items One Two One Three One and OCS Index Factor Factor Factor Factor Factor 9 Items Goodness of fit .89 .90 .91 .89 .86 .83 Adjusted goodness of fit .85 .86 .87 .79 .76 .79 Parsimony goodness of fit .67 .67 .65 .47 .51 .67 Normed fit .84 .85 .87 .84 .83 .82 Parsimony normed fit .72 .72 .73 .58 .62 .72 Comparative fit .91 .89 .93 .90 .85 .90 Root mean square error of approximation .072 .08 .075 .13 .15 .073 Chi-square 180.43*** 294.45*** 137.11*** 107.30*** 146.61*** 412.52*** Degrees of freedom 90 89 65 24 27 203 Chi-square difference 114.02(1)** 39.31(3)** Note. OCQ = Organizational Commitment Questionnaire; OCS = Organizational Commitment Scale. **p < .01. ***p < .001. Combined scales. To explore the similarities and differences in the items that make up both commitment scales, the two scales were estimated in one CFA (Dunham et al., 1994). The model estimated included four factors, one with the 13 retained OCQ items related to a general OCQ factor and three OCS factors each being predicted by their respective 3 items. All of the com- pletely standardized path coefficients were greater than .40, and the modifi- cation indices indicated that only 1 item (OCQ 8) “cross loaded” (on the exchange commitment subcomponent of the OCS). More than half of the fit statistics for this model, shown in Table 2, were acceptable. Antecedents and Consequences of Organizational Commitment In the next step, the antecedents and consequences of the OCQ and OCS were explored. To do this, the model in Figure 1 was estimated using LISREL 8. To compare the two scales, both commitment measures were included in the model estimated. The completely standardized path coefficients for the model are provided in Table 3. As can be seen, not all of the antecedents worked the same for the four commitment components. For example, gender and age were not good predictors of any of the forms of organizational commitment (all coefficients < .15). Marital status yielded higher path coefficients, although links were still weak at best. Even though all of the paths for LMX and justice with all four commitment components were statistically significant, large to moderate, Downloaded from http://epm.sagepub.com at Middlesex University on February 22, 2008 © 1999 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
988 EDUCATIONAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL MEASUREMENT Figure 3. LISREL 8 model for Organizational Commitment Scale (OCS). and in the direction predicted, the strength of the paths differed, especially for justice. The exchange component of the OCS had a stronger path coefficient with justice than did the other forms of commitment. When examining the relationships between the outcome variables and the commitment components, more differences arose. The expected positive link between commitment and job satisfaction was found only for the OCQ. Although job satisfaction was appreciably linked to the OCQ, life satisfac- tion was not. Instead, exchange commitment was found to be a better predic- tor of life satisfaction. Two of the subcomponents of OCS, identification and exchange, positively predicted nonwork satisfaction. The link between exchange commitment and intent to turnover was weak and not statistically significant, but the paths between OCQ and identification commitment and intent to turnover were statistically significant and in the predicted direction. Surprisingly, affiliation commitment positively predicted intent to turnover. Finally, job involvement was found to be related appreciably to all four com- mitment measures. However, the links between identification and exchange commitment and job involvement were negative, opposite of that predicted. Downloaded from http://epm.sagepub.com at Middlesex University on February 22, 2008 © 1999 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
KACMAR ET AL. 989 Table 3 Completely Standardized Path Coefficients Variable OCQ Identification Affiliation Exchange Antecedents Age –.04 .03 –.15* –.11 Gender –.07 .08 –.07 –.03 Marital status .16* .19* .13 .15* LMX .29* .34* .35* .29* Justice .44* .42* .56* .64* Consequences Job satisfaction .63* .01 .14 .14 Life satisfaction .03 .03 –.09 .38* Nonwork satisfaction –.17 .30* –.23 .44* Intent to turnover –.65* –.37* .22* –.08 Job involvement .70* –.45* .35* –.30* Note. OCQ = Organizational Commitment Questionnaire; LMX = leader-member exchange. *p < .05. Supplemental Analyses Given that all of the data used in the present study were collected via self- report surveys, the threat of common method variance is present in our study. To examine the extent to which common method variance was an issue in the current research, a Harmon one-factor test was conducted using LISREL 8 as has been done in previous research (McFarlin & Sweeney, 1992; Sanchez & Brock, 1996). Specifically, we estimated a model in which all the items for the variables of interest were related to a single global (method) factor. If this model fit the data well, strong evidence of common method variance would be present. Results suggested that one global factor for all the items produced poor overall fit (goodness-of-fit index = .39, comparative fit index = .42). These findings suggest that a method factor is not predominate in this study, reducing the threat of common method variance. Discussion The present study had two goals. First, the factor structure of two different organizational commitment scales was examined independently and then combined. These tests were performed to determine the degree of overlap and uniqueness of the two scales. Results indicated very little overlap between the two scales. Only one item from the OCQ (i.e., Item 8) cross loaded on the exchange component of the OCS. This would suggest that the Balfour and Wechsler (1996) scale measured components of organizational commitment not captured by the OCQ. Next, antecedents and consequences of commitment were examined for both scales to determine if the two measures Downloaded from http://epm.sagepub.com at Middlesex University on February 22, 2008 © 1999 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
