PERCEIVED ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORT AND EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT

Pinnacle Research Journals 54 Vol. 1 Issue 1, Febuary 2014, ISSN PERCEIVED ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORT AND EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT SEYED ALI AKBAR AHMADI*, SAEED TAVAKOLI**, PARIA POURDARVISH HEIDARY*** *Professor of Public Administration, Payam Noor University, Iran. **Master Student of Public Administration, Payam Noor University, Iran. ***MBA Student, Marketing Management, Mazandaran University of Science and Technology, Iran. ABSTRACT As environment gets more competitive, employees are more concerned about to what extent organization cares about them and their well-being Employer s or organization s treatment has a great impact on employee perception and it leads employee to treat the organization well in return This psychological contract will increase employee commitment and engagement. Organization should show its commitment to the employee to form basis for POS and increase employee pledge, as well as employee belief that his greater effort will be rewarded. The aim of the present study is to investigate the relationship between POS and job engagement of 1200 personnel of Supreme Leadership in Iranian Universities. According to Krejcie & Morgan (1970), the minimum number of sample size was determined as 291 people. After distributing 350 questionnaires among personnel, 310 usable questionnaires were returned. The results of the current study show that POS has a significant positive relationship with job engagement of employees (Path Coefficient: 0.90, T-value: 12.77). Keywords: Perceived Organizational Support, Job Engagement. INTRODUCTION It is essential for leaders and executives to be concerned about the level of engagement in the work place (Seijts & Crim, 2006a). As all employees are engaged the environment and culture in the organization gets better and is fully engaged there is no hostility. According to Bakker & Demerouti (2008) four reasons why engaged employees perform better are: Positive emotions, Good health, Ability to mobilize resources, transfer of engagement. Engagement results in lessening complain of employees about unfairness at work when they see their co-workers in specific tasks are focused, concentrated and engaged. According to Seijts &

Pinnacle Research Journals 55 Crim (2006b) 84% of distinctly engaged employees believe they can positively have an impact on the quality of their organization s products, in contrast of just 31% of the disengaged ones. Bakker & Leiter (2010) have supported the statement that modern organizations need employees who are frequently engaged at work and are also energetic and committed. These employees increase profitability through higher output, customer satisfaction, boosted sales, and employee maintenance. As Eisenberger (2009a) states professional employees (e.g. nurses, lawyers, doctors) have more tendency to compensate perceived organizational support (POS). Therefore the combination of worker s organization identification and professional identification impacts performance behaviors and engagement. As such when employees strongly identify with the organization, perceived organizational support has the most positive impact on professional employees engagement and work performance (Eisenberger, 2009b). Eisenberger (1990) is one of the original leading pioneers of studying perceived organizational support (POS). In 1986 with the observation that employees are interested in the organization s commitment, but managers are interested in profiting from the organization s commitment, POS began. Experts on POS stated that in organizational research POS theory is one of the most common measures of the compensation norm. Rhoades & Eisenberger (2002) consider POS as the most vital source of socio-emotional events as it imparts to employees engagement and organizations. Supplementary, this support leads to stability and commitment, which are employee s need. Perceived organizational support creates healthier and more manageable culture as well as better environment. It also support relates to employees job satisfaction; well-being; attitudes; affective commitment; positive mood; job performance; employees moral motivation; fairness; and organizational rewards. Eisenberger et al., (1986) stated that rewards and incentives are significant components in maintaining employees engagement, vigor, absorption, dedication and faithfulness. They also cited that staffs tendency to assign the organization humanlike characteristics describe perceived organizational support. Eisenberger et al., (2002a) noted that as supervisors act as organizational agents they have a major influence relating to perceived organizational support therefore POS includes favorable treatment from a supervisor received by employees. Employees which are connected with perceived organizational support receive four major categories of beneficial treatment such as : supervisor support, fairness, favorable job condition and organizational support (Eisenberg et al., 2002b). Perceived organizational support (POS) predicts and determines many antecedents such as job performance, job commitment, job satisfaction, job dedication, and task performance (Muse &

