AFFECTIVE, NORMATIVE AND CONTINUANCE COMMITMENT: CAN THE `RIGHT KIND' OF COMMITMENT BE MANAGED?*

Transcription

1 Journal of Management Studies 36:3 May AFFECTIVE, NORMATIVE AND CONTINUANCE COMMITMENT: CAN THE `RIGHT KIND' OF COMMITMENT BE MANAGED?* RODERICK D. IVERSON University of Melbourne DONNA M. BUTTIGIEG Templeton College ABSTRACT This study examines the multi-dimensionality of organizational commitment: a ective, normative and continuance (including the sub-components of low perceived alternatives and high personal sacri ce), and how these are di erentially related to a set of antecedents and consequences (i.e. turnover intentions, absenteeism and acceptance of change). The results, based on a sample of 505 Australian male re- ghters, indicate that organizational commitment is best represented by the four-factors of a ective, normative, low perceived alternatives and high personal sacri ce. In addition, employees experience di erent personal, job-related and environmental causes of commitment depending on whether they feel they want to, ought to, or need to remain with the organization. Further, not all facets of commitment enhanced organizational e ectiveness, with a ective being the most bene cial (i.e. employees are less likely to leave, be absent and are more accepting of change) and low perceived alternatives being the most detrimental (i.e. less accepting of change). The implications of these ndings for the management of desirable forms of commitment are discussed. INTRODUCTION The link between organizational commitment and various e ectiveness indicators (such as turnover and absenteeism) has been well established (Mathieu and Zajac, 1990; Mowday et al., 1982). The literature suggests that individuals who are organizationally committed are less likely to be absent and to voluntarily leave their organizations. Following from this, it would seem that the implications for policy choice are relatively straightforward: organizations should consider the determinants of organizational commitment and ensure that these issues be addressed in their human resource (HR) strategies. Indeed, there is a growing body of literature highlighting the integral role of organizational commitment in the formulation of HR strategies and policies (Becker et al., 1996; Coopey and Hartley, 1991; Deery et Address for reprints: Roderick D. Iverson, Department of Management, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia Published by Blackwell Publishers, 108 Cowley Road, Oxford OX4 1JF, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA.

2 308 RODERICK D. IVERSON AND DONNA M. BUTTIGIEG al., 1994; Guest, 1987, 1995; Iles et al., 1990; Iverson, 1996; Meyer and Allen, 1997; Morris et al., 1993; Wood and Albanese, 1995). However, recent research has highlighted the problem of conceptual and operational ambiguities in the organizational commitment literature. This raises the question of whether it is appropriate to apply blanket HR policies to obtain `organizational commitment' without a complete consideration of the consequences for promoting di erent forms of commitment. The present study seeks to address this de ciency by examining both the determinants and consequences of three types of commitment. We begin with a discussion of the conceptualization of commitment. MULTI-DIMENSIONALITY OF ORGANIZATIONAL COMMITMENT There is still disagreement among researchers over the de nition of organizational commitment (e.g. Cohen and Kirchmeyer, 1995; Dunham et al., 1994; Hackett et al., 1994; Iverson and Roy, 1994; Jaros et al., 1993). Nevertheless, most researchers consider commitment to comprise of two distinct but related concepts or components: attitudinal and behavioural commitment. Attitudinal commitment (also known as a ective organizational commitment), represents the degree of loyalty an individual has for an organization. This form of commitment emphasizes an individual's identi cation and involvement in the organization (Porter et al., 1974). In contrast, behavioural commitment, re ects the process by which individuals link themselves to an organization and focuses on the actions of the individuals. Becker (1960) concentrated on what he termed the `side-bet-theory', which attempted to explain the process by which employees attach themselves to organizations through investments such as time, e ort and rewards. These investments, however, have costs which reduces to some degree an employee's freedom in his or her future activity. That is, employees get `locked' into the organization because of the costs incurred upon leaving (e.g. pension funds, rm speci c knowledge, seniority). Building on the side-bets tradition, Meyer, Allen and their colleagues (e.g. Allen and Meyer, 1990; Meyer and Allen, 1984, 1991; Meyer et al., 1990; Meyer et al., 1993; Meyer et al., 1989) viewed a ective, normative and continuance commitment as components of attitudinal commitment. They argued that previous research had often confused attitudinal and behavioural commitment and that a rigorous test of Becker's (1960) side-bet theory was not possible given the conceptual ambiguities. Accordingly, Meyer and Allen developed alternative scales for a ective and continuance commitment, as well as a third scale designed to measure normative commitment. Although there is little support in the literature for the existence of a normative commitment scale, it has been found to be distinct from a ective commitment (Meyer and Allen, 1997). Allen and Meyer (1990, p. 1) de ne a ective commitment as an `employee's emotional attachment to, identi cation with, and involvement in the organization', continuance commitment, sometimes termed calculative commitment (Hackett et al., 1994; Mathieu and Zajac, 1990), as `commitment based on the costs that employees associate with leaving the organization', and normative commitment as an `employee's feelings of obligation to remain with the organization'. In contrast to a ective and continuance commitment, normative commitment focuses on the `right or moral thing to do' (Weiner, 1982, p. 421), and concentrates on the obligation and/or moral

