Motivating toward organizational commitment: A cross-comparative perspective

Abstract

This article investigates how factors that contribute to the development of organizational commitment can be adjusted to take account of cultural diversity among employees, by taking the mediating effects of motivational processes and leadership into account. Survey data were obtained from two similar organizations in two different cultural contexts—Australia and Iran. The findings showed that both intrinsic and identified motivations and leadership are critical to the development of desirable organizational commitment. The introjected form of motivation was found to be the factor that mediates variances in employee commitment between the two cultural contexts. The current study explains this mediation role by referring to the different degrees to which conformity is salient across the two contexts, thereby providing managers, who are working in culturally diverse contexts, a means of understanding how and why different motivational techniques are more or less likely to contribute to the development of organizational commitment. Furthermore, the present study contributes to the existing literature on organizational commitment by comparing and contrasting the nature and prominence of employee commitment profiles in two different cultural contexts.

Keywords

Culture leadership motivation organizational commitment

Introduction

Interest in understanding how cultural differences can influence employee commitment has recently heightened, due to the increasing number of multinational organizations that are operating in different cultural contexts. This increased focus on cross-cultural research has sought to provide leaders of culturally diverse employees with strategies that resonate with different cultural backgrounds and contribute to the development of greater employee organizational commitment (Wasti et al., 2016; Zaidman and Elisha, 2016). Identifying such strategies has proved difficult, however, for three reasons. Firstly, many earlier studies were limited to nation-wide cultural frameworks such as Hofstede’s (1980) and thereby neglected within-nation differences and individual-level differences. In particular, previous studies have failed to account for the manner in which psychological mechanisms such as motivational processes can mediate the influence of culture on individuals’ behaviors associated with employee organizational commitment (Brislin et al., 2005).

Secondly, although most studies have confirmed a significant link between leadership style and organizational commitment, there is nevertheless disagreement about the nature of that link across cultures. Some studies, for instance, contend that the impact of leadership on organizational commitment varies across cultures (Afshari and Gibson, 2016; Hui et al., 2004). Bass (1997), on the other hand, argues that there are more similarities than differences in leadership across cultures in general, and Dorfman et al. (2012) have shown that value-based leadership behaviors are universally effective. Studies attempting to examine the impact of leadership in various cultural contexts have widely employed a limited approach by examining a single form of leadership style and mainly transformational leadership (Afshari and Gibson, 2016; Hui et al., 2004). This is despite strong evidence that both transformational and transactional leadership styles are the key parts of effective leadership (Mekpor and Dartey-Baah, 2017). Dartey-Baah (2015) refers to effective leadership as “Transfor-sactional” leadership, possessing the qualities of both transformational and transactional leadership styles. Therefore, to fully understand the role of effective leadership in various cultural contexts, a shift in the conceptualization of effective leadership seems to be required.

Thirdly, although some commitment studies have made use of the Three-component Commitment Model (TCM), they nevertheless often failed to extend their cross-cultural comparisons to commitment profiles and were limited to comparing and contrasting the individual components of the commitment model, mainly affective, across nations (Wasti, 2016). The TCM (Meyer and Allen, 1991; Meyer and Herscovitch, 2001) assumes that individuals can simultaneously experience and enact three forms of commitment: affective, normative, and continuance. Importantly, each form of commitment is a reflection of its underlying mindset. Each of the three mindsets participates in and is altered in its nature by the other two. It is the combination and interaction of the mindsets that determine the nature of each employee’s commitment profile; some of these are more desirable than others. Specific combinations and interactions lead to specific types of profiles that are more or less likely to lead to organizationally desirable outcomes and high employee performance (Payne, 2006). Studies focusing on a single form of commitment, therefore, ignore the interaction effects of these three forms of commitment.

This research builds on the TCM (Meyer and Allen, 1991; Meyer and Heriscovitch, 2001), undertaking a person-centered approach to investigate how employees attach to their organizations. Studies with a person-centered approach identify naturally occurring commitment profiles by focusing on the alternative configurations of the variables and how those sets of variables can be constellated differently within different groups (Payne, 2006). By focusing on commitment profiles—rather than on a variable-centered approach—this study adopts the two-step clustering approach (Chiu et al., 2001) to identify organizationally desirable commitment profiles and thereby explains why one workforce may outperform another. This approach may “uncover relationships that would have otherwise remained dormant but also clarify some of the inconsistencies in extant work” (Busenbark et al., 2016).