Pinnacle Research Journals 56 Stamper, 2007) and employee engagement (Saks & Rotman, 2006). Researches based on these two theories - perceived organizational support and employee engagement - have demonstrated that perceived organizational support is positively related to employee engagement. LITERATURE REVIEW PERCEIVED ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORT Theory of Perceived organizational support was derived from theories related to the relationships between employers and employees, which was based on mutual expectations and obligations (Golparvar, Nayeri and Mahdad, 2009). According to this theory when the organization values employee s cooperation and efforts and pays attention to their welfare employees feel they are supported by the organization (Eisenberger, and Eder, 2008). According to Shore and Shore (1995), some of the condition and rewards that can show organization care about its staffs are: job security, training, promotion, pay, autonomy, and recognition and role stressors. POS guarantee employees that the organization is behind them when they face a problem, execute their job and handle stressful situations (David, Martha, Neil, 2007). As environment gets more competitive employees are more concerned about to what extent organization cares about them and their well being (Eisenberger et al., 1986). Supervisors have a major influence relating to perceived organizational support (POS). Since supervisors perform as organizational mediators, the employee s receipt of satisfactory behavior from a supervisor should contribute as well to perceived organizational support (Eisenberger et al., 2002c). Employer s or organization s treatment has a great impact on employee perception and it leads employee to treat the organization well in return (Eisenberger, Armeli, Rexwinkel, Lynch, & Rhoades, 2001). This psychological contract increases employee commitment and engagement. According to Allen and Meyer (1996) organization should show its commitment to the employee to form basis for POS and increase employee pledge, as well as employee belief that his greater effort will be rewarded. As such employee comprehends that the organization is ready to reward his efforts to achieve organizational goals. This comprehension will increase employee trust in their organization and belief in impartial manner of the organization in long term (Eisenberger et al., 1990b). Organization s proceedings, which are positive and important in the eyes of employees such as support for employee development, affect the mindset of employee towards the organization and this effect should be positive (Benson, Finegold, and Mohrman, 2004). Supervisor s strong support can help to lessen the possibilities of the employee to quit the job and rate of burnout or turnover (Kalliah and Beck, 2001). Low levels of supervisor support for the employee are

Pinnacle Research Journals 57 related with increased turnover (Hatton and Emerson, 1998b). Witt (1991) say POS influence employee s affective reactions to their job such as positive mood and job satisfaction that change employee overall attitudes towards his or her job. POS make employees work hard and beyond their assigned responsibilities, such as helping fellow coworkers, protecting organization from different risks, gaining more skills and knowledge and giving suggestions to benefit the organization to achieve organizational goals (George and Brief, 1992). Organizational support has four dimensions: fairness of treatment, supervisor support, job conditions and organizational rewards. EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT Bakker et al. (2008) defined employee engagement (EE) as an affirmative, satisfying and workrelated state of mind, which is considered by vigor, dedication and absorption. There are several reasons for the concept of employee engagement being related to employee s well-being and work behavior. First, according to Schaufeli et al., (2002a) work engagement is a positive experience in itself. Second, it is linked to positive work effect and good health (Schaufeli et al., 2001a). Mostly definitions of engagement include cognition, emotional, and behavioral component. By cognition it means employees beliefs about the management, organization and working condition. The emotional component, beliefs, refers to employees positive attitude, company s values, leaders, working condition and how they feel about their employer (Kahn, 1990; Towers Perrin, 2003; Robinson et al. 2004). Towers Perrin, (2003) stated that the behavioral components refer to the level of willingness to act in certain ways, skills that employees offer. Scholars demonstrated a couple of definitions for engagement. One of these definition that is stated by Kahn (1990a) is the harnessing of organization members selves to their work roles; in engagement, people express and engage themselves bodily, emotionally and cognitively during job performance (p.694). He emphasized on the personal engagement of workers. According to Kahn (1990c) engagement means the employees psychological that presence artwork. Burnout researchers, recommend that engagement is a positive opposite of burnout. Maslach et al. (2001) described it as, Engagement is characterized by energy, involvement, and efficacy (p.416). Schaufeli et al. (2002b) described work engagement as a positive, satisfying, work-related state of mind that is characterized by vigor, dedication, and absorption (p. 74). They described work engagement as contractive concept to burnout. They also stated that it is a more persistent and pervasive affective-cognitive state that is not focused on any particular event, object, singular, or behavior (Schaufeli et al., 2002c, p. 74). Harter et al. (2002, p.269) mentioned employee engagement as the individuals involvement and satisfaction with as well as enthusiasm for work.