990 EDUCATIONAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL MEASUREMENT of organizational commitment predicted and were predicted by different con- structs. Not all of the path loadings were in the predicted direction, and not all of the antecedents and consequences examined worked the same for the four commitment components. These findings are discussed in more detail below. Antecedents Although the relationships were weak, there were four paths in the model that were statistically significant for the demographic variables: marital status with OCQ, identification, exchange commitment, and affiliation com- mitment with age. Gender was not found to be significantly related to any form of commitment, which is consistent with some past research findings (Blau & Boal, 1989) and inconsistent with others (Mathieu & Zajac, 1990; McFarlin & Sweeney, 1992). Contrary to prediction and past research, age was negatively related to affiliation commitment (Dunham et al., 1994; Mathieu & Zajac, 1990). That is, as individuals got older they were less likely to have affiliation commitment. Marital status was positively related to OCQ, identification, and exchange commitment as expected. This is consistent with past research suggesting that married individuals exhibit greater com- mitment due to financial burdens and family responsibilities (Angle & Perry, 1983; Mathieu & Zajac, 1990). Thus, the affiliation component of organiza- tional commitment is most salient for younger, single workers. The exchange quality of the relationship between the supervisors and sub- ordinates in our sample (i.e., LMX) did directly affect the subordinates’ feel- ings of commitment to the organization. Specifically, the better the relation- ship, the more committed the employees. LMX appears to be equally related to all forms of commitment, indicating that supervisors can make a big differ- ence in the commitment level of their employees. As was found for LMX, distributive justice was a consistent predictor of commitment as well. This demonstrates that organizations that provide equitable and fair rewards for their employees can increase the level of commitment shown by their employees. Consequences Job involvement was the only outcome variable that had a noteworthy link with all four commitment components. As expected, job involvement was positively related to OCQ and affiliation commitment. Contrary to predic- tions, job involvement was negatively related to identification and exchange commitment. This finding suggests that people who are highly involved in their jobs exhibit lower levels of identification and exchange commitment. One possible explanation is that individuals who are highly involved in their jobs identify more closely with their professions than with the organizations Downloaded from http://epm.sagepub.com at Middlesex University on February 22, 2008 © 1999 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
KACMAR ET AL. 991 that employ them. Similarly, individuals highly involved in their jobs view exchange commitment as less relevant as they are receiving positive feed- back from the work itself. When examining the relationships between commitment and intent to turnover, we found the OCQ and the identification subscale performed simi- larly but differently from affiliation. There were negative relationships between intent to turnover and the OCQ and identification but a weak posi- tive relationship between intent to turnover and affiliation commitment. This finding for the OCQ was not surprising. Past researchers have reported a strong correlation between the OCQ and intention-to-turnover scales (Blau & Boal, 1989; Vandenberg et al., 1994). Some even have argued that findings that include both commitment and intent to turnover may be con- founded by the scales’ apparent overlap (Bozeman & Kacmar, 1996; Stone- Romero, 1994). One suggestion that can be made based on the current find- ings is that when intentions to turnover and commitment are both important constructs in a study, some measure of commitment other than the OCQ or the identification subscale should be used, as they are highly correlated with intent to turnover. Instead, the exchange subcomponent of the OCS could be used because it was found to be unrelated to intent to turnover. Although not specifically mentioned in past research, it appears that the same suggestion made for intention to turnover could be made for job satis- faction. In the present study, the paths between job satisfaction and the OCQ were positive and statistically significant, whereas the links for affiliation, exchange, and identification commitment with job satisfaction were not. Hence, future researchers interested in examining commitment and job satis- faction in the same study might be well advised to steer clear of the OCQ. The relationships between nonwork satisfaction and exchange and identi- fication commitment were strong and positive, whereas the paths between affiliation and OCQ with nonwork satisfaction were negligible. These results suggest that individuals who have happy lives outside of work do not need strong relationships at work. Life satisfaction was positively related to exchange commitment but negligibly related to the other forms of commit- ment. Thus, in a global sense, the element of exchange is the most important form of commitment in determining overall life satisfaction. These findings are intriguing and informative given that past research efforts have not included these forms of satisfaction in their studies of commitment. References Adams-Webber, J. R. (1979). Personal construct theory: Concepts and applications. London: John Wiley. Angle, H. L., & Perry, J. L. (1981). An empirical assessment of organizational commitment and organizational effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 26, 1-14. Angle, H. L., & Perry, J. L. (1983). Organizational commitment: Individual and organizational influences. Work and Occupations, 10, 123-146. Downloaded from http://epm.sagepub.com at Middlesex University on February 22, 2008 © 1999 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
992 EDUCATIONAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL MEASUREMENT Axelrod, R. (1976). Structure of decision: The cognitive maps of political elites. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Balfour, D. L., & Wechsler, B. (1990). Organizational commitment: A reconceptualization and empirical test of public-private difference. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 10, 23-40. Balfour, D. L., & Wechsler, B. (1991). Commitment, performance, and productivity in public or- ganizations. Public Productivity & Management Review, 14, 355-367. Balfour, D. L., & Wechsler, B. (1996). Organizational commitment: Antecedents and outcomes in public organizations. Public Productivity and Management Review, 29, 256-277. Bannister, D., & Fransella, F. (1971). Inquiring man: The theory of personal constructs. Balti- more: Penguin. Becker, H. S. (1960). Notes on the concept of commitment. American Journal of Sociology, 66, 32-40. Becker, T. E. (1992). Foci and bases of commitment: Are they distinctions worth making? Acad- emy of Management Journal, 35, 232-244. Blau, G., & Boal, K. (1989). Using job involvement and organizational commitment interac- tively to predict turnover. Journal of Management, 15, 115-127. Bougon, M. G. (1983). Uncovering cognitive maps: The self-Q technique. In G. Morgan (Ed.), Beyond method (pp. 173-188). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Bozeman, D. P., & Kacmar, K. M. (1996, April). The effect of item contamination on the OCQ- turnover intention relationship. Paper presented at the 11th annual conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, San Diego, CA. Brown, M. (1969). Identification and some conditions of organizational involvement. Adminis- trative Science Quarterly, 14, 346-355. Brown, R. B. (1996). Organizational commitment: Clarifying the concept and simplifying the existing construct typology. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 49, 230-251. Buchanan, B. (1974). Building organizational commitment: The socialization of managers in work organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 19, 533-546. Cammann, C., Fichman, M., Jenkins, D., & Klesh, J. (1979). The Michigan Organizational As- sessment Questionnaire. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan. Cohen, A. (1996). On the discriminant validity of the Meyer and Allen measure of organiza- tional commitment: How does it fit with the work commitment construct? Educational and Psychological Measurement, 56, 494-503. Cook, J., & Wall, T. (1980). New work attitude measures of trust, organizational commitment and personal need nonfulfillment. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 53, 39-52. Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The satisfaction with life scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49, 71-75. Dunham, R. B., Grube, J. A., & Castaneda, M. B. (1994). Organizational commitment: The util- ity of an integrative definition. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 370-380. Folger, R., & Konovsky, M. A. (1989). Effects of procedural and distributive justice on reactions to pay raise decisions. Academy of Management Journal, 32, 115-130. Ford, J. C., MacCallum, R. C., & Tait, M. (1986). The application of exploratory factor analysis in applied psychology: A critical review and analysis. Personnel Psychology, 39, 291-314. Gioia, D. A. (1986). Symbols, scripts, and sensemaking: Creating meaning in the organizational experience. In H. P. Sims, D. A. Gioia, and Associates (Eds.), The thinking organization: Dy- namics of organizational and social cognition (pp. 49-74). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Graen, G. B., Liden, R. C., & Hoel, W. (1982). Role of leadership in the employee withdrawal process. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 868-872. Graen, G. B., Novak, M., & Sommerkamp, P. (1982). The effects of leader-member exchange and job design on productivity and satisfaction: Testing a dual attachment model. Organiza- tional Behavior and Human Performance, 30, 109-131. Downloaded from http://epm.sagepub.com at Middlesex University on February 22, 2008 © 1999 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