3 AFFECTIVE, NORMATIVE AND CONTINUANCE COMMITMENT 309 attachment of employees which is produced by the socialization of employees to the organization's goals and values (Allen and Meyer, 1990; Weiner, 1982). Organizational commitment is thus considered to be multi-dimensional, which has distinct policy implications for human resource management (HRM). In particular, that employees with strong a ective commitment remain because they feel they want to, those with strong normative commitment remain because they feel they ought to, and those with strong continuance commitment remain because they feel they need to (Meyer et al., 1993). As a consequence of the di erences in motives, these forms of commitment should have distinctive outcomes. That is, not all types of commitment may be bene cial for organizations (Konovsky and Cropanzano, 1991; Meyer et al., 1989; Somers, 1995). Therefore, a greater understanding of the types of commitment with respect to their antecedents (i.e. HR policies) and organizational outcomes (e.g. e ectiveness) is required. In this study we employ the three components of commitments (i.e. a ective, normative, [1] and continuance) as operationalized by Allen and Meyer (1990). Our aim is three-fold. First, to examine the antecedents of the various measures of commitment from an HRM perspective; and second to explore the notion that di erent types of commitment may be associated with disparate outcomes (i.e. turnover intentions, absenteeism and the general acceptance of change since the organization in the present study moved from under the control of a government department to a statutory authority). Another objective is to examine the dimensionality of the construct, continuance commitment. In contrast to the rst two constructs, researchers have recently reported two cost-related subscales of the continuance commitment: low perceived alternatives and high personal sacri ce associated with leaving the organization (Dunham et al., 1994; Hackett et al., 1994; McGee and Ford, 1987; Meyer et al., 1990). High personal sacri ce scale parallels Becker's (1960) concept of `side-bets' (McGee and Ford, 1987). In their analysis, McGee and Ford (1987) reported the two subscales to be signi cantly and di erentially related to a ective commitment. High personal sacri ce displayed a positive relationship and low perceived alternatives a negative relationship with a ective commitment. Hence, combining the two subscales into an overall scale of continuance commitment may suppress the e ects of each subscale leading to spurious results. It is therefore necessary to test whether continuance commitment is a valid component of organizational commitment, and if it is, to examine its dimensionality. TESTS OF THE THREE-COMPONENT MODEL Given the continuing debate in the literature regarding the psychometric characteristics of continuance commitment, we therefore undertook a con rmatory factor analysis of the factor structure of organizational commitment employing the technique of Linear Structural Relations (LISREL) VIII (JoÈ reskog and SoÈ rbom, 1993a). Essentially, this method involves specifying models with di erent factor structures and then examining the extent to which they ` t' the data. Consequently, we specify four di erent commitment models using a nested analysis (e.g. Hackett et al., 1994). The rst model is a null model ± that is, a model that hypothesizes that each of the items in the scale represent a single factor by itself. Estimating the

4 310 RODERICK D. IVERSON AND DONNA M. BUTTIGIEG null model is useful since it provides a baseline with which other models are compared in terms of the ` t' to the data. Second, we specify three other models based on the previous research. Accordingly, the second model hypothesizes that only one general factor underlies the commitment construct (i.e. the concept is unidimensional). The third model comprises the original Allen and Meyer (1990) model, which hypothesizes that three factors (i.e. a ective, normative and continuance commitment) best represent organizational commitment, while the nal model is based on the four-factor solution (i.e. a ective, normative, low perceived alternatives and high personal sacri ce) as suggested by current research (e.g. Hackett et al., 1994; McGee and Ford, 1987). The con rmatory factor analysis procedure will allow us to address the third aim of the research. This study was conducted in a publicly owned re rescue service in Australia. Factors speci c to that organization will be important in understanding commitment. A brief description of the organization will follow, before discussion of the model. FIRE FIGHTING RESCUE UNITS The organization examined in this study consists of 16 re ghting and rescue units associated with a larger statutory authority dealing with air transport. The authority was created in 1988 to provide services required by the aviation industry and to set Australia's safety and environmental standards. The authority is divided into three core divisions (Rescue and Fire ghting Service, Air Tra c Services, and Safety Regulation and Standards), as well as support and corporate divisions. The body provides the aviation industry with air tra c control, ight advisory services, communications, navigation and surveillance, rescue and re ghting at major airports and aviation search and rescue. Each re ghting and rescue unit is assigned to a major airport, where the role of employees is to `play a waiting game'. Much of an employee's work time is idle; however, the job may potentially be the source of much anxiety and stress (Douglas, 1994). In particular, employees must remain in a constant state of readiness for any emergency. Investment in training is signi cant and incorporates practical training of response personnel to aviation incidents; structural re ghting; vehicle incidents; industrial re ghting and hazardous materials incidents. Group cohesiveness and identi cation are positively fostered by the nature of permanent rostering (over 24 hours in some units). In addition, work teams along with the isolated nature of the work promote dependency among employees. Given that all airports in Australia are controlled by a central governing body and the nature of work ( rm speci c skills related to re ghting and rescue), employees have limited job opportunities outside of the authority. A discussion of relationships between the antecedents and consequences of the three components of commitment follows. MODEL OF COMMITMENT The model has been tested in two stages. The antecedents of the three types of commitment can be de ned as personal, job related and environmental variables. The