Pinnacle Research Journals 58 Seijts & Crim, (2006c) defined an engagement employee as a person who is fully involved in and eager about his or her work also care about the future of the organization. Engaged employee is willing to invest the optimum and ultimate attempt by doing even extra work. He or she work with passion and feel a deep connection with the organization. They also stated that employee engagement (EE) is a determining factor in the failure and success and affect the mindset of people in any organization. A supportive organizational climate and culture can be promoted and fostered by employee engagement, which may lead to employees becoming more loyal, versatile and engaged at work. Some advantages of employee engagement are being more profitable, more customer-focused, safer, more productive and less likely to leave the organizations. Bakker, Schaufeli et al., (2003) demonstrated that work engagement is a collective process, in some parts of the organization employees are more engaged than those in the other segment, hence, engagement also refers to sets of employees that may be different in their levels of engagement as well. According to Bezuijen et. al., (2010) in today s rapidly changing workplace, employee engagement is becoming progressively important for employee success and organizational effectiveness. Therefore more researches need to be done for work engagement. As it mentioned above engagement has three major features: vigor, dedication and absorption. 1. VIGOR Vigor as one of the three major components of engagement refers to high levels of energy, lack of fatigue, mental resilience during working and the willingness to vest in individual s particular work and also the persistent optimistic attitude even in face of adversity and challenges (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2001). Employees with vigor fell bursting with energy at work. 2. DEDICATION Schaufeli et al., (2001a) defined dedication, another component of engagement, as being strongly involved in personal work and gaining possession of a sense of significance, inspiration, pride, challenge and enthusiasm. It occurs when a specific employee is totally and happily occupied in his or her work and it is difficult for him or her to detach him or herself from it which mean time passes quickly. Dedicated employees find the work that they do full of sense and purposefulness, when they are working they forget everything else around them. 3. ABSORPTION According to Schaufeli et al., (2001b) absorption which is the final component of engagement refers to involves being fully concentrated and happily engrossed in one s work, time passes quickly and the it is difficult for employee to detach him or herself from work (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2008). Absorbed employee forgets everything else around while he or she is working.

Pinnacle Research Journals 59 RESEARCH FRAMEWORKS AND HYPOTHESIS DEVELOPMENT: Many researchers investigated the relationship between perceived organizational support (POS) and employee engagement (EE) and whether or not it is significant to focus on supporting employees to be more engaged at work. Scholars have found that perceived organizational support (POS) affects performance and well- being (Eisenberger et al., 1986b) according to them perceived organizational support is an independent variable and employee engagement is a dependent variable that has three factors: vigor, dedication and absorption. These studies had been done to answer following questions: (1) What is the correlation between perceived organizational support and employee engagement? (2) How does perceived organizational support (POS) stimulate job engagement? Scholars used The Perceived Organizational Scale to collect data on the independent variable. Rhoades et al., (2001) measured perceived organizational support (POS) typically use the eightitem perceived organizational support scale. Participants indicated the extent to which they agreed with eight particular statements based on a seven-point Likert type scale. (0=intensely disagree, 1= relatively disagree, 2=marginally disagree, 3=neither agree nor disagree, 4=marginally agree, 5=relatively agree, 6=intensely agree). The dependent variable, Employee Engagement (EE) was measured by the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES) (Schaufeli et al., 2002d).The first such test was the UWES scale and originally included 24 items and then was reduced to 17. The scale consists of three subscales: absorption (six items), vigor (six items), and dedication (five items). Seven-point frequencybased scale (0=intensely disagree, 1=relatively disagree, 2=marginally disagree, 3=neither agree nor disagree, 4=marginally agree, 5=relatively agree, 6=intensely agree) were used to rate all of the seventeen items. The Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES) had been used and strongly approved of this particular scale by experts in the field; since its inception, in 1999. All three subscales are regarded highly internally consistent and precise. The maximum score of the instrument is anticipated to be 0.87 and the lowest should be 0.315. A score of 0.87 refers to a high correlation between the dependent and independent variables. A 0.315 demonstrates a low correlation between the independent and dependent variables. A.Gokul, G.Sridevi & Dr.P.T.Srinivasan (2012) examined the influence of work engagement and perceived organizational support on employees affective commitment. They stated that affirmative organizational support through employees dedication is significant for them to be affectively committed to their organization and that committed employees outperform noncommitted ones. Hence organizations need to struggle better to provide a supportive climate for their employees to be better committed and consequently perform better.