A meta-analysis study comparing the strengths of the three components of organizational commitment across different cultural contexts has revealed that there is variability across countries on all three components of commitment (Meyer, Stanley, Jackson, et al., 2012). Commitment profiles are based on the premise that specific commitment forms bundle up in a configuration based on survival in a specific environment (Payne, 2006). Given that social environments differ across cultures, different commitment configurations can be expected in different cultural contexts. Other studies (Deci and Ryan, 2000) also acknowledge that the avenues to positive organizational outcomes, including organizational commitment, differ extensively across cultures. These differences were found to be partly associated with different levels of social evaluative pressures in various cultural contexts. To fully understand the role of culture, the present study chose the manufacturing sector in Australian and Iranian contexts. This choice was firstly informed in response to a call to promote, or at least, to maintain employees’ commitment in the Australian manufacturing sector that has gone into precipitous decline in recent years. In a review of Australian manufacturing, Green and Roos (2012) argue that employee engagement and commitment in productivity-enhancing initiatives is the key to enhancing manufacturing outcomes. Secondly, Iran was chosen as a source of comparison because of significant differences between the levels of social evaluative pressures in these two countries (Dastmalchian et al., 2001). On the other hand, to the best of the author’s knowledge, this study is the first to identify organizational commitment profiles in an Iranian context.

To identify and explore factors that contribute to the development of desirable organizational commitment in culturally diverse workplaces, this research has taken the approach suggested by Wasti (2016) and shifted its focus from national-level cultural frameworks to cultural psychology which focuses on individual-level attitudes as drivers of behavior (Gardner et al., 2018; Gelfand et al., 2008). The conceptualization of culture at the individual level or, more specifically, cultural psychology is suggested as the most effective way to identify drivers of employee behavior (Wasti, 2016). This approach focuses on individuals’ personal values, attitudes, and beliefs (Gelfand et al., 2008) and also the ways in which psychological mechanisms mediate the influence of culture on individuals’ behavior. Undertaking this approach with its central focus on individuals’ cultural values can more profoundly explain individuals’ commitment to organizations than a nation-wide approach that ignores differences across a cultural context.

There are, therefore, two primary objectives for this study. The first is to identify, compare, and contrast, and better understand the nature and prominence of employee commitment profiles in two different cultural contexts, taking the dynamics of cultural psychology into account. The second is to provide managers who are working in culturally diverse contexts, a means of understanding how and why different motivational techniques are more or less likely to contribute to the development of desirable organizational commitment profiles. Articulating a clear explanation of how motivational processes can mediate the effect of culture on employee commitment, this research can assist managers, particularly in multicultural workplaces, to develop individual-based motivational processes by understanding individuals’ culturally driven values and establishing alignment between their values and those of the organization.

This article is structured as follows. The next section details the hypothesized linkages between organizational commitment and the two primary constructs of motivation and leadership. This reveals the different roles these two constructs play the development of desirable organizational commitment profiles between two contexts. Then, the methodology section describes the characteristics of the participants, the measures, and methods used for data analysis. This section is then followed by the presentation of the results. Finally, we discuss the significance of our findings along with future research opportunities in the remaining sections.

Background and hypotheses development

Culture and cross-cultural studies

Wasti (2016) critically evaluates cross-cultural studies that have sought to explain variances in different national or cultural contexts through the lens of Hofstede’s (1980) cultural dimensions. She outlines two different approaches in the application of Hofstede’s framework based on their different levels of analysis. The first approach assumes the generalizability of Hofstede’s framework across contexts and employs Hofstede’s nation-wide scores to explain the individual commitment to organizations. This approach relies extensively on a nation-level aggregation of individual-level values and fails to take within-nation and individual-level variation into account. Attempting to get around this shortcoming, some researchers have instead measured Hofstede’s cultural dimensions at the individual level. This second approach has been challenged on the validity of measuring cultural orientations, which are nation-level by nature, at the individual level (Cohen, 2007). Consequently, Wasti (2016) suggests exploring the effect of culture on organizational commitment through the conceptualization of culture at the individual level. In response to Wasti’s suggestion, this study shifted its focus from a nation-level cultural framework to that of cultural psychology which focuses on an individuals’ personal values, attitudes, or beliefs as drivers of their behaviors (Gelfand et al., 2008) and the ways in which psychological mechanisms mediate the influence of culture on individual behavior.

Organizational commitment profiles

Organizational commitment of employees is an important factor in the competitive performance of organizations and employees. After reviewing the various definitions of commitment, Meyer and Herscovitch (2001: 301) arrived at the following definition for the core essence of commitment in the workplace; “All of the definitions of commitment in general make reference to the fact that commitment (a) is a stabilizing or obliging force, that (b) gives direction to behavior (e.g., restricts freedom, binds the person to a course of action).” Based on this notion of commitment, organizational commitment is defined as a binding force that attaches employees to organizations in a way in which they perform beyond their job description and exert their maximum effort in achieving organizational goals.

Over the last few decades, organizational commitment theory has evolved from its focus on a single form of commitment toward multidimensional forms of commitment. According to Meyer and Allen (1991), organizational commitment can take three distinct forms, each associated with a different mindset. Affective commitment (AC) is associated with an emotional bond to the organization—it reflects a desire to remain a member of the organization. Normative commitment (NC) reflects a felt sense of obligation to remain with the organization. Continuance commitment (CC) reflects a perception that the employee lacks an alternative or sees considerable costs involved in leaving the organization (Meyer and Allen, 1991). Meyer and Herscovitch (2001) proposed that every individual can simultaneously experience these three forms of commitment: AC, NC, and CC. Differing combinations of those forms lead to differing commitment profiles, each of which represents different combinations of high and low scores on the three forms of commitment. This proposition has received mixed support from some studies (Meyer, Stanley, and Parfyonova, 2012), which have taken the variable-centered approach at the early stage of its development. These early studies assigned individuals to commitment profiles based on whether their scores on AC, NC, and CC were below or above the sample mean (Meyer and Morin, 2016).

Meyer, Stanley, and Parfyonova (2012) have tested the relationships between different commitment profiles and employee outcomes. One of their findings was that the way each component of the commitment is perceived depends on the context created by the two other components in the individual’s commitment profile. For instance, CC may be perceived as a potential loss of valued opportunities or resources when associated with strong AC and NC, or it may reflect a threat of economic cost when it is combined with a low level of AC and NC (Meyer, Stanley, and Parfyonova, 2012).

Given the importance of the context effect on the ways that each component of commitment is perceived, it would be impossible to predict organizational outcomes and employee performance with a focus on only one form of commitment. Furthermore, a variable-centered approach to identifying commitment profiles was also found to be insufficient because it neglected the role of the context effect. According to Meyer and Morin (2016), studies that have relied entirely upon purely variable-centered strategies have results of limited value. Such studies ignore alternative configurations of variables and how those sets of variables can be constellated differently within different groups (Payne, 2006). In addition, commitment profiles identified through a midpoint split approach may not correspond to naturally existing profiles (Meyer and Morin, 2016). Naturally occurring commitment profiles emerged in studies which have taken a person-centered approach (e.g. Afshari et al., 2019; Meyer, Stanley, and Parfyonova, 2012; Wasti, 2005) to identify commitment profiles. Investigating the consistent patterns in the studies employing a person-centered approach, Meyer and Morin (2016) introduced a list of profiles that emerged most frequently in different contexts. The list includes uncommitted (low scores on AC, NC, and CC), CC-dominant, AC/NC dominant, and fully committed (high scores on AC, NC, and CC). This study, therefore, proposes the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 1a: Commitment profiles for both Australian and Iranian samples will include uncommitted (low scores on AC, NC, and CC), CC-dominant, AC/NC dominant, and fully committed (high scores on AC, NC, and CC).

Previous research exploring variation in the level of organizational commitment across cultures suggested that not only the level of organizational commitment varies across cultures but also its relationship with other organizational factors (Abrams et al., 1998; Chen and Francesco, 2000; Randall, 1993). For instance, Chen and Francesco (2000) found that some relationships between demographic factors and organizational commitment differ significantly between western and Chinese samples. They emphasized the role of cultural factors in driving these differences.

The importance of cross-cultural commitment has also been significantly highlighted in research reviewing the literature on organizational commitment. Referring to the profound influence of culture on employee commitment, Randall (1993) has called for a shift toward the cross-cultural investigation of organizational commitment. Although some studies (e.g. Abrams et al., 1998; Chen and Francesco, 2000) responded to this call by extending their research contexts to non-western countries, some countries, such as Iran, are still under-researched. Most of these studies are also limited to a single form commitment perspective, neglecting the TCM. Meyer, Stanley, Jackson, et al. (2012), in their meta-analysis, built upon the previous research and compared the strengths of the three components of organizational commitment across different cultural or, more specifically, geographical regions. Their research revealed that there is variability across countries on all three components of commitment. Even though their meta-analysis was only focused on individual forms of commitment, they were able to find that commitment profiles representing different combinations of the three commitment components (Meyer and Herscovitch, 2001) are also likely to distribute differently across nations. Therefore, the current study argues that the likelihood of employee’s membership in each commitment profile differs across nations.

In understanding the relationships between commitment profiles and organizational outcomes, Meyer, Stanley, and Parfyonova (2012) found that fully committed (high scores AC, NC, and CC) and AC/NC dominant profiles (high scores on AC and NC) have consistently been associated with positive organizational outcomes, such as discretionary behavior, effective performance, job satisfaction, organizational citizenship behavior, and retention (Meyer, Stanley, and Parfyonova, 2012; Wasti, 2005). The present study labels these two organizationally desirable profiles as “good clusters” and proposes the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 1b: The likelihood of employee membership of the desirable organizational commitment profiles (good clusters) differs across the Australian and Iranian samples.

Predictors of desirable organizational commitment profiles

Leadership

Leadership styles, and more specifically, transformational and transactional leadership, have been identified as the most important contributing factor in the development of organizational commitment across nations (Lofquist and Matthiesen, 2018; Mekpor and Dartey-Baah, 2017). Transformational leaders appeal to the moral values of their people by inspiring them through charismatic influence (Bass, 1999), whereas transactional leadership appeals to people’s personal desires through instrumental economic transactions (Afshari and Gibson, 2016). Transactional leadership is based on the notion of exchange (Popper and Zakkai, 1994), which involves providing rewards contingent upon the fulfillment of tasks. Both transformational leadership and transactional leadership have been recognized as key contributors to desirable organizational outcomes (Jackson et al., 2013).

Despite these findings, though, scholars have not yet agreed on a unified theoretical view of leadership. Those scholars with a more traditional view build on previous theories of leadership (Bennis, 2007) and conceptualize leadership in a way that is intended to be comprehensive and integrative. Some others with a more critical approach toward the traditional view have taken into account newly emerging theories of shared/distributed leadership, complexity leadership, and relational leadership in their theory development (Drath et al., 2008). Despite differences between traditional and emerging views of leadership, focus on the interactions between leaders and followers is central to most accounts of leadership. In the account provided by Bass (1997), leadership influence results from the type of interaction that occurs between an effective leader and a follower resulting in the attainment of shared organizational goals.

Among the various styles of leadership focusing on leader and employee relationship, the two that have been mostly associated with employees’ willing to perform beyond their job description are the transformational and transactional leadership styles (Mekpor and Dartey-Baah, 2017). In fact, these two leadership styles were found to be most strongly associated with employees’ voluntary work behaviors (Kessler et al., 2013; Mekpor and Dartey-Baah, 2017). Dartey-Baah (2015) refers to effective leadership as “Transfor-sactional” leadership, possessing the qualities of both transformational and transactional leadership styles. Despite all evidence, though, most studies neglected the impact of transactional leadership and focused primarily on transformational leadership style. These studies failed to account for the augmentation effect of transformational and transactional leadership. According to Mekpor and Dartey-Baah (2017), both transformational and transactional leadership styles are the key contributors to the desirable organizational outcomes. Referring to empirical distinctiveness issue in the measurement of transformational leadership, Van Knippenberg and Sitkin (2013) highlighted the conceptual overlaps between transformational leadership and transactional leadership. To address this measurement issue and to fill the research gap in the leadership literature, the present study undertakes a more comprehensive approach and builds upon Bass’s (1999) view on the importance of the augmentation effect of transformational and transactional leadership, and Bass (1997) transformational–transactional leadership theory, Judge and Piccolo (2004) argue that transformational leadership must be built on the foundation of transactional leadership (p. 756). Consistent with the viewpoints of these studies, the present study defines an effective leadership style as a combination of transformational and transactional leadership. This contention is consistent with Bass’s (1999: 21) definition of best leaders; “the best leaders are both transformational and transactional.”

Although there is widespread agreement that leadership styles make the most important contribution to the development of organizational commitment (Nasab and Afshari, 2019), there is nevertheless disagreement about whether that contribution might be different across cultures. Some researchers have found that components of transformational leadership are perceived differently in different cultural contexts (Afshari and Gibson, 2015b, 2016; Hui et al., 2004). Bass (1997), however, maintains that there are more similarities than differences in leadership across cultures in general, and Dorfman et al. (2012) have shown that value-based leadership behaviors are universally effective. The current study, therefore, argues that employees who perceive their managers as effective leaders are more likely to develop desirable organizational commitment across both samples.

Hypothesis 2: Employee membership of the desirable organizational commitment profiles (good cluster) is positively impacted by effective leadership style across the Australian and Iranian samples.

Motivation

As indicated earlier, Wasti (2016) suggests that exploring the effect of culture on organizational commitment through the conceptualization of culture at the individual level provides a clearer understanding of behavioral derivers in different cultural contexts. In response to Wasti’s suggestion, this study shifted its focus from a nation-level cultural framework to that of cultural psychology which focuses on individuals’ personal values, attitudes, or beliefs as drivers of their behaviors (Gelfand et al., 2008) and the ways in which psychological mechanisms mediate the influence of culture on individual behavior. The focus on values and needs as drivers of individual behavior is central to self-determination theory (Deci and Ryan, 2000), which seeks to explain how human behavior is driven by different types of motivations through the processes of value internalization. This study contends not only that self-determined motivations contribute to levels of organizational commitment, but also that self-determination processes constitute a psychological mechanism which mediates the influence of culture on individual behaviors and types of employee commitment to organizations.

Motivation theories seek to explain how human behavior is driven and whereas early motivation theories contended that human behavior is energized by innate biological drives (Lamont and Kennelly, 2012), self-determination theory proposes that human behavior is motivated by the extent to which innate psychological needs are satisfied (Deci and Ryan, 2000). Deci and Ryan (2000) explain that another way in which self-determination theory constitutes a significant advance on earlier theories of motivation is its treatment of the differences between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation.

Intrinsic motivation derives from the enjoyment or meaning found in performing the task at hand. Intrinsically motivated activities are, therefore, those that individuals find interesting and would do in the absence of operationally separable consequences (Deci and Ryan, 2000). Thus, human behavior driven by intrinsic motivation does not depend on reinforcement and is driven by individual values.

Extrinsic motivation, in contrast to intrinsic motivation, was previously conceptualized as being driven by factors and contingencies external to the task to be performed, such as monetary rewards for compliance and threats of punishment for noncompliance (Lamont and Kennelly, 2012: 239). Extrinsic motivation had, therefore, been viewed as invariantly controlling and antagonistic to intrinsic motivation in earlier motivation theories. Self-determination theory, however, provides a fuller and more dynamic consideration of the concept of extrinsic motivation (Deci and Ryan, 2000: 235)

Deci and Ryan (2000) structured their definition of external motivation around the concept of internalization by explaining that internalization is “an active, natural process in which individuals attempt to transform socially sanctioned mores or requests into personally endorsed values and self-regulations” (pp. 235, 236). Internalization is the process through which individuals come to identify with values attached to the activities and the tasks at hand, assimilating them into their personal values, and thus fully or partially accepting them as their own values. Depending on the extent to which those values are integrated with personal values, they may either remain external or be only partially internalized to form introjects or unintegrated identification (Deci and Ryan, 2000: 236). Self-determination theory thereby introduces a continuum of motivational regulations starting from fully self-determined intrinsic motivation and continuing with identified, introjected, and external motivation. To differing degrees, those three extrinsic motivations in the continuum represent less self-determined behavior compared to intrinsic motivation.

The current research chose to explore the role of partially to fully integrated motivations, namely, introjected motivation, identified motivation, and intrinsic motivation in explaining variances in the development of desirable organizational commitments in different contexts. This choice was informed by the highlighted importance of values, beliefs, and norms in cultural psychology (Leung and Morris, 2015). The influence of norms on individuals’ behavior heavily relies on their group membership and the type of situation. According to Leung and Morris (2015), in situations in which individuals are more dependent on others in their cultural group, cultural norms are more salient, and they profoundly influence individuals’ behavior. For instance, in a cultural context with high social evaluative pressure, individuals’ behavior is more likely to be driven by cultural norms (Van Knippenberg and Sleebos, 2006). The current study, therefore, argues that different types of motivation act differently in two cultural contexts based on the level of internalization of norms. The more salient, the internalization of the norms is, the less dependency is on the cultural context. This research, therefore, argues that intrinsic and identified motivation types that are driven by internalized values act independently of the cultural context. Introjected motivation, on the other hand, acts differently in the two cultural contexts of this research due to its dependency on social evaluative pressure.

This research argues that intrinsically motivated employees, who willingly engage with organizational activities that are aligned with their individual values, are members of desirable organizational commitment profiles in both samples.

Hypothesis 3a: Employee membership of the desirable organizational commitment profiles (good cluster) is positively impacted by intrinsic motivation across the Australian and Iranian samples.

Identified motives are values and beliefs that were originally external but have become internalized through identification with an underlying value of the behavior. Identified motivation occurs when individuals recognize and accept the value of an action or goal by identifying with the importance, underlying that action or goal (Deci and Ryan, 2000). Identified motivation is fully internalized and results from self-valuing the action or goal even if the action itself is not enjoyable (Gagné and Deci, 2005). This research, therefore, proposes that employees who are driven by identified motivation belong to desirable organizational commitment profiles across the two samples:

Hypothesis 3b: Employee membership of the desirable organizational commitment profiles (good cluster) is positively impacted by identified motivation across the Australian and Iranian samples.

Introjected motivation reflects social expectations and is concerned with gaining or maintaining the approval of others or of oneself. Nevertheless, if individuals happen to value social expectations and identify with those expectations, then such expectations can come to be integrated with the self as a result of the internalization process. The extent to which social expectations move from being introjected to becoming internalized depends upon an alignment between the individual and their social context and, more specifically, the strength of social norms (Miller et al., 2011). Wasti (2016) notes that cultural differences are more driven by perceived norms than individual values, as people within a culture tend to agree in their perception of societal norms, irrespective of their personal preferences (p. 368). In societies in which the salience of norms is higher, individuals are more likely to engage in self-regulated behavior (Gelfand et al., 2008). In other words, individuals are more likely to identify with a socially accepted value.

This study, therefore, expects that introjected motivation will impact the likelihood of employee’s membership in the desirable organizational commitment profiles differently across the two contexts.

Hypothesis 3c: The relationship between employee membership of the desirable organizational commitment profiles (good cluster) and national context is mediated by introjected motivation.

Methodology

Sample and participants’ characteristics

Two similar manufacturing organizations were selected from the industrial machinery and equipment manufacturing sector—one in Australia and one in Iran. The Iranian organization was established in 1966, and the Australian manufacturing organization was established in 1974. Both organizations have since expanded their operations, they are the leading exporters of their products from their countries. The products of both organizations comply with international quality and system standards (e.g. ISO, 9001). Both organizations have focus areas in design, research and development, and manufacturing. This research chose these two organizations based on their similarity to decrease the impact of factors other than culture and social context, impacting the levels of employee commitment.

Questionnaires were distributed to all levels of those two organizations, including management and nonmanagement staff members in all divisions. Three hundred thirty-three questionnaires were distributed, and a total of 189 (73 percent male) individual respondents agreed to participate and completed the questionnaires in 2014. Across the two countries, the response rate was 56.7 percent. Forty percent of the respondents have been with their current employer for more than 10 years. Nonresponse bias was assessed by comparing early and late responses. No major differences were found. The largest group in the sample is in the age bracket 30–49 (79.5 percent).

Measures

Commitment to organization was measured by adapting the instrument originally developed by Meyer et al. (1993). This instrument includes three scales: (1) AC to organization (α = 0.759), for example, “I would be very happy to spend the rest of my career with this organization”; (2) NC to organization (α = 0.800), for example, “I would feel guilty if I left my organization now”; and (3) CC to organization (α = 0.593), for example, “One of the few negative consequences of leaving this organization would be the scarcity of available alternatives.”

Three types of motivation were quantified using the instrument introduced by Gagne et al. (2008): intrinsic motivation (α = 0.850), for example, “I do this job because I enjoy this work very much”; identified motivation (α = 0.825), for example, “I do this job because this job fits my personal values”; and introjected motivation (α = 0.676), for example, “I do this job, because my reputation depends on it.”

Leadership components were assessed using The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire developed by Bass and Avolio (1995). Transformational leadership was assessed as a composite of five components: charisma attributed, charisma behavior, intellectual stimulation, inspirational motivation, and individual consideration (α = 0.950). Transactional leadership was measured using a four-item scale (α = 0.783); for example, “My manager or supervisor makes clear what one can expect to receive when performance goals are achieved.”

For all three instruments, responses were selected from a five-point scale: 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neither agree nor disagree, 4 = agree, and 5 = strongly agree. Demographic information, including the control variables of age, experience, and gender, was also measured in the first part of the questionnaire.

Data analysis and results

Two-step clustering, developed by Chiu et al. (2001), was used to extract profiles of participants from the two organizations, based on respondent commitment levels across the three components. The two-step cluster analysis identifies each variable’s importance for building a specific cluster. This clustering approach can work with both categorical and continuance variables (Sarstedt and Mooi, 2019). These analyses were conducted using log-likelihood estimation, in conjunction with Akaike’s information criterion (AIC) (Burnham and Anderson, 2004; Yang, 2005).

The AIC analysis generally yielded five interpretable commitment profiles in the Iranian sample, and five in the Australian sample (see Table 1). In the Australian sample, the lowest AIC value (130.197), the AIC value change, the ratio change of the AIC value, and the ratio of distance measures per optimal solution were for five commitment profiles. In the Iranian sample, the lowest AIC value (141.516), the AIC value change, and the ratio change of the AIC value per the optimal solution were for five clusters; however, the ratio of distance measures is the largest (1.614) for four groups. The larger the ratio of distance measures number, the greater the distance between clusters. Based on this analysis, four commitment profiles in the Iranian sample were finalized as the optimal solution (Chiu et al., 2001).

Table 1.

Two-step cluster analysis results.

Number of clusters	AIC	AIC change	Ratio of AIC changes	Ratio of distance measures
Australian Sample
1	195.566
2	151.28	−44.286	1	2.372
3	139.553	−11.727	0.265	1.333
4	133.753	−5.8	0.131	1.144
5	130.197	−3.556	0.08	1.697
6	133.031	2.834	−0.064	1.369
7	138.335	5.304	−0.12	1.206
8	144.786	6.45	−0.146	1.271
9	152.419	7.634	−0.172	1.139
10	160.585	8.165	−0.184	1.169
11	169.305	8.721	−0.197	1.064
12	178.223	8.918	−0.201	1.086
13	187.385	9.162	−0.207	1.07
14	196.733	9.348	−0.211	1.224
15	206.565	9.832	−0.222	1.069
Iranian Sample
1	218.44
2	162.465	−55.975	1	2.935
3	151.304	−11.161	0.199	1.11
4	142.442	−8.862	0.158	1.614
5	141.516	−0.926	0.017	1.294
6	143.527	2.011	−0.036	1.306
7	147.88	4.353	−0.078	1.56
8	154.979	7.099	−0.127	1.026
9	162.2	7.221	−0.129	1.088
10	169.81	7.609	−0.136	1.01
11	177.461	7.651	−0.137	1.466
12	186.494	9.033	−0.161	1.022
13	195.591	9.097	−0.163	1.095
14	204.941	9.35	−0.167	1.031
15	214.37	9.429	−0.168	1.298

Note: AIC: Akaike’s information criterion.

The results from the retained profiles are set out in Table 2. The AC/NC dominant profile is characterized by strong AC and NC, with CC below average (24.7 percent Australia; 13.0 percent Iran). In the fully committed profile, all three mindsets are above average (16.9 percent Australia; 40.0 percent Iran). In the uncommitted profile, all three mindsets are below average (15.7 percent Australia; 25.0 percent Iran). The CC dominant profile is characterized by strong CC and below average AC and NC (15.7 percent Australia; 22.0 percent Iran), and, finally, the moderate AC-high CC profile is characterized by strong CC, AC moderately above average, and NC below average (27.0 percent Australia). A moderate AC-high CC profile did not emerge in the Iranian sample.

Table 2.

Commitment means associated with commitment profiles.

	AC		NC		CC
Profile	Australia	Iran	Australia	Iran	Australia	Iran
AC/NC dominant	3.7	4.08	3.39	4.13	2.61	2.75
Fully committed	3.95	3.61	4.02	3.32	3.72	3.57
Uncommitted	2.39	2.36	1.75	2.15	2.29	2.91
CC-dominant	1.79	2.51	1.88	1.99	4.04	4.03
Moderate AC-high CC	3.1	NA	2.93	NA	3.64	NA

Note: AC: affective commitment; NC: normative commitment; CC: continuance commitment.

AC/NC dominant and fully dominant profiles are categorized as good clusters, based on their levels of desirability in organizations (Meyer, Stanely, and Parfyonova, 2012). These profiles are qualitatively different from each other; the commitment profiles found in the data align with those found in previous research (Meyer et al., 2015) they support hypothesis 1a.

This observation shows that the proportion of desirable commitment profiles, good clusters (AC/NC dominant and fully dominant profiles) is 53 percent in Iran, which is higher than the Australian sample of 41.6 percent of desirable profiles (good clusters) (Table 3). This observation supports hypothesis 1b.

Table 3.

Commitment profile percentage.

	AC/NC dominant (good cluster)	Fully committed (good cluster)	Uncommitted	CC-dominant	Moderate AC-high CC
Australia (percent)	24.7	16.9	15.7	15.7	27.0
Iran (percent)	13.0	40.0	25.0	22.0	NA

Note: AC: affective commitment; NC: normative commitment; CC: continuance commitment. Total of good cluster: Australia (41.6 percent) and Iran (53.0 percent).

Logistic regression was conducted to determine the relationship between the dependent binary variables of good cluster and covariates of country, leadership, and motivational processes (intrinsic motivation, identified motivation, and introjected motivation), and control variables (age, experience, and gender). The model includes a dummy variable for country, Australia, contrasted with Iran. The results are presented in Table 4.

Table 4.

Results of logistic regression.

Variable	Model 1	Model 2	Model 3	Model 4
Country	0.753*	1.621**	1.614**	0.901
Leadership	1.534***	1.167***	1.425***	1.485***
Identified motivation		1.873***
Intrinsic motivation			1.291***
Introjected motivation				0.935***
Age		0.177	−0.009	0.076
Gender		0.727	0.533	0.357
Experience		−0.111	−0.126	−0.154
Model χ ²	54.52	100.577	88.183	70.845
Nagelerke R ² square	0.334	0.551	0.498	0.417

***p < 0.001; **p < 0.01; *p < 0.05.

Both country and leadership had significant associations with good cluster profiles in model 1: country (p < 0.05) and leadership (p < 0.001). An indication of the size of the effects can be gained by examining Expe (B), which shows the change in the likelihood of belonging to a good cluster with a 1 SD change in factor score. The largest impact is for leadership, where employees with 1 SD above the mean are 4.6 times more likely to belong to a good cluster.

Three types of motivation were added to model 1 in three steps. All three models (models 2 to 4) increased the explanatory power of model 1. Model 2 (the addition of identified motivation) increased the Nagelkerke R ² by 65 percent, and model 3 (the addition of intrinsic motivation) by 49 percent, and model 4 (the addition of introjected motivation) by 25 percent. Three types of motivation had a significant association with good cluster profiles (all p < 0.001): intrinsic motivation, identified motivation, and introjected motivation. An indication of the size of effects can be seen in Expe (B). Thus, identified motivation has the greatest effect size (Expe (B) = 6.5), which is 1.81 times the effect size of intrinsic motivation (Expe (B) = 3.6) and 2.60 times the effect size of introjected motivation (Expe (B) = 2.5). These results support both hypotheses 3a and 3b. The effect of leadership on good cluster profiles has been consistently significant across all four models (p < 0.001), thus supporting hypothesis 2.

The effect size of country was substantially reduced once the factor score for introjected motivation was included. The coefficient for country was no longer significant. This result suggests that the strong relationship between the Iranian sample and the good cluster commitment profile is mediated by introjected motivation. The differentiating effect of introjected motivation across the two samples is revealed by this result, and the result provides strong support for hypothesis 3c. Control variables of age, gender, and experience were added to models 2 to 4; none of these control variables have a significant effect on the presence of good cluster commitment profiles.

Discussion and conclusion

This study was designed to investigate how factors that contribute to the development of desirable organizational commitment can be adjusted to take account of cultural diversity among employees, with a particular focus on motivational processes. This research identified employees who belong to desirable organizational commitment profiles and then measured the role played by leadership and by forms of motivation associated with self-determination as contributors to desirable commitment profiles. This study confirmed the importance of psychological processes, which lead to the introjected form of motivation in explaining variation across cultural contexts.

Using the label of “good cluster,” this research looked for the presence of the commitment configurations of fully committed (high scores AC, NC, and CC) and AC/NC dominant (high scores on AC and NC). These commitment configurations have previously been found to be positively associated with organizational outcomes such as discretionary behavior, effective performance, job satisfaction, organizational citizenship behavior, and retention (Meyer, Stanley, and Parfyonova, 2012; Wasti, 2005). The findings show that the propensity of the good clusters is significantly different across the two samples with a higher propensity in the Iranian sample.

This study has shown that in both countries, the effective leadership style, which is a combination of transformational and transactional leadership styles, has a positive influence on the development of employee organizational commitment. This finding was consistent with the augmentation effect introduced by Bass (1997), confirming that both transformational and transactional leadership styles are the key contributors to desirable organizational outcomes across the two samples.

To account for other culturally related differences, this research applied the approach suggested by Wasti (2016) and focused on individual-level values and psychological mechanisms by testing for the presence of effective motivational processes across the two cultural contexts. Motivational processes defined on the continuum of internalization differ in the degree to which individuals integrate the values associated with organizational activities with their personal values (Afshari and Gibson, 2015a). The findings showed that both intrinsic and identified motivations are critical to the development of desirable organizational commitment. Furthermore, