ROLE CLARITY, WORK LOCUS OF CONTROL, AND ORGANIZATION-BASED SELF-ESTEEM: MAIN AND MODERATING EFFECTS ON COMMITMENT TO SUPERVISORS

Transcription

1 236 ASAC 2007 Ottawa, Ontario Alexandra-Joëlle Panaccio (student) Christian Vandenberghe École des Hautes Études Commerciales, Montréal ROLE CLARITY, WORK LOCUS OF CONTROL, AND ORGANIZATION-BASED SELF-ESTEEM: MAIN AND MODERATING EFFECTS ON COMMITMENT TO SUPERVISORS We examined the relationships between role clarity, work locus of control and organization-based self-esteem, and four dimensions of commitment to supervisors (AC, NC, HiSac, LoAlt). Analyses revealed that role clarity was positively related to AC and HiSac, work locus of control was positively related to NC and negatively to LoAlt, and that organizationbased self-esteem was positively associated with AC. Additionally, role clarity interacted with personal characteristics in influencing NC and HiSac. In today s competitive markets, organizations strive to boost levels of performance and to retain their best employees. Organizational commitment has been shown to be a strong predictor of a number of organizational outcomes, including in-role and extra-role performance, intent to quit the organization, and turnover (Meyer, Stanley, Herscovitch, & Topolnytsky, 2002). Consequently, organizational commitment constitutes one of the most relevant topics of interest for I/O Psychology and OB researchers. The most widely used multidimensional model of organizational commitment is Meyer and Allen s threedimensional model, which distinguishes between affective, normative and continuance commitment (Meyer & Allen, 1991). Affective commitment (AC) reflects a desire to remain within the organization, normative commitment (NC) stems from a sense of obligation to do so, and continuance commitment (CC) is based on a perceived necessity to remain within the organization. Additional work on the dimensionality of commitment has shown that the continuance dimension contains two separate components (McGee & Ford, 1987). Indeed, the perceived necessity that underlies continuance commitment can originate from the perceived sacrifice associated with leaving (HiSac), or from the perceived lack of employment alternatives (LoAlt). The current state of knowledge thus supports a fourdimensional conceptualization of organizational commitment. Meyer and Herscovitch (2001) define commitment as a force that binds an individual to a course of action of relevance to one or more targets. Indeed, research has highlighted the fact that commitment can be directed at various foci other than the organization, such as the supervisor (e.g., Becker, 1992; Becker, Billings, Eveleth, & Gilbert, 1996; Siders, George, & Dharwadkar, 2001; Vandenberghe, Bentein, & Stinglhamber, 2004). The importance of the supervisor as a commitment focus is easily understood, as supervisors are often seen as acting on behalf of, or even as substitutes for the organization (Levinson, 1965). Attitudes toward the supervisor can thus impact behaviours directed towards the organization. In support of this view, commitment to supervisors has been shown to contribute unique variance in organization-relevant outcomes such as intent to quit the organization (Stinglhamber et al., 2002). However, little is known, to date, about the mechanisms through which commitment to the supervisor is formed. In addition, while the affective, normative and continuance dimensions of commitment have been shown to relate to the supervisor (Stinglhamber et al., 2002), the distinction between the HiSac and LoAlt components of CC has not yet been made at the supervisory level.

2 237 This study aims to provide a better understanding of the development of the different types of commitment to the supervisor. We postulate that role clarity, a situational antecedent of commitment which depends partly on the supervisor, as well as certain personal characteristics, namely, work locus of control and organization-based self-esteem, will have a direct impact on various forms of commitment to the supervisor. Further, we postulate that these personal characteristics will interact with role clarity in influencing commitment to the supervisor. Finally, we posit that the use of refined scales for measuring HiSac and LoAlt will allow us to distinguish between the four dimensions of commitment to the supervisor. Role clarity Theory and Hypotheses Anchored in role theory, the concept of role clarity refers to the sufficiency of information regarding the expectations associated with one s role within the organization (Kahn, Wolfe, Quinn, Snowk, & Rosenthal, 1964). Role clarity (or its opposite, role ambiguity) has been shown to be an important predictor of organizational commitment (Meyer et al., 2002). More specifically, evidence from meta-analysis suggests that role clarity increases affective and, to a lesser extent, normative commitment, while it slightly decreases continuance commitment (Meyer et al., 2002). While little research has been conducted on the impact of role clarity on commitment to supervisors, there are reasons to believe that similar effects would be found, at least for some dimensions of commitment. Certain organizational characteristics (e.g., organizational structure) can undoubtedly generate or, on the contrary, reduce role ambiguity. However, many aspects of an employee s role (e.g., goals, responsibilities, rules of conduct) are at least in part determined by the supervisor. Supporting this position is Katz and Kahn s (1966) view of the supervisor as «the most influential role sender» (Burns & Otte, 1999). Role clarity (or ambiguity) is thus likely to be at least partially attributed to the supervisor and thus to contribute to the quality of supervisor-employee exchanges. Therefore, role clarity may influence employees attitudes towards the supervisor. The affective dimension of commitment to the supervisor reflects an emotional bond, perceived by the employee, between himself or herself and the supervisor. Following the logic outlined above, an employee who perceives his or her work role to be ill-defined and ambiguous a situation which has repeatedly been shown to generate stress (e.g., Saks & Ashforth, 2000; Irving & Coleman, 2003) will plausibly blame his or her supervisor for this state of affairs and thus reduce his or her level of affective commitment to the supervisor. Conversely, when one s role is perceived to be clearly defined and unambiguous, this should lead to stronger affective commitment to the supervisor. Hypothesis 1a: Role clarity will be positively related to AC to the supervisor. Through a different mechanism, role clarity can also be expected to have a positive effect on normative commitment. While emotions underlie the affective dimension of commitment, normative commitment to the supervisor reflects a perceived obligation or a moral duty to remain under that person s supervision. The norm of reciprocity (Goudlner, 1960) suggests that one feels obligated to return favourable treatment received by another. If, as we argue above, role clarity is seen as a favourable treatment offered by the supervisor, the employee should feel obligated to reciprocate, and commitment constitutes one way to do so. Because this commitment response results from a felt obligation, it would likely take a normative form. Hypothesis 1b: Role clarity will be positively related to NC to the supervisor.