Pinnacle Research Journals 60 Robert Eisenberger, Peter Fasolo, and Valerie Davis-LaMastro (1990) stated there is a positive relationship of employees' perception that the organization value and care about them with (a) conscientiousness in carrying out conventional job responsibilities, (b) expressed affective and calculative involvements in the organization, and (e) innovation on behalf of the organization in the absence of anticipated direct reward or personal recognition. Michael P. O Driscoll, Donna M. Randall (1999) investigate the role of perceived organizational support and satisfaction with rewards in demonstrating job engagement and organizational commitment (affective and continuance commitment) by exploring sample of diary workers in Ireland and New Zealand. As a result they stated perceived organizational support was significantly related to job engagement and organizational pledge, in contrast it does not have correlation with continuance commitment. Figure 1. Research Framework H: Perceived organizational support has a significant influence on employee engagement. METHODOLOGY STATISTICAL POPULATION Statistical population in this study includes 1200 personnel of supreme leadership in Iranian universities. According to Krejcie & Morgan (1970), the minimum number of sample size was determined as 291 people. After distributing 350 questionnaires among respondents, 310 usable questionnaires were returned.

Pinnacle Research Journals 61 INSTRUMENT A questionnaire was used to measure the variables of this study. 9 items scale developed by Eisenberger, Huntington, Hutchinson and Sowa (1986) was used to measure perceived organizational support. Further, 17 items scale developed by Schaufeli & Bakker (2003) was used to measure three dimensions of job engagement. RELIABILITY AND VALIDITY The authors used Cronbach s Alpha to evaluate the reliability of questionnaire. Further, the authors used confirmatory factor analysis for evaluating the validity of questionnaire. The following tables show the reliability and validity test of questionnaire. Table 1. Item Statistics Mean Std. Deviation N Perceived Organizational Support 4.11.. 0.845 vigor 3.9750.60438 0.786 dedication 4.3387.48500 0.765 absorption 3.1935.79366 0.792 Job Engagement.... 0.866 Table 2. Validity Test Fitness Indices Measure of Index Principle Chi-Square/df 2.2990 < 3 P-Value 0.000 < 0.05 Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) 0.065 < 0.1 Normed Fit Index (NFI) 0.97 > 0.9 Non-Normed Fit Index (NNFI) 0.97 > 0.9 Comparative Fit Index (CFI) 0.99 > 0.9 Incremental Fit Index (IFI) 0.99 0 < IFI < 1 Relative Fit Index (RFI) 0.95 > 0.9 Goodness of Fit Index (GFI) 0.96 > 0.9

Pinnacle Research Journals 62 Adjusted Goodness of Fit Index (AGFI) 0.91 > 0.9 RESULTS The Results of the Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) can be seen in Figure 2 and 3. Further, Table 3 shows the results of the hypothesis test. Figure 2. Standardized Solution Model

Pinnacle Research Journals 63 Figure 3. T-Value Analysis Table 3. The Results of the Hypothesis Test No Hypothesis Path coefficients t -value Results H Perceived Organizational Support Job Engagement 0.90 12.77 Accepted DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION The aim of the present study is to investigate the relationship between perceived organizational support and job engagement of 1200 personnel of supreme leadership in Iranian universities. Because of the positive consequences of job engagement, identifying factors contribute to increasing in the level of job engagement is an important tissue need to be considered by managers and business owners.