5 AFFECTIVE, NORMATIVE AND CONTINUANCE COMMITMENT 311 second stage involves examining the relationship between each measure of commitment on three e ectiveness related outcomes: turnover intentions, absenteeism and acceptance of organizational change. As will be outlined in the analysis subsection, both antecedents and consequences are examined simultaneously within the same model. ANTECEDENTS OF COMMITMENT Although there is an extensive literature on the determinants of attitudinal commitment (which is similar to a ective (Dunham et al., 1994)), there have been relatively few empirical investigations examining the antecedents of normative and continuance commitment. Given this, we have chosen to take an exploratory approach by testing a fully recursive model. That is, we have incorporated the same exogeneous variables for the three endogenous commitment measures, in order to test for di erences. This is not to suggest that we are not hypothesizing particular relationships, but rather that it is of interest to control for similar variables when predicting each measure of commitment. Variables (de ned in table I) that have been included in the model have been drawn from the literature and contextual factors within the organization. The antecedent variables can be categorized as: Personal variables, comprising of the individual characteristics that employees bring to, or experience in the organization. These consist of education, tenure in the organization, tenure in a particular location, kinship responsibilities, job expectations, values, a ectivity (positive and negative), and work motivation. Job related variables, including job hazards, autonomy, co-worker and supervisory support, job security, routinization, stress, promotional opportunities, pay, distributive justice, the relationship with management, and experiences of appreciation by the public. Environmental variables, relating to the nonwork setting, including industrial relations (IR) climate and job opportunities. These variables will be discussed in terms of hypothesized relationships between the three forms of commitment. Personal Variables We expect the nine personal variables to di erentially predict the various facets of organizational commitment. Education is hypothesized to be negatively related to a ective, normative and continuance commitment. As education is a measure of general, rather than speci c human capital, employees should have greater job options so that they are not `locked' in the organization, weakening their moral attachment, while simultaneously raising job expectations that are unlikely to be met (Allen and Meyer, 1990; Hackett et al., 1994; Mathieu and Zajac, 1990; Mowday et al., 1982). Tenure (organization and location) represents investments or sunk costs in the organization, and as such should exhibit positive relations with continuance commitment. Mathieu and Zajac (1990) further assert that the number of years spent in the

6 312 RODERICK D. IVERSON AND DONNA M. BUTTIGIEG Table I. De nitions of variables Variable De nition Organizational commitment A ective commitment The degree of an employee's emotional attachment to, identi cation with, and involvement in the organization (Allen and Meyer, 1990) Normative commitment The degree to which an employee feels some sense of obligation to remain with the organization (Allen and Meyer, 1990) Continuance An assessment of costs associated with leaving the organization (Allen commitment and Meyer, 1990) comprising low perceived alternatives and high personal sacri ce (McGee and Ford, 1987) Performance Turnover intentions The degree of an employee's intention to leave an organization Absenteeism The non-attendance of employees for scheduled work (Chadwick-Jones et al. 1982; Johns, 1978) Organizational change The degree of acceptance of organizational change (Iverson, 1996) Personal variables a Kinship responsibilities Degree of an individual's obligation to immediate relatives in the community (Iverson, 1992) Job expectations Degree to which preconceived ideas are held by employees concerning organizational life Job values Degree of importance employees assign to characteristics associated with the job (Iverson, 1992) Positive a ectivity Extent to which an individual feels enthusiastic over time and across situations (Watson et al., 1987) Negative a ectivity Extent to which an individual experiences aversive emotional states over time and across situations (Watson et al., 1987) Work motivation Normative belief in the importance of work in general (Kanungo, 1982) Job related variables Job hazards Degree to which employees are exposed to harmful working conditions Autonomy Degree to which an individual has in uence over his/her job Co-worker support Degree of consideration expressed by co-workers (Blau, 1960) Supervisory support Degree of consideration expressed by the immediate supervisor for the subordinates (Michaels and Spector, 1982) Job security Extent to which an organization provides stable employment for employees (Herzberg, 1968) Routinization Degree to which employees' jobs are repetitive (Price and Mueller, 1981) Stress Degree of inability to complete job duties Promotional Degree of movement between di erent status levels in an organization opportunities (Martin, 1979) Pay Money and its equivalents which organizations give to employees for their service (Lawler, 1971) Distributive justice Degree to which an organization treats employees fairly Management Extent to which management responds to employee needs receptiveness Public Extent of gratitude expressed by public appreciation Environmental variables IR climate Degree of harmony between management and the unions (Dastmalchian et al., 1991) Job opportunities Availability of alternative jobs outside the organization Note: a Education and tenure have accepted de nitions in the literature.