3 238 Finally, role clarity should be positively related to perceived high sacrifice, as such favourable treatment from a supervisor would likely be seen as a benefit that could be lost if the employee were to leave this supervisor. This expected correlation might seem in contradiction with the results reported in Meyer et al. s (2002) meta-analysis of the three-component model, as these show a negative correlation between role clarity and organizational CC, but it is argued here that this negative correlation is likely due to the LoAlt dimension rather than the HiSac one. Indeed, the higher sense of self-efficacy which would result from experiencing high levels of role clarity could lead one to be more confident in one s ability to find alternative employment, leading to lower levels of LoAlt. However, since the perceived lack of alternatives to one s current supervisor should not be linked to one s capacities as much as it is at the organizational level, role clarity is not expected to affect LoAlt to the supervisor in a similar manner. Hypothesis 1c: Role clarity will be positively related to HiSac to the supervisor. Work locus of control Originating from social learning theory, the concept of locus of control, introduced by Rotter (1966), basically reflects the degree to which an individual believes to be in control of his or her life. Internals see themselves as being in control, while externals tend to ascribe to external forces fate, chance, or others the responsibility for events and outcomes in their lives. Locus of control was initially conceptualized as a general orientation affecting behaviour in different types of situations. However, subsequent research has shown that this orientation varied across different contexts (Hahn, 2000). Work locus of control, a contextualized form of locus of control, refers to the belief of being in control of the workplace environment. While general and work locus of control have been found to be related to various dimensions of organizational commitment (Coleman, Irving, & Cooper, 1999; Meyer et al., 2002), we have reasons to believe that it could influence certain forms of commitment to the supervisor as well. Since work locus of control is generally thought to be a better predictor of attitudes and behaviours in the organizational context than is general locus of control (e.g., Coleman et al., 1999), this contextualized variable has been retained in the present study. Dispositional factors are believed to play a larger part in the development of normative commitment than they do for other forms of commitment. Indeed, early socialization experiences would predispose certain individuals to find themselves in the obligated mind set that underlies normative commitment (Stinglhamber et al., 2002). Following this line of thought, we would expect individuals who, by disposition, tend to attribute the causality of life events to external forces more than to their own actions to find themselves indebted to these forces (e.g., significant others such as supervisors). Because supervisors are major significant others in the working life of employees, one may expect employees with high levels of external locus of control to feel more indebted, or normatively committed to the supervisor. Conversely, internals should be less likely to feel such indebtedness and, thus, less likely to report being normatively committed to their supervisor. Hypothesis 2a: External work locus of control will be positively related to NC to the supervisor Aside from its main effect on normative commitment to the supervisor, work locus of control is also expected to positively moderate the effect of role clarity on this form of commitment. It has been argued that externals were, by nature, more likely to feel indebted to others when going through positive experiences in their work environment, since they were more likely to credit others for these experiences. Following that logic, the felt obligation resulting from the favourable treatment provided by the supervisor in the form of role clarity and thus, the compulsion to reciprocate should be stronger for externals than for internals. As a result, the relationship between role clarity and normative commitment to the supervisor is expected to be stronger for externals.