KACMAR ET AL. 993 Green, S. G., Anderson, S. E., & Shivers, S. L. (1996). Demographics and organizational influ- ences on leader-member exchange and related work attitudes. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 66, 203-214. Grusky, D. (1966). Career mobility and organizational commitment. Administrative Science Quarterly, 10, 488-503. Hall, D. T., & Schneider, B. (1972). Correlates of organizational identification as a function of career patterns and organizational types. Administrative Science Quarterly, 15, 176-189. Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. (1993). LISREL 8: User’s reference guide. Chicago: Scientific Software International. Kanungo, R. (1982). Measurement of job and work involvement. Journal of Applied Psychol- ogy, 67, 341-349. Kelly, G. A. (1955). The psychology of personal constructs. New York: Norton. Kinicki, A. J., & Vecchio, R. P. (1994). Influences on the quality of supervisor-subordinate rela- tions: The role of time-pressure, organizational commitment, and locus of control. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15, 75-82. Liden, R. C., & Maslyn, J. M. (1993, August). Scale development for a multidimensional mea- sure of leader-member exchange. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Academy of Management, Atlanta, GA. Lodahl, T. M., & Kejner, M. (1965). The definition and measurement of job involvement. Jour- nal of Applied Psychology, 4, 24-33. Luthans, F., Baack, D., & Taylor, L. (1987). Organizational commitment: Analysis of antece- dents. Human Relations, 40, 219-236. Magazine, S. L., Williams, L. J., & Williams, M. L. (1996). A confirmatory factor analysis ex- amination of reverse coding effects in Meyer and Allen’s affective and continuance commit- ment scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 56(2), 241-250. Major, D. A., Kozlowski, S.W.J., Chao, G. T., & Gardner, P. D. (1995). A longitudinal investiga- tion of newcomer expectations, early socialization outcomes, and moderating effects of role development factors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 418-431. Mathieu, J. E., & Zajac, D. M. (1990). A review and meta-analysis of the antecedents, correlates, and consequences of organizational commitment. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 171-194. McFarlin, D. B., & Sweeney, P. D. (1992). Distributive and procedural justice as predictors of satisfaction with personal and organizational outcomes. Academy of Management Journal, 35, 626-637. Meyer, J., & Allen, N. (1984). Testing the “side-bet theory” of organizational commitment: Some methodological considerations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 372-378. Mobley, W. (1977). Intermediate linkages in the relationship between job satisfaction and em- ployee turnover. Journal of Applied Psychology, 62, 237-240. Mobley, W., Horner, S. O., & Hollingsworth, A. T. (1978). An evaluation of the precursors of hospital employee turnover. Journal of Applied Psychology, 63, 408-414. Morrow, P. (1983). Concept redundancy in organizational research: The case of work commit- ment. Academy of Management Review, 8, 486-500. Morrow, P. (1993). The theory and measurement of work commitment. Greenwich, CT: JAI. Mowday, R., Porter, L., & Steers, R. (1982). Organizational linkages: The psychology of com- mitment, absenteeism, and turnover. New York: Academic Press. Mowday, R., Steers, R., & Porter, L. (1979). The measurement of organizational commitment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 14, 224-247. Nystrom, P. C. (1990). Vertical exchanges and organizational commitments of American busi- ness managers. Group & Organizational Studies, 15, 296-312. O’Reilly, C., & Chatman, J. (1986). Organizational commitment and psychological attachment: The effects of compliance, identification, and internalization on prosocial behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 492-499. Downloaded from http://epm.sagepub.com at Middlesex University on February 22, 2008 © 1999 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
994 EDUCATIONAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL MEASUREMENT Osigweh, C.A.B. (1989). Concept fallibility in organizational science. Academy of Management Review, 14, 579-594. Porter, L. W., & Smith, F. J. (1970). The etiology of organizational commitment. Unpublished manuscript, University of California, Irvine. Price, J. L., & Mueller, C. W. (1986). Handbook of organizational measurement. Marshfield, MA: Pitman. Romzek, B. S. (1989). Personal consequences of employee commitment. Academy of Manage- ment Journal, 32, 649-661. Sanchez, J. I., & Brock, P. (1996). Outcomes of perceived discrimination among Hispanic em- ployees: Is diversity management a luxury or necessity? Academy of Management Journal, 39, 704-719. Settoon, R. P., Bennett, N., & Liden, R. C. (1996). Social exchange in organizations: Perceived organizational support, leader-member exchange, and employee reciprocity. Journal of Ap- plied Psychology, 81, 219-227. Stone-Romero, E. (1994). Construct validity issues in organizational behavior research. In J. Green- berg (Ed.), Organizational behavior: The state of the science (pp. 155-179). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Vandenberg, R. J., & Lance, C. E. (1992). Satisfaction and organizational commitment. Journal of Management, 18, 153-167. Vandenberg, R. J., Self, R. M., & Seo, J. H. (1994). A critical examination of the internalization, identification, and compliance commitment measures. Journal of Management, 20, 123-140. Weick, K. E., & Bougon, M. G. (1986). Organizations as cognitive maps: Charting ways to suc- cess and failure. In H. P. Sims, D. A. Gioia, and Associates (Eds.), The thinking organization: Dynamics of organizational and social cognition (pp. 102-135). San Francisco: Jossey- Bass. Downloaded from http://epm.sagepub.com at Middlesex University on February 22, 2008 © 1999 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
Email sent successfully..