7 AFFECTIVE, NORMATIVE AND CONTINUANCE COMMITMENT 313 organization also increases employees' psychological attachment, as well as the internalization of norms (Hackett et al., 1994). Kinship responsibilities refers to the number of dependents of employees. Employees with greater kinship responsibilities are more reliant on the organization to ful l their nancial needs. This should lead to greater attitudinal, normative (due to the need to reciprocate to the organization) and continuance commitment (Hackett et al., 1994; Iverson, 1992). Both job expectations and job values are expected to have negative e ects on all three facets of commitment. That is, the higher the expectations and values held by employees the less likely they would be respectively met and realized by the organization. Although there is little empirical evidence on the relationship between the personality traits of positive and negative a ectivity and organizational commitment, we envisage di erential relationships based on the various characteristics that are attributed to these types of individuals. Positive a ective employees, for example, report greater self-e cacy, an increased tendency to actively control their environment and seek task and informational support from supervisors and co-workers (George, 1989, 1992; Judge, 1993), while negative a ective employees are less inclined to seek to control their work environment, are less likely to seek communications from supervisors and co-workers that o er task and informational support, and are more susceptible to events that result in negative experiences or emotions (George, 1992; Iverson et al., 1998; Judge, 1993). Based on these characteristics, positive a ective employees would be expected to identify with and internalize the norms of the organization, while at the same time displaying lower continuance commitment. Negative a ective employees, in contrast, would be less likely to display attitudinal and normative attachment, but more likely to remain given the perceived lower alternatives and high sacri ce of leaving. Employees high in work motivation tend to exert considerable e ort (Mowday et al., 1979), which is rewarded by the organization. Thus, employees' attitudinal and moral commitment is increased; however, there is a simultaneous decrease in continuance commitment as they are able to nd alternative jobs in the labour market. Job Related Variables Allen and Meyer (1990) argue that the most important antecedents of a ective commitment are job related. Employing Farrell and Rusbults's (1981) reward±cost paradigm, rewards and costs are viewed as the discrepancy between the extent to which individuals value certain job properties and what job properties they actually receive on the job (rewards or costs). If individuals, for example, value and obtain a speci c job property (e.g. autonomy), this would be designated a reward. Rewards include such aspects as autonomy, co-worker and supervisory support, job security, promotional opportunities, distributive justice, management receptiveness and public appreciation, whereas job hazards, routinization and stress are examples of costs (Deery et al., 1994; Dunham et al., 1994; Iverson, 1996; Mathieu and Zajac, 1990). Hence, a ective commitment increases as the rewards of the job increase and the costs decrease. There is limited research on the impact of these factors on normative and continuance commitment (Dunham et al., 1994). None the less, it is expected that the extrinsic job rewards and costs that are perceived to result

8 314 RODERICK D. IVERSON AND DONNA M. BUTTIGIEG from the organization would respectively increase and decrease a moral obligation to reciprocate to the organization. Conversely, with the exception of autonomy which is under managerial control to some extent, employees may perceive intrinsic rewards and costs to derive from inherent aspects of the job (Dunham et al., 1994). In this situation, we expect them to display little relationship with normative commitment. Similarly, we hypothesize that with the exception of perceived investments, such as pay, job security, and promotional opportunities, other job related variables (which are not considered as a sunk cost) will not be related to continuance commitment (Dunham et al., 1994). Environmental Variables In relation to IR climate, having a harmonious and co-operative union±management relationship reduces the role con ict experienced by employees (Deery et al., 1994). That is, employees are not required to make an either/or choice between the unions and the organization (Iverson, 1996). In this situation, both a ective and normative commitment would be expected to increase, while IR climate is unlikely to a ect continuance commitment. We also envisage job opportunities to have negative e ects on a ective and continuance commitment. Employees simultaneously re-evaluate their loyalty to the organization and perceive the costs associated with leaving the organization as low when there are many alternatives (Farrell and Rusbult, 1981; Iverson and Roy, 1994; Rusbult and Farrell, 1983; Steers and Mowday, 1981). In terms of normative commitment, we anticipate that the moral obligation to remain should also be weakened when alternative job opportunities exist. CONSEQUENCES OF COMMITMENT Meyer and Allen (1991) suggest that disparate outcomes or behaviours are associated with the di erent factors motivating employees to remain within organizations. Accordingly, we hypothesize that a ective commitment would have a negative e ect on turnover intentions and absenteeism, and a positive e ect on the acceptance of change (Iverson, 1996; Mathieu and Zajac, 1990; Somers, 1995). Employees high in a ective commitment demonstrate emotional attachment, identi cation with and involvement in the organization. This would explain why these employees are less likely to engage in withdrawal behaviour and more willing to accept change (Meyer and Allen, 1997). Normative commitment is also expected to have similar consequences as a ective commitment. This type of commitment focuses on moral obligation which derives in part from the socialization practices of organizations. Employees have an obligation to reciprocate to the organization and therefore are less likely to leave, be absent, and be more receptive of change (Hackett et al., 1994; Meyer et al., 1993; Somers, 1995). The third form of commitment, continuance, is anticipated to have similar relationships as a ective commitment with both turnover intentions and absenteeism (Hackett et al., 1994; Mathieu and Zajac, 1990), but to exhibit a negative impact on change. As employees feel a sense of being `locked' into the organization due to the high costs of leaving (Jaros et al., 1993) they would be less likely to leave and be absent. The negative association with absenteeism may be explained by the

9 AFFECTIVE, NORMATIVE AND CONTINUANCE COMMITMENT 315 self-justi cation hypothesis, in which high levels of sunk costs spill over to a ect employees' emotional attachment (Meyer et al., 1990; Somers, 1995). However, the possibility of losing their investments (e.g. speci city of skills) would decrease their acceptance of organizational change. METHODS Sample The site for this research was a re ghting and rescue service located at 16 bases around Australia. The sample comprised 505 male employees, where the mean age, tenure and education of employees were 38 (ranging from 20 to 57) years (SD = 7.7), 12 (ranging from 1 to 34) years (SD = 7.3), and 11 (ranging from 6 to 16) years (SD = 1.4), respectively. Data Collection A joint consultative committee comprising management and the union was formed to oversee the project. A multiple-item (positive and negatively worded) mail survey was administered to all 618 male and two female employees across the 16 units. Participation was voluntary and responses were treated with con dentiality; 505 employees returned the survey by the due date (response rate of 82 per cent). Chi-square analysis was undertaken to assess the representativeness of the sample. The results indicated that there were no di erences between the sample and population of employees across the 16 locations (w 2 (15) = 7.28, p 4.05). Measurement A ve-point Likert type scale was employed to measure employees' perception to each item, ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5). The variables were constructed from established scales where possible. As both management and the union were endorsing the survey, some scales were modi ed (e.g. shortened). These modi ed scales have displayed acceptable psychometric properties in previous research (e.g. Iverson, 1996; Iverson and Erwin, 1997; Iverson and Kuruvilla, 1995). Cronbach's alpha (1951) was calculated for all multiple measures. [2] Organizational Commitment Due to space and time restrictions and the appropriateness to the Australian context, we selected twelve items (four for each component of commitment) from the original 24 items as identi ed by Allen and Meyer (1990). The 12 items were selected based on the largest factor loadings reported for each component. The three main and two subcomponents of organizational commitment are comprised of a ective (four items: M = 2.99; SD = 0.80; a = 0.79); normative (four items: M = 2.88; SD = 0.65; a = 0.69); continuance commitment (four items: M = 3.60; SD = 0.84; a = 0.81) and the two subscales of continuance commitment: low perceived alternatives (three items: M = 3.60; SD = 0.89; a = 0.83) and high personal sacri ce (one item: M = 3.59; SD = 1.09). In the analysis and results section we examine the factor structure of organizational commitment.