4 239 Hypothesis 2b: External work locus of control will moderate the effect of role clarity on NC to the supervisor, such that the relationship will be stronger for externals. Finally, work locus of control should be related to lack of alternatives at the supervisor level. Because internals believe they have control over the course of their lives, they are more likely to see the situation they find themselves in as being a result of their own actions or a product of their will. In line with this, research has shown that internals were more likely to take credit for obtaining their current position (Spector, 1982). Similarly, at the supervisor level, it can be expected that internals will attribute the fact that they work for a certain supervisor to their own will. Seeing the supervising situation as the result of their choices, internals should be more likely to perceive that they can change that situation, and thus less likely to perceive a lack of alternatives at the supervisor level. Externals, on the other hand, would see their current supervising situation as being largely a result of fate, chance, or the action of others. Since the perception of having alternatives is necessarily linked to the perception of being able to voluntarily pursue these alternatives, externals can be expected to perceive fewer alternatives at the supervisor level. In line with this reasoning, prior research on organizational commitment has shown that externals were more likely to experience continuance commitment, a relationship which was attributed to the fact that externals perceived fewer employment alternatives than internals (Coleman, Irving & Cooper, 1999). Hypothesis 2c: External work locus of control will be positively related to LoAlt to the supervisor. Organization-based self-esteem According to Coopersmith (1967), self-esteem reflects the extent to which an individual believes him/herself to be capable, significant, and worthy. An affective self-evaluation thus lies at the heart of the self-esteem concept (Pierce & Gardner, 2004). Self-esteem is generally construed in a hierarchical and multifaceted manner, as global self-esteem can be distinguished from task or situation-specific selfesteems (Pierce et al., 1989). Organization-based self-esteem, a situation-specific form of self-esteem introduced by Pierce, Gardner, Cummings and Dunham (1989), has been defined as the degree to which an individual believes him/herself to be capable, significant, and worthy as an organizational member. It reflects one s self-perceived value within the organizational context, and is determined by personal experiences and by messages transmitted by organizational members or conveyed by organizational structures regarding one s competence, importance or value as a member of the organization (Pierce et al., 1989; Pierce & Gardner, 2004). More closely related to the organizational context, organization-based self-esteem should have a stronger impact on organizational attitudes and behaviours than would global self-esteem (Pierce et al., 1989). Organization-based self-esteem has repeatedly been shown to be positively related to affective commitment to the organization (e.g., Pierce et al., 1989; Tang & Gilbert, 1994; Gardner & Pierce, 1998; Hui & Lee, 2000; Chen et al., 2005), a relationship which could be explained by a social exchange process. Indeed, as self-esteem is conceptualized as an affective evaluation, an employee who reports a high level of organization-based self-esteem basically perceives himself or herself to be liked by the organization. In exchange for this positive consideration, the employee may develop a stronger affective commitment to the organization. This reasoning could very well, however, be transposed at the supervisor level. Indeed, in the context of a supervisor-employee relationship, we would expect the supervisor to transmit implicit and explicit messages regarding the employee s competence, importance and value within the organization. Following Pierce et al. s (1989) reasoning, these messages should contribute to the development of organization-based self-esteem. In fact, the items measuring organization-based selfesteem (Pierce et al., 1989) are formulated in a way that could relate to the supervisor as much as to the

5 240 organization. The importance of the supervisor s role in the development of organization-based selfesteem is further supported by the fact that the authors, in conducting the survey, asked participants to think about the messages they received from the attitudes and behaviors of their managers and supervisors (Pierce et al., 1989). Employees who report high levels of organization-based self-esteem should thus perceive to be valued not only by their organization, but also by their supervisor and reciprocate towards them as well. This is reinforced by the fact that organizations, as impersonal entities, cannot, in reality, have likes and dislikes. High levels of organization-based self-esteem should therefore lead to high levels of affective commitment to the supervisor. Hypothesis 3a: Organization-based self-esteem will be positively related to AC to the supervisor. Aside from its main effect on affective commitment to the supervisor, organization-based selfesteem can also be expected to interact with role clarity in influencing another dimension of commitment to the supervisor: perceived high sacrifice. It has been argued that role clarity would be perceived by the employee as a favourable treatment offered by the supervisor which would be lost, or sacrificed if the employee were to leave this supervisor. This sacrifice, however, might not be of the same magnitude for all employees. According to Brockner s (1988) theory of behavioural plasticity, there are differences in the degree to which individuals react to external cues. Among the factors affecting one s level of reactivity or plasticity is self-esteem: individuals with low self-esteem are expected to be more reactive to external cues than those with high self-esteem, because they are less confident in their own value. They are thus more likely to seek out cues in their environment which might reassure them on the appropriateness of their thoughts and actions, while high self-esteem individuals, who have more confidence, will tend to be less reactive to external cues (Pierce & Gardner, 2004). It has thus been suggested that self-esteem and implicitly, organization-based self-esteem would be an important moderator in the relationship between work environment conditions and employee attitudes and behaviours (Pierce et al., 1993; Pierce & Gardner, 2004). Because individuals with low organization-based self-esteem do not have an inner belief of being valued by their supervisor (and their organization), they can be expected to feel more at the mercy of adverse conditions in the environment and, consequently, grant more importance to positive work conditions such as role clarity. The sacrifice of leaving a supervisor who provides such role clarity would thus appear greater to an employee with low organization-based self-esteem than it would for one with high organization-based self-esteem. In other words, the relationship between role clarity and the perceived high sacrifice dimension of commitment to the supervisor would be stronger for low organization-based self-esteem individuals. Hypothesis 3b: Organization-based self-esteem will moderate the effect of role clarity on HiSac to the supervisor, such that the relationship will be stronger for individuals with low organization-based self-esteem. This moderating effect is not, however, likely to be found for the other dimensions of commitment to the supervisor hypothesized to be influenced by role clarity (affective and normative), because the mechanisms that lead to these forms of commitment lack the evaluative, somewhat calculated quality that characterizes perceived sacrifice. Indeed, the perceived high sacrifice dimension of commitment to the supervisor is based on a subjective evaluation, made by the employee, of the relative importance of various supervisor-related perks. This dimension of commitment could thus be viewed as being more thought-out than the affective and normative dimensions. Because of this evaluative component which distinguishes perceived high sacrifice from the other forms of commitment, the importance attributed to role clarity which we argue would be higher for low organization-based selfesteem individuals is more likely to affect the relationship between role clarity and perceived sacrifice than the relation between role clarity and other forms of commitment to the supervisor.