Pinnacle Research Journals 64 The results of the current study shows that according to the Mean analysis, our sample of Iranian personnel perceive appropriate level of organizational support as the mean of POS is more than µ = 3. Moreover, according to the Mean analysis, employees engaged in their job appropriately as all the dimensions are more than µ = 3: Vigor: 3.9750, Dedication: 4.3387, and Absorption: 3.1935. Further, the results of the structural equation modeling show that POS has a significant positive influence on job engagement of employees. The results of the current study suggest that managers should try to improve employees perception of organizational support to engage employees in their job; which leads to achieving positive consequences for organizations. Furthermore, future studies should try to identify the effect of other variables on job engagement. Moreover, identifying factors have significant effect on POS will be also helpful in expanding the model of this study. REFERENCES A.Gokul, G.Sridevi & Dr.P.T.Srinivasan (2012). the RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PERCEIVED ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORT, WORK ENGAGEMENT AND AFFECTIVE COMMITMENT, AMET International Journal of Management. Allen, N., & Meyer, J. (1996). Affective, continuance and normative commitment to the organization: an examination of construct validity. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 49(3), 252-76. Bakker, A.B. and Demerouti, E., 2008. Towards a model of work engagement. Career Development International, 13(3), pp.209 223. Bakker, A.B. and Leiter M.P., 2010. Work engagement: a handbook of essential theory and research. New York, NY: Psychology Press. Bakker, A. and Schaufeli, W., 2003. Positive organizational behavior: Engaged employees in flourishing organizations. Journal of Organizational Behavior. Bakker, A.B., Schaufeli, W. B., Leiter, M. P., & Taris, T.W. (2008). Work engagement: An emerging concept in occupational health psychology. Bakker, A.B. & Schaufeli, W.B. (2008). Positive organizational behavior: Engaged employees in flourishing organizations. Journal of Organizational Behavior Rhoades et al., 2001). Bakker, A.B., Schaufeli, W. B., Leiter, M. P., & Taris, T.W. (2008). Work engagement:an emerging concept in occupational health psychology. Work and Stress, 22,187-200. doi:10.1080/02678370802393649. Bakker, A. and Schaufeli, W., 2008. Positive organizational behavior: Engaged employees in flourishing organizations. Journal of Organizational Behavior, Benson, G., Finegold, D. & Mohrman, S. (2004). You paid for the skills, now keep them: tuition reimbursement and voluntary turnover. Academy of Management Journal, 47, 315-331.

Pinnacle Research Journals 65 Bezuijen, X. M., Van den Berg, P. T., Van Dam, K., & Thierry, H. (2010). How leaders stimulate employee learning: A leader-member exchange approach. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 83, 673-693. doi:10.1348/096317909x468099. David D., Martha C., & Neil S. (2007). Mentoring, supervisor support, and perceived organizational support: what matters most? Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 29 (3), 235-247. Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchison, S., & Sowa, D. (1986). Perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 500-507. Eisenberger, R. (2009). Incremental effects of rewards on experienced performance pressure: Positive outcomes for intrinsic. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30(1), 95. Eisenberger, R., & Rhoades, L. (2002). Perceived organizational support: A review of the literature. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(4), 698-714. Eisenberger, R., Stinglhamber, F., Vandenberghe, C., Sucharski, I., & Rhoades, L. (2002). Perceived supervisor support: Contributions to Perceived Organizational Support and employee retention. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(3), 565-573. doi:10.1037//0021-9010.87.3.565 Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchinson, S., & Sowa, D. (1986). Perceived Organizational Support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 500-507. Eisenberger, R., Armeli, S., Rexwinkel, B., Lynch, P., & Rhoades, L. (2001). Reciprocation of perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(1), 42-51. Eisenberger, R., Fasolo, P., & Davis-La Mastro. V. (1990). Perceived Organizational Support and employee diligence, commitment, and innovation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 51-59. Eisenberger, R. and P. Eder, 2008. Perceived Organizational Support: Reducing the Negative Influence of Coworker Withdrawal Behavior. Journal of Management, 34(1): 55-68. George, J., & Brief, A. (1992). Feeling good doing good: A conceptual analysis of the mood at work organizational spontaneity relationship. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 310 329. Golparvar, M.; SH. Nayeri; and A. Mahdad, 2009. The Relationship between Organizational Values, Job Stress, Emotional Exhaustion, and Organizational Deviant Behavior among Employees in ZobAhan Corporation. Journal ofscience and Research in Applied Psychology, 42: 46-.68. Harter, J.K., Schmidt, F.L. and Hayes, T.L., 2002. Business-unit-level relationship between employee satisfaction, employee engagement, and business outcomes: A meta- analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, pp.268-279. Hatton, C., & Emerson, E. (1998). Brief report: Organisational predictors of actual staff turnover in a service for people with multiple disabilities. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 11, 166-71. Kalliah, T., & Beck, A. (2001). Is the path to burnout and turnover paved by the lack of supervisory support: a structural equations test? New Zealand Journal of Psychology, 30, 72-78. Kahn, W., 1990. Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work. Academy of Management Journal, 33, pp. 692-724. Krejcie, R. V. & Morgan, D. W. (1970). Determining sample size for research activities,educational and Psychological Measurement, 30, 607 610. Maslach, C., Schaufeli, W.B. and Leiter, M.P., 2001. Job burnout. Annual Review of