10 316 RODERICK D. IVERSON AND DONNA M. BUTTIGIEG Organizational Consequences Turnover intentions (two items: M = 2.57, SD = 0.90, a = 0.73) was operationalized using Porter et al.'s (1974) scale and is considered to be the immediate precursor of turnover behaviour (Price and Mueller, 1986). Absenteeism (one item: M = 1.41, SD = 1.55) was measured by the frequency of one and two days of self-reported absence (Brooke and Price, 1989). This measure assesses avoidable or voluntary absence (Erwin and Iverson, 1994). Although we were unable to obtain frequency of one and two days absence information from personnel records, we were able to examine total aggregate absence data. The results indicate that there was no statistical di erence between the total aggregate absenteeism collected from archival records and that reported by employees (t (504) = 1.31, p 4.05). This method has previously been used to validate selfreport measures of absenteeism (Dalton and Mesch, 1991). The scale of change, e.g. `In general the changes around here have been for the best' (three items: M = 2.46, SD = 0.88, a = 0.83) focused on employees' acceptance and was formulated by the researchers. Antecedents Personal variables. The three variables of education, tenure (organization) and tenure (location) were measured in years. Kinship responsibilities (four items: M = 3.34, SD = 1.00) was operationalized using the scale by Blegen et al. (1988). The measure of job expectations, `When I rst started at the re ghting service I expected to have opportunities such as variety on the job and involvement in decisions at work' (one item: M = 3.80, SD = 0.74) and job values, `It is very important to me to have opportunities such as variety on the job and involvement in decisions at work' (one item: M = 3.97, SD = 0.72) were adapted from Iverson (1992). The personality traits of positive (three items: M = 3.67, SD = 0.64, a = 0.68) and negative (three items: M = 3.01, SD = 0.86, a = 0.74) a ectivity were assessed by a shortened scale of the Multidimensional Personality Index obtained from David Watson (see Agho et al., 1992, 1993). Work motivation (four items: M = 2.11, SD = 0.62, a = 0.76) was measured by a modi cation of the scale by Kanungo (1982). Job related variables. Job hazards (four items: M = 3.04, SD = 0.80, a = 0.66) was assessed by a scale developed by Iverson and Kuruvilla (1995), while autonomy (six items: M = 2.85, SD = 0.86, a = 0.60) was operationalized by a scale adapted from Tetrick and Larocco (1987). Social support comprised co-worker (three items: M = 3.44, SD = 0.86, a = 0.84) and supervisory (three items: M = 3.37, SD = 0.96, a = 0.90) support as operationalized by a modi cation of House's (1981) scale. The variables of job security (six items: M = 2.87, SD = 0.79, a = 0.75) and routinization (three items: M = 3.10, SD = 0.93, a = 0.80) were measured by scales by Oldham et al. (1986) and Price and Mueller (1981, 1986), respectively. Job stress (ten items: M = 3.82, SD = 0.53, a = 0.69) measured the psychological symptoms of stress by focusing on the aspects of role ambiguity, role con ict, work overload and resource inadequacy from the scales of Kahn et al. (1964), Rizzo et al. (1970) and Caplan et al. (1975). Pay was assessed by the fortnightly salary (after tax) (log) (one item: M = 9.90, SD = 1.55). Both promotional opportunity (three items: M = 2.91, SD = 0.85, a = 0.72) and distributive justice (four items: M

11 AFFECTIVE, NORMATIVE AND CONTINUANCE COMMITMENT 317 = 2.78, SD = 0.95, a = 0.90) were assessed using the scales by Price and Mueller (1981). The two scales of management receptiveness, `I feel management address my concerns' (one item: M = 2.78, SD = 0.98) and public appreciation, e.g. `My job is appreciated by the travelling public' (two items: M = 2.67, SD = 0.97, a = 0.70) were formulated by the researchers. Environmental variables. The variables of IR climate (ten items: M = 2.43, SD = 0.72, a = 0.89) and job opportunities (three items: M = 2.25, SD = 0.87, a = 0.89) were operationalized using the scales of Dastmalchian et al. (1989) and Price and Mueller (1981, 1986), respectively. Analysis The statistical techniques of multiple regression and LISREL were utilized in the analysis. Both techniques were employed to assess and support the assumptions of linearity, additivity, model speci cation, multicollinearity and homoscedasticity (for procedures, see Berry and Feldman, 1985; Iverson et al., 1998). The statistical technique of LISREL was used to estimate the model. LISREL VIII produces a structural equation model and a measurement model (JoÈ reskog and SoÈ rbom, 1993a). The two major advantages of LISREL stem from the added precision to the estimation of the model by correcting for attenuation in random measurement error of manifest variables and, from the maximum likelihood method employed in LISREL, which produces both a statistical measure of goodness-of- t and explained variance (R-square) of the model. Anderson and Gerbing (1988) recommend that the measurement model be assessed independently and precede that of the structural model. Because of the problems associated with the non-normal sample distributions of absence measures (e.g. skewed and truncated), we rst employed the PRELIS program (JoÈ reskog and SoÈ rbom, 1993b) to `censor' (e.g. transform via normal scores) the variable. The PRELIS correlation matrix was then used as the input to LISREL. In relation to the measurement model the convergent validity (i.e. the degree of association between measures of a construct) and the discriminant validity (i.e. the degree to which measures of constructs are distinct) were tested by following the procedures as recommended by Bagozzi and Yi (1988). First, in testing the convergent validity we initially estimated the null model, then the one-factor, and nally the hypothesized model. The hypothesized model was found to signi cantly better t the data than both the null and one-factor models. This provided support for the convergent validity of the model. In addition, these results demonstrate that the probability of common method variance occurring is minimized (i.e. in ating relationship between constructs) (Podsako and Organ, 1986). This is a rmed by the better t of the competing models as they increased in complexity (Iverson, 1996; Korsgaard and Robertson, 1995). Second, the discriminant validity was tested by calculating the di erence between one model that allowed the correlations between the constructs to be constrained to unity (i.e. perfectly correlated) and another model that allowed the correlation between the constructs to be free (i.e. vary). This was carried out for one pair of constructs (with multiple items) at a time. For example, in testing the discriminant validity between positive and negative a ectivity, the rst model which allowed the correlations to be constrained to unity was estimated: w 2 (17) =

12 318 RODERICK D. IVERSON AND DONNA M. BUTTIGIEG , p The second model which allowed the correlations between positive and negative a ectivity to be free was also estimated: w 2 (16) = 66.32, p The w 2 ± di erence test between the two models (w d 2 (1) = , p 5.001) indicated that positive and negative a ectivity exhibited discriminant validity. The discriminant validity of all constructs in the model was con rmed. The ndings of the structural model, along with the test of the three component model of commitment are contained in the results section following. RESULTS The following section presents three sets of results: rst, the con rmatory factor analysis of the organizational commitment scale; second, the antecedents; and third, the consequences of a ective, normative, and continuance commitment. Con rmatory Factor Analysis The con rmatory factor analysis results of the three-dimensional Allen and Meyer (1990) scale are reported in table II. Given that the factors of commitment are part of the general commitment construct, we allowed the di erent factors to be correlated in the parameter speci cations. Four factors (a ective, normative, and continuance: low alternatives and high personal sacri ce) of organizational commitment provides the best t to the data in this sample. The goodness of t indices of GFI, AGFI, CFI, NFI and PFI have values ranging from 0 to 1, with higher values representing a better t. In contrast to the other indices, as the RMSR approaches 0 it indicates a better t of the model to the sample data set. Researchers tend to provide alternative t indices due to the lack of agreement on the `best index' and because of some indices being confounded by sample size (Gerbing and Anderson, 1993). Consistent with the convention in the literature we provide alternative t indices, but focus on the CFI (Bentler, 1990) as it avoids the underestimation of t and is less a ected by sample size than chi-square (Gerbing and Anderson, 1993). Relative to alternate factor models, the four factor model provided a signi cant improvement as demonstrated by all the goodness-of- t indicators. Each of the higher factor models is signi cantly di erent (via chi-square di erence tests), from the previous lower factor model. For example, the one-factor model had a signi cant improvement in t over the null model (Dw 2 (12) = , p 5.05), the three-factor model represented a better t of the data than the one-factor model (Dw 2 (3) = , p 5.05) and the four-factor model was signi cantly di erent from the three-factor model (Dw 2 (2) = 25.28, p 5.05), with a much higher CFI of.907. [3] These results clearly indicate that the four-factor solution best ts the data (e.g. the model exceeded Widaman's (1985).01 criterion for di erences), and is consistent with current research (Dunham et al., 1994; Hackett et al., 1994; McGee and Ford, 1987; Meyer et al., 1990). The factor loadings along with the questions are contained in table III. In terms of continuance commitment, the two subscales of low perceived alternatives and high personal sacri ce correspond to factors 3 and 4, respectively. McGee and Ford (1987) employing the original eight items of Allen and Meyer's (1990) continuance commitment scale reported the same three items to load on the subscale of low perceived alternatives. They also observed three items to represent