6 241 Method Sample and Procedure A sample of 402 employees working in a variety of organizations was obtained using the snowball technique. Prospective participants were contacted via and asked to complete an online survey; they were also asked to forward an introductory message to employees and managers from their own network. The introductory message explained the purpose of the study, assured participants that responses would be kept confidential and contained a link to the questionnaire. In order to allow for calculation of the response rate, the author asked to be informed of the number of people to whom her contacts had forwarded the introductory message. In total, 1072 people were contacted, for a 38% response rate. Average age was years (SD = 8.64) and average tenure with the supervisor was 2.29 years (SD = 2.71). Among respondents, 46% were male. Respondents filled out the survey either in English or in French. Measures Commitment to supervisors. The four dimensions of commitment to the supervisor were assessed using a refined version of Stinglhamber et al. s (2002) instrument, as well of a translation of that measure. The AC and NC scales each comprise 6 items, while the HiSac and LoAlt each comprise 3 items. The English versions of these scales are provided in Table 2. Role clarity. A revised version and a validated translation of Rizzo et al. s (1970) 5-item scale were used to measure role clarity. Work locus of control. External work locus of control was measured using the relevant 8 items from Spector s (1988) Work Locus of Control scale, as well as a validated translation of these items. Organizational-based self-esteem. Organization-based self-esteem was measured using Pierce et al. s (1989) 10-item instrument, as well as a validated translation of that scale. Control variables. Sex, age, tenure with the supervisor, and language of the survey were used as controls. items. A 5-point Likert-type scale (1= strongly disagree; 5 = strongly agree) was used for all substantive Analyses The structure of commitment to the supervisor data was examined through confirmatory factor analysis using LISREL 8.72 (Jöreskog, Sörbom, Du Toit, & Du Toit, 2001), with a covariance matrix as input and using the maximum likelihood method of estimation. Aside from the χ² statistic, model fit was assessed via the nonnormed fit index (NNFI) and the comparative fit index (CFI) (Bentler, 1990) as measures of incremental fit. The standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) was used as a measure of absolute fit, and the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) was used as a measure of relative fit. A series of nested models for commitment items were tested and compared via χ² difference tests (Bentler & Bonett, 1980). By default, latent factors were allowed to freely correlate. We examined whether the hypothesized four-factor model of commitment to the supervisor yielded a significant improvement over more parsimonious representations of the data. These simpler models were (a) a three-

7 242 factor solution in which HiSac and LoAlt items were combined into a single CC construct, (b) a threefactor solution derived from the combination of AC and HiSac items into a single factor which was tested because organizational AC and HiSac have been found to correlate positively in prior research (cf. Meyer et al., 2002), (c) a two-factor model comprising CC along with another factor combining AC and NC items (cf. Meyer, Allen, & Smith, 1993), and (d) a single commitment factor model. Although χ² difference tests are informative regarding the superiority of a model from a statistical point of view, we also verified whether fit indices improved along the sequence of nested models (Medsker, Holahan, & Williams, 1994). Relationships between the study variables were examined through bivariate correlations, and hypotheses were tested through moderated multiple regression analyses, using sex, age, tenure with the supervisor and language of the survey as controls. Control variables were introduced first, and role clarity, work locus of control and organization-based self-esteem were entered at Step 2. Finally, in Step 3, we introduced the interaction terms (role clarity X work locus of control, and role clarity X organizationbased self-esteem). Following Aiken and West s (1991) recommendation, independent variables were centered prior to creating the interaction terms. Results Results of confirmatory factor analyses of commitment items are presented in Table 1. The fourfactor model of commitment to the supervisor yielded a very good fit to the data, χ² (98) = , p =.01, NNFI =.98, CFI =.98, SRMR =.06, RMSEA =.07, and was an improvement over more parsimonious models. Indeed, the four-factor model fitted the data better than a three-factor model in which a single CC construct was represented, Δχ² (3) = , p =.01, a three-factor model in which AC and HiSac were combined, Δχ² (3) = , p =.01, a two-factor model comprising a combined AC and NC factor and a CC factor, Δχ² (5) = , p =.01, and a one-factor model, Δχ² (6) = , p =.01. Table 1 Confirmatory Factor Analysis Results for Commitment Models: Fit Indices χ 2 (df) NNFI CFI SRMR RMSEA Four factors ** (98) Three factors AC, NC, CC ** (101) Three factors AC and HiSac combined, NC, LoAlt ** (101) Two factors AC and NC combined, CC ** (103) One factor ** (104) Note. NNFI = nonnormed fit index; CFI = comparative fit index, SRMR = standardized root mean square residual, RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation. ** p <.01. The completely standardized item loadings for the four-factor model are shown in Table 2. As can be seen, these loadings were sizeable for AC (range = ), NC (range = ), and HiSac (range = ). Loadings were somewhat lower, however, for the LoAlt dimension, ranging from.52 to.75. Overall, results support a four-dimensional conceptualization of commitment to the supervisor.