Pinnacle Research Journals 66 Psychology, 52, pp. 397-422. Michael P. O Driscoll, Donna M. Randall (1999). Perceived Organisational Support, Satisfaction with Rewards, and Employee Job Involvement and Organisational Commitment. Applied psychology: AN INTERNATIONAL REVIEW. 1999, 48 (2), 197-209 Muse, L. A., & Stampler, C. L. (2007) Perceived Organizational Support: Evidence for a mediated association with work performance. Journal of Managerial Issues, 29(4), 517-535. Robert Eisenberger, Peter Fasolo, and Valerie Davis-LaMastro (1990). Perceived Organizational Support and Employee Diligence, Commitment, and Innovation. Journal of applied psychology 1990, Volume 75, No.1, 51-59 Robinson, D., Perryman, S. and Hayday, S., 2004. The Drivers of Employee Engagement. Institute for Employment Studies, Brighton. Saks, A. M., Joseph, L. (2006). Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 21(7), 600-619. Schaufeli, W. & Bakker, A. (2003). Utrecht Work Engagement Scale, Preliminary Manual, Occupational Health Psychology Unit, Utrecht University. Schaufeli, W.B., Salanova, M., Gonzalez-Roma, V. and Bakker, A.B., 2002. The measurementof engagement and burnout: A two sample confirmatory factor analytic approach. Journal of Happiness Studies, 3, pp. 71-92. Schaufeli, W., Mart nez, I., Marque s-pinto, A., Salanova, M. and Bakker, A.B., 2002. Burnout and engagement in university students: A crossnationa study. Journal of Cross- Cultural Psychology, 33 Schaufeli, W.B., Salanova, M., Gonzalez-Roma, V. and Bakker, A.B., 2002. The measurementof engagement and burnout: A two sample confirmatory factor analytic approach. Journal of Happiness Studies, 3, pp. 71-92. Schaufeli, W. B., & Bakker, A. B. (2004). Job demands, job resources, and their relationship with burnout and engagement: A multi-sample study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 293-315. doi:10.1002/job.248 Schaufeli, W.B., & Bakker, A.B. (2003). UWES-Utrecht Work Engagement Scale: Test Manual, unpublished manuscript, Department of Psychology. Utrecht University. Seijts, G. H., Crim, D. (2006). What engages employees the most or, the ten C s of employee engagement. Ivey Business Journal Online. Shore, L., & Shore, T. (1995). Perceived organizational support and organizational justice. In R. S. Cropanzano & K. M. Kacmar (Eds.), Organizational politics, justice, and support: Managing the social climate of the workplace (149 164). Westport, CT: Quorum. Towers Perrin, 2003. Working today: understanding what drives employee engagement. Towers Perrin. Available at: <http://www.towersperrin.com/tp/getwebcachedoc?webc=hrs/usa/2003/200309/talent_2 003.pdf>[Accessed 6 March 2012]. Yoon, J., & Thye, S. (2002). A dual process model of organizational commitment. Work and Occupations, 29(1), 97-124.