13 AFFECTIVE, NORMATIVE AND CONTINUANCE COMMITMENT 319 Table II. Goodness-of- t of alternate factor model speci cations of organizational commitment Model w 2 df p 5. GFI AGFI RMSR CFI NFI PFI Null 1, ± ± ± 1 factor 1, factor factor Notes: Goodness of t index (GFI) is a measure of the relative amount of variance and covariance jointly accounted for by the model; the adjusted goodness-of- t (AGFI) represents the amount of variance and covariance accounted for by the model adjusted for the degrees of freedom in the model; the root mean square residual (RMSR) is the subtraction of hypothetical covariance matrix from the sample covariance matrix (JoÈ reskog and SoÈ rbom, 1993a); the normed comparative t index (CFI) is the preferred index for small samples which is a population measure of comparative model misspeci cation (Bentler, 1990); the normed t index (NFI) compares the t of the model to the null model when all items are constrained to be independent of each other (Bentler and Bonnett, 1980); and the parsimonious t index (PFI) corrects the NFI by adjusting for the degrees of freedom for the model (James et al., 1982). Table III. Organizational commitment items and factor loadings for the four factor solution Organizational Commitment Items Maximum likelihood Estimates of factor loadings Item reliability ACS1. ACS2. ACS3. ACS4. NCS1. NCS2. NCS3. NCS4. CCS1. CCS2. CCS3. CCS4. I do not feel like `part of the family' at the organization a The organization has a great deal of personal meaning for me I do not feel `emotionally attached' to the organization a I feel a strong sense of belonging to the organization I think that people these days move from organization to organization too much Jumping from organization to organization does not seem at all unethical to me a One of the major reasons I continue to work for the organization is that I believe that loyalty is important and therefore I feel a sense of moral obligation to remain Things were better in the days when people stayed with one organization for most of their careers Right now, staying with the organization is a matter of necessity as much as desire I feel that I have too few options to consider leaving the organization One of the few serious consequences of leaving the organization would be the scarcity of available alternatives It would be very hard for me to leave the organization right now, even if I wanted to Notes: ACS = A ective Commitment Scale; NCS = Normative Commitment Sale; CCS = Continuance Commitment Scale. a Reverse coded.

14 320 RODERICK D. IVERSON AND DONNA M. BUTTIGIEG Table IV. Goodness-of- t of alternate factor model speci cations of continuance commitment and job opportunities Model w 2 df p 5. GFI AGFI RMSR CFI NFI PFI Null 1, ± ± ± 1 factor factor factor high personal sacri ce, including our item of CCS4. The psychometric limitations of operationalizing the subscale of high personal sacri ce by the single item of CCS4 should be a consideration in subsequent analyses. Deriving from the dimensionality debate surrounding continuance commitment, we also examined the construct validity of the component of low perceived alternatives with that of the antecedent measure of job opportunities. Job opportu- Table V. LISREL correlations Determinants A ective Commitment 2. Normative Commitment Low Perceived Alternatives ±.20 ± High Personal Sacri ce Turnover Intentions ±.60 ± ± Absenteeism ±.27 ± ± Organizational Change ± ±.23 ± Education ±.12 ±.17 ±.08 ± ± Tenure (Organization) ±.05 ± ± Tenure (Location) ± ±.00 ± Kinship Responsibilities ±.09 ± ±.03 ± ± Job Expectations ±.00 ± ±.04 ± ± Job Values ±.06 ± ±.03 ±.02 ± Positive A ectivity ±.20 ±.09 ±.14 ± ±.03 ±.05 ±.02 ± Negative A ectivity ± ±.06 ±.06 ±.01 ±.03 ± Work Motivation ± ±.23 ± ± Job Hazards ± ± Autonomy ± ±.23 ± ± Coworker Support ±.21 ±.01 ±.24 ± ±.10 ±.08 ± Supervisory Support ±.17 ±.01 ±.22 ± ±.02 ±.03 ± Job Security.28 ±.07 ±.25 ±.06 ±.17 ± ±.03 ±.09 ±.15 ± Routinization ±.57 ± ± ± ± Stress ± ± Promotional Opportunities ± ±.29 ± ±.12 ±.08 ±.10 ± Pay (log) ±.03 ± ± Distributive Justice ± ±.25 ± ± ±.03 ± Management Receptiveness ±.22 ±.07 ±.26 ± ±.08 ± Public Appreciation ± ±.19 ± ± ± I. R. Climate ± ±.20 ± ± Job Opportunities ±.30 ±.16 ±.27 ± ± ±.04 ±.03 ±.01 Note:

15 AFFECTIVE, NORMATIVE AND CONTINUANCE COMMITMENT 321 nities focuses on both the perceived number and availability of job vacancies as operationalized by the ease to which respondents can nd a job as good, better, or much better than their current one (Price and Mueller, 1981, 1986). This contrasts with low perceived alternatives, which emphasizes the costs associated with leaving the organization given the loss of side bets. This was measured by respondents assessing the costs, options and consequences of leaving with such statements as `Right now, staying with the organization is a matter of necessity as much as desire'. Given the conceptual ambiguity with continuance commitment, i.e. low alternatives and high personal sacri ce, we investigated four-factor structures: null, one factor, two factor ± continuance commitment and job opportunities; and three-factor model: low alternatives, high personal sacri ce, and job opportunities, using con rmatory factor analysis (JoÈ reskog and SoÈ rbom, 1993a). The results are presented in table IV, and indicate that the three-factor model was best tting of the data. The one-factor model was a signi cant improvement in regard to the null model (Dw 2 (7) = , p 5.05), while the two-factor model was a better t than the one-factor model (Dw 2 (1) = , p 5.05). Table V. LISREL correlations (continued) ±.26 ± ± ±.04 ± ± ±.23 ±.12 ± ± ± ±.12 ± ± ± ±.13 ± ±.16 ±.02 ± ±.01 ± ± ±.51 ±.33 ±.35 ± ± ± ±.19 ±.35 ±.35 ± ±.15 ± ± ± ±.50 ± ±.01 ± ± ± ±.01 ±.11 ± ±.23 ± ± ± ±.41 ± ±.01 ±.20 ± ± ± ±.33 ± ±.08 ± ± ± ±.25 ± ±.19 ± ± ± ±.26 ± ± ± ±.20 ±.17 ±.21 ± ±.28 ±.04 ±.31 ±.20 ±.15 ±.26

16 322 RODERICK D. IVERSON AND DONNA M. BUTTIGIEG Finally, the three-factor model was signi cantly better able to t the data than the two-factor model (Dw 2 (1) = 10.38, p 5.05), with a CFI of.963. [4] The results demonstrate that low alternatives, high personal sacri ce, and job opportunities are distinct factors. The correlations (LISREL) among all measures are contained in table V. Antecedents Personal variables. Overall, our results showed that personal variables are important predictors of the di erent forms of commitment (see table VI). Employees with greater education experience decreased normative commitment (b = ±.11, p 5.05), while those with investments such as greater tenure in the organization feel low perceived alternatives (b =.17, p 5.01). Kinship responsibilities had di erential impacts on normative commitment (b = ±.10 p 5.05) and low perceived alternatives (b =.08, p 5.05). The relationship with normative commitment re ects the work/family con ict that employees experience (Cohen and Kirchmeyer, 1995; Wiley, 1987). Employees with increased family obligations display lower moral obligations to remain in the organization. That is, employees may resolve their con ict by choosing to satisfy family needs over organizational needs. However, employees are also more likely to stay in the organization when they perceive low alternative employment opportunities. The costs of leaving (e.g. income, status, superannuation) tie employees to the organization. In this situation, employees rely on the organization as a means of ful lling important kinship obligations (Iverson, 1992). Both job expectations (b =.07, p 5.05) and job values (b =.10, p 5.01) had positive impacts on a ective commitment, with the former also displaying a positive relationship with normative commitment (b =.14, p 5.01), and the latter demonstrating a positive in uence on high personal sacri ce (b =.13, p 5.01). Employees identify and feel a moral obligation to remain with the organization when their expectations are met, while having their values realized makes the loss of investments great if they were to leave. The personality traits of positive and negative a ectivity were found to di erentially predict a ective commitment, low perceived alternatives, and high personal sacri ce. Positive a ectivity had a positive relationship with a ective commitment (b =.09, p 5.05), while having a negative relationship with low perceived alternatives (b = ±.11, p 5.05). In addition, negative a ectivity was found to have a positive relationship with both low perceived alternatives (b =.12, p 5.01) and high personal sacri ce (b =.14, p 5.01). Although research is scant, there is some evidence to suggest that employees who perceive work experiences in a generally positive and enthusiastic manner are more likely to identify with the organization (Meyer and Allen, 1997). High positive a ective individuals also perceive the costs associated with leaving the organization as minimal. In contrast, employees who perceive events in a generally negative and aversive manner remain in organizations because of the perceived futility of searching for employment alternatives and the potential loss of investments. Work motivation displayed similar relationships as job expectations, where employees who believe in work in general both want to (b =.23, p 5.001) and feel an obligation to remain (b =.20, p 5.001). The intrinsic rewards associated with re ghting may explain this result.

17 AFFECTIVE, NORMATIVE AND CONTINUANCE COMMITMENT 323 Job related variables. As shown in table VI, we found general support for the reward±cost perspective (Farrell and Rusbult, 1981) in explaining the various facets of commitment. In relation to job hazards there is little research linking it to normative commitment (b =.19, p 5.01). In one of only a few studies, Iverson and Roy (1994) using a sample of blue-collar workers from a pulp and paper manufacturing plant, report job hazards to have a negative impact on behavioural commitment (similar to continuance commitment). This result is not unexpected given the dangerous nature of re ghters' work. The public interest aspect of their job (i.e. re ghters are willing to put their lives on the line for the travelling public) increases their moral obligation to remain in the organization. Co-worker support had a positive e ect on a ective commitment (b =.16, p 5.01) Table VI. LISREL (standardized coe cients) for a ective, normative and the continuance commitment subscales of low perceived alternatives and high personal sacri ce Variables AC NC CC:LoAlt CC:HiSac Personal variables Education ±.03 ±.11* ±.06 ±.00 Tenure (organization) **.01 Tenure (location) ± ± Kinship responsibilities ±.03 ±.10*.08*.02 Job expectations.07*.14** ±.01 ±.03 Job values.10** ± ** Positive a ectivity.09*.04 ±.11* ±.06 Negative a ectivity ±.02 ±.00.12**.14** Work motivation.23***.20*** ± Job related variables Job hazards.05.19**.02 ±.02 Autonomy ±.08 ±.04 Co-worker support.16** ±.03 ± Supervisor support ±.03 ±.06 ±.03 ±.04 Job security.09* ±.05 ±.16*** ±.08 Routinization ±.28*** ±.14* Job stress ± ± Promotional opportunities.10* Pay (log) ±.01 ±.02.09*.12** Distributive justice Management receptiveness.14**.15* ±.11* ±.13** Public appreciation.03 ±.07 ± Environmental variables IR climate ±.00 ±.02 ±.06 ±.03 Job opportunities ±.10** ±.15** ±.38*** ±.29*** R Notes: AC = a ective commitment; NC = normative commitment; CC = continuance commitment; CC:LoAlt = low perceived alternatives subscale; CC:HiSac = high personal sacri ce subscale. * p (one-tailed) for standardized coe cients; ** p (one-tailed) for standardized coe cients; *** p (one-tailed) for standardized coe cients.