8 243 Table 2 Confirmatory Factor Analytic Item Loadings for the Four-Factor Model of Commitment Affective commitment Normative commitment Perceived high Item sacrifice 1. I respect my supervisor.83 Perceived lack of alternatives 2. I appreciate my supervisor I have little admiration for my supervisor (R) I am proud to work with my supervisor My supervisor means a lot to me I do not really feel attached to my supervisor (R) I believe that it would be wrong to leave my supervisor at this time I believe that it is my moral duty to keep working with my supervisor If I was offered to work under someone else s supervision, I would feel it morally incorrect to leave my current supervisor I would not leave my supervisor at this time because I believe that I have moral obligations towards him/her I keep working with my current supervisor because of the advantages that I get from it I would not leave my current supervisor because I would have too much to lose in doing so I personally would have more to lose than to gain in leaving my current supervisor I do not have any other choice but to work for my current supervisor I keep working for my current supervisor because I do not know with whom else I could work I think my options are too limited to be thinking about leaving my current supervisor.55

9 244 Descriptive statistics, correlations between variables, and alpha coefficients are presented in Table 3. As can be seen, three out of four dimensions of commitment to the supervisor (AC, NC and HiSac) displayed good internal consistency (αs =.94,.88, and.78, respectively), as did role clarity (α =.87), work locus of control (α =.86), and organization-based self-esteem (α =.91). The LoAlt scale s internal consistency was below the recommended.70 threshold (α =.60). Correlations between commitment dimensions were strongest between NC and AC (r =.55, p =.01) and NC and HiSac (r =.53, p =.01). The correlation between AC and HiSac was also strong (r =.49, p =.01). LoAlt, however, correlated only moderately with NC (r =.24, p =.01) and with HiSac (r =.24, p =.01). Finally, it must be noted that language of the survey slightly correlated with many of the study variables (rs between.14 and.18, p <.01), suggesting a potential influence of language on substantive relations in this study. This justifies that language be controlled for in regression analyses. Results of the moderated multiple regressions are reported in Table 4. In support for Hypotheses 1a and 1c, role clarity was positively associated with AC and HiSac (β =.25, p <.001, and β =.15, p <.05, respectively). However, counter to Hypothesis 1b, role clarity was not significantly associated with NC (β =.10, ns). Work locus of control was positively associated with NC (β =.11, p <.05) and LoAlt (β =.31, p <.001), lending support to Hypotheses 2a and 2c. In addition, the interaction between work locus of control and role clarity was a significant predictor of NC (β =.12, p <.05). The interaction term explained 2% unique variance in NC, which falls within the range of effect sizes traditionally reported for moderator effects in applied research (Δ R 2 =.01 to.03; cf. Champoux & Peters, 1987; Chaplin,1991). To understand the form of this interaction, we plotted the regression lines of NC on role clarity at 1 SD below and 1 SD above the mean of work locus of control (cf. Aiken & West, 1991). Figure 1 provides the graphic depiction of this interaction. The regression line for role clarity on NC to the supervisor was significantly positive under conditions of high external work locus of control [t (365) = 2.93, p <.01], yet non significant under conditions of low external (i.e. internal) work locus of control [t (365) = -.34, ns]. Post-hoc probing of the interaction showed that the slopes of the regression lines for high vs. low external locus of control differed significantly from each other [t (365) = 2.40, p <.05]. Overall, this yields full support for Hypothesis 2b. As for organization-based self-esteem, it was positively associated with AC to the supervisor (β =.28, p <.001), as predicted by Hypothesis 3a. Additionally, the interaction between organization-based self-esteem and role clarity was a significant predictor of HiSac (β = -.13, p <.05). The interaction explained 2% unique variance in HiSac, which, as was previously mentioned, falls within the range of effect sizes traditionally reported for moderator effects in applied research (Champoux & Peters, 1987; Chaplin, 1991). Once again, in order to better understand the nature of the interaction, we plotted the regression lines of HiSac on role clarity at 1 SD below and 1 SD above the mean of organization-based self-esteem (cf. Aiken & West, 1991). This interaction is graphically depicted in Figure 2. The regression line for role clarity on HiSac was significantly positive when organization-based self-esteem was low [t (364) = 3.43, p <.01] and non significant when it was high [t (364) =.22, ns]. Post-hoc probing of the interaction showed that the slopes of the regression lines for low vs. high organization-based self-esteem differed significantly from each other [t (364) = 2.53, p <.01)]. Overall, Hypothesis 3b is thus fully supported.

10 245 Table 3 Descriptive Statistics and Correlations among Variables Variable D 1. Age Sex Tenure with supervisor ** Language * Role clarity ** (.87) 6. Work locus of control ** ** -.03 (.86) 7. Organization-based selfesteem **.51** -.10* (.91) 8. Affective commitment **.41** ** (.94) 9. Normative commitment * **.10*.17**.55** (.88) 10. Perceived high sacrifice *.02.20** **.49**.53** (.78) 11. Perceived lack of alternatives ** ** -.11* **.24** (.60) Note. N = For Sex, 1 = Female, 2 = Male. For Language, 1 = French, 2 = English. Alpha coefficients are reported on the diagonal. *p <.05; ** p <.01.

11 246 Step Table 4 Moderated Multiple Regression Results for Commitment Dimensions Affective Normative Perceived high Variable entered commitment commitment sacrifice Perceived lack of alternatives 1 Age * Sex Tenure with supervisor.10.12*.15**.10* Language.15**.12*.04.15** Δ R 2.03*.04*.03*.04** 2 Role clarity.25***.10.15* -.01 Organization-based self-esteem.28*** Work locus of control.00.11*.00.31*** Δ R 2.20***.04***.04**.11*** 3 Role clarity x Organization-based self-esteem * -.08 Role clarity x Work locus of control.05.12* Δ R *.02*.01 Note. For Sex, 1 = Female, 2 = Male. For Language, 1 = French, 2 = English. For Affective commitment, Step 1: F (4, 369) = 2.85, p <.05; Step 2: F (7, 366) = 15.82, p <.001; Step 3: F (9, 364) = 12.51, p <.001. For Normative commitment, Step 1: F (4, 370) = 3.33, p <.05; Step 2: F (7, 367) = 4.31, p <.001; Step 3: F (9, 365) = 4.06, p <.001. For Perceived high sacrifice, Step 1: F (4, 369) = 2.92, p <.05; Step 2: F (7, 366) = 3.80, p <.001; Step 3: F (9, 364) = 3.60, p <.001. For Perceived lack of alternatives, Step 1: F (4, 370) = 3.80, p <.01; Step 2: F (7, 367) = 9.02, p <.001; Step 3: F (9, 365) = 7.34, p <.001. * p <.05; ** p <.01; *** p <.001.

12 247 Figure 1 Interaction between Role Clarity and Work Locus of Control (WLOC) in Predicting Normative Commitment. 5 Normative commitment Role clarity High WLOC Low WLOC Figure 2 Interaction between Role Clarity and Organization-Based Self-Esteem (OBSE) in Predicting Perceived High Sacrifice 5 4 High sacrifice Role clarity High OBSE Low OBSE

13 248 Discussion The purpose of this study was to provide a better understanding of commitment to supervisors by clarifying the dimensional structure of the construct, and by measuring the main and interactive effects of role clarity, work locus of control and organization-based self-esteem on its various forms. Using refined scales for measuring the perceived sacrifice and lack of alternatives dimensions, we found evidence suggesting that the four-dimensional model of organizational commitment extends to the supervisory level. Indeed, confirmatory factor analyses demonstrated the superiority of the four-dimensional model over more parsimonious models, suggesting that the forces binding employees to their supervisors may be comparable in nature to those binding them to their organizations. While researchers have brought attention to the multiplicity of commitment foci and to the independent impact that commitment to these entities exerts on employee behaviours (e.g., Stinglhamber et al., 2002), this study constitutes one of the first attempts at extending the four-dimensional model of commitment to an entity other than the organization. While the meaning of affective and normative commitment to the supervisor plausibly approaches that of the corresponding forms of organizational commitment, more work is needed in order to fully understand the true nature of perceived high sacrifice and lack of alternatives with regards to the supervisor. For instance, it has been argued that the organizational dimension of perceived sacrifice was based on two sets of ties with the organization, one set being instrumental and the other, motivational (Vandenberghe, Bentein, Michon, Chebat, Tremblay, & Fils, in press). Whether the perceived sacrifice associated with leaving a supervisor is also based on instrumental and motivational ties with the supervisor, however, remains to be verified. As for the lack of alternatives dimension of commitment to the supervisor, its content may depart considerably from the corresponding organizational commitment dimension. Indeed, we suspect that contextual factors (i.e. organizational structure, size, and culture) play a greater part in influencing an employee s perception of having few alternatives in terms of supervisors, than they do in influencing his or her perception of having few employment alternatives. Further research is required in order to better understand the nature of these two dimensions of commitment to the supervisor. With regards to the development of the various forms of commitment to the supervisor, results showed that role clarity exerted, as predicted, direct effects on affective commitment and perceived sacrifice. Indeed, employees who perceive their roles to be clearly defined tend to find themselves emotionally attached to their supervisor, and to view this condition as an advantage which would be sacrificed if they were to change supervisors. These findings support the view that employees tend to attribute role clarity, at least partially, to their supervisors. While research on leader-member exchange (LMX) theory has shown role clarity to be positively related to the quality of the exchange (cf. Gerstner & Day s meta-analysis, 1997), this study suggests role clarity may also contribute to the quality of supervisor-employee exchanges via its effect on affective commitment to the supervisor. Further research in this direction could prove fruitful. Counter to predictions, role clarity did not have a significant effect, overall, on normative commitment to the supervisor. However, work locus of control was found to have direct effects on this form of commitment, and the hypothesized interaction between role clarity and work locus of control was confirmed, such that the perception of role clarity resulted in higher levels of normative commitment only among external individuals. These findings suggest that dispositional factors may prevail over situational factors in the development of normative commitment to supervisors. In a similar vein, while studying the four dimensions of commitment towards five different foci the organization, the supervisor, the work group, the occupation and the customers Stinglhamber et al. (2002) found the normative dimension to be the most correlated across foci. The authors believed this finding to be explained by the fact that, as suggested out by Meyer and Allen (1991) and Wiener (1982), the development of normative commitment

14 249 results from socialization experiences encountered prior to organizational entry, in particular during the early childhood (Stinglhamber et al., 2002). This study s results are in line with such a dispositional conceptualization of normative commitment. As expected, work locus of control was also found to have a direct effect on perceived lack of alternatives at the supervisory level, with externals perceiving fewer alternatives than internals. One possible explanation for this finding is that, as has been argued before, internals take credit for working for a particular supervisor, as they have been shown to do for their current position (Spector, 1982), and therefore see it in their power to change that situation by changing supervisors. In parallel, organization-based self-esteem was found to have a direct effect on affective commitment to the supervisor. Previous research has shown organization-based self-esteem to be related to organizational affective commitment (e.g., Pierce et al., 1989; Tang & Gilbert, 1994; Gardner & Pierce, 1998; Hui & Lee, 2000; Chen et al., 2005), a finding easily explained by referring to the theory of social exchange processes which offers the theoretical underpinnings of commitment (Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005). Indeed, it could be expected that employees would respond to the perception of being valued and appreciated by their organization with a positive affective attitude towards that organization. By showing a direct relationship hence revealing a similar response mechanism between organization-based selfesteem and affective commitment to the supervisor, this study highlights the importance of the role played by the supervisor in the development of organization-based self-esteem. Further, this study shows the potential usefulness of developing instruments to better measure what might in fact be two different sources of situation-specific self-esteem. Finally, results showed that organization-based self-esteem interacted with role clarity in predicting perceived high sacrifice, such that role clarity increased this form of commitment only among individuals with low organization-based self-esteem. This finding appears to confirm the greater reactivity, or plasticity of low self-esteem individuals (Brockner, 1988) who, finding themselves at the mercy of situations, grant more importance and therefore react more to a situational factor such as role clarity. This finding also lends support to the idea previously put forward (Pierce et al., 1993; Pierce & Gardner, 2004) that self-esteem (and situation-specific self-esteems) might be important moderators in relationships between work conditions and attitudes or behaviours in the workplace. In addition, this finding supports a somewhat calculative conceptualization of the perceived sacrifice dimension of commitment to supervisors. Indeed, it was argued that the subjectively evaluated importance of role clarity would, in this case, be the factor at play in determining the employee s reaction. The fact that perceived sacrifice proved to be the only dimension affected by the interaction between role clarity and organization-based self-esteem seems to indicate that this dimension is more likely to be influenced by such an evaluation and, therefore, more calculative in nature than its affective and normative counterparts. In sum, this study contributes to the literature on commitment by extending the four-dimensional model to supervisors, and by providing one of the first attempts at identifying situational and personal factors that lead, directly or indirectly, to the development of the various forms of commitment to supervisors. This study s results, however, must be interpreted in light of certain limitations. First, the measurement of the lack of alternatives dimension of commitment to the supervisor appears to require further refinement, as the current instrument s low internal consistency (α =.60) indicates. Second, the use of a convenience sample might hamper the generalizability of our results. Finally, the cross-sectional nature or the research design prevents us from making causal inferences. However, apart from theoretical considerations, our reasoning is based on the fact that in previous research on commitment, role clarity has been considered to be an antecedent of commitment (e.g., Meyer et al., 2002), and personal characteristics have been viewed as the moderators in relationships between situational factors and commitment (Meyer et al., 1998; Judge & Kristof-Brown, 2004). Nonetheless, future research should examine whether the present findings could be replicated using longitudinal designs.

15 250 References Aiken, L.S. & West, S.B., Multiple Regression: Testing and Interpreting Interactions, Newbury Park CA: Sage, Becker, T. E., Foci and bases of commitment: Are they distinctions worth making?, Academy of Management Journal, 35(1), (1992), Becker, T. E., Billings, R. S., Eveleth, D. M., & Gilbert, N. L., Foci and bases of employee commitment: Implications for job performance, Academy of Management Journal, 39(2), (1996), Bentler, P.M., Comparative fit indexes in structural models, Psychological Bulletin, 107, (1990), Bentler, P.M., & Bonett, D.G., Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88, (1980), Burns, J.Z., & Otte, F.L., Implications of leader-member exchange theory and research for human resource development research, Human Resource Development Quarterly, 10(3), (1999), Brockner, J., Low self-esteem and behavioural plasticity: some implications, In L. Wheeler, & P.R. Shaver (Eds.), Review of personality and social psychology (pp ). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, Champoux, J.E., & Peters, W.S., Form, effect size, and power in moderated regression analysis, Journal of Occupational Psychology, 60, (1987), Chaplin, W.F., The next generation of moderator research in personality psychology, Journal of Personality, 59, (1991), Chen, Z.X., Aryee, S., & Lee, C., Test of a mediation model of perceived organizational support, Journal of Vocational Behavior, 66, (2005), Coleman, D.F., Irving, G.P., & Cooper, C.L., Another look at the locus of control organizational commitment relationship: it depends on the form of commitment, Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20(6), (1999), Coopersmith, S., The antecedents of self-esteem, New York: Freeman, Cropanzano, R., & Mitchell, M.S., Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary review, Journal of Management, 31(6), (2005), Gardner, D.G., & Pierce, J.L., Self-esteem and self-efficacy within the organizational context : An empirical examination, Group & Organization Management, 23(1), (1998), Gerstner, C.R. & Day, D.V., Meta-analytic review of leader-member exchange theory: Correlates and construct issues, Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(6), (1997), Gouldner, A. W., The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement, American Sociological Review, 25, (1960), Hahn, S.E., The effects of locus of control on daily exposure, coping and reactivity to work interpersonal stressors: a diary study, Personality and Individual Differences, 29, (2000), Hui, C., & Lee, C., Moderating effects of organization-based self-esteem on organizational uncertainty: Employee response relationships, Journal of Management, 26(2), (2000), Irving, P.G., & Coleman, D.F., The moderating effect of different forms of commitment on role ambiguity job tension relations, Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 20(2), (2003), Jöreskog, K.G., Sörbom, D, Du Toit, S., & Du Toit, M., LISREL 8: New statistical features. Chicago, IL: Scientific Software International, Judge, T.A., & Kristof-Brown, A., Personality, interactional psychology, and person-organization fit, In B. Schneider, & D.B. Smith (Eds.), Personality and organizations (pp ). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Kahn, R. L., Wolfe, D. M., Quinn, R. P., Snoek, J. D., & Rosenthal, R. A., Organizational stress: Studies in role conflict and ambiguity, New York: Wiley, Katz, D., & Kahn, R.L., The asocial psychology of organizations, New York: Wiley, 1966.

16 Levinson, H., Reciprocation: The relationship between man and organization, Administrative Science Quarterly, 9(4), (1965), McGee, G.W., & Ford, R.C., Two (or more?) dimensions of organizational commitment: Reexamination of the Affective and Continuance Commitment Scales, Journal of Applied Psychology, 72(4), (1987), Medsker, G.J., Williams, L.J., & Holahan, P.J., A review of current practices for evaluating causal models in organizational behavior and human resources management research, Journal of Management, 20(2), (1994), Meyer, J.P., & Allen, N.J., A three-component conceptualization of organizational commitment, Human Resource Management Review, 1, (1991), Meyer, J.P., & Herscovitch, L., Commitment in the workplace: Toward a general model Human Resource Management Review, 11, (2001), Meyer, J.P., Allen, N.J., & Smith, C.A., Commitment to organizations and occupations: Extension and test of a three-component conceptualization, Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(4), (1993), Meyer, J. P., Irving, P.G., & Allen, N.J., Examination of the combined effects of work values and early work experiences on organizational commitment, Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19, (1998), Meyer, J. P., Stanley, D. J., Herscovitch, L., & Topolnytsky, L., Affective, continuance and normative commitment to the organization: A meta-analysis of antecedents, correlates, and consequences, Journal of Vocational Behavior, 61, (2002), Pierce, J.L., & Gardner, D.G., Self-esteem within the work and organizational context: A review of the organization-based self-esteem literature, Journal of Management, 30(5), (2004), Pierce, J. L., Gardner, D. G., Cummings, L. L., & Dunham, R. B., Organization-based self-esteem: Construct definition, measurement, and validation, Academy of Management Journal, 32(3), (1989) Pierce, J.L., Gardner, D.G., Dunham, R.B., & Cummings, L.L., Moderation by organization-based selfesteem of role condition-employee response relationships, Academy of Management Journal, 36(2), (1993), Rizzo, J.R., House, R.J., & Lirtzman, S.I., Role conflict and ambiguity in complex organizations, Administrative Science Quarterly, 15(2), (1970), Rotter, J.B., Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement, Psychological Monographs, 80, (1966), Whole no Saks, A.M., Ashforth, B.E., The role of dispositions, entry stressors, and behavioral plasticity theory in predicting newcomers adjustment to work, Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21(1), (2000), Siders, M. A., George, G., & Dharwadkar, R., The relationship of internal and external commitment foci to objective job performance measures, Academy of Management Journal, 44(3), (2001), Spector, P.E., Behavior in organizations as a function of employee s locus of control, Psychological Bulletin, 91(3), (1982) Spector. P.E., Development of the work locus of control scale, Journal of Occupational Psychology, 61, (1988), Stinglhamber, F., Bentein, K., & Vandenberghe, C., Extension of the three-component model of commitment to five foci: Development of measures and substantive test, European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 18(2), (2002), Tang, T.L.P., & Gilbert, P.R., Organization-based self-esteem among mental health workers: A replication and extension, Public Personnel Management, 23(1), (1994), Vandenberghe, C., Bentein, K., & Stinglhamber, F., Affective commitment to the organization, supervisor, and work group: Antecedents and outcomes, Journal of Vocational Behavior, 64, (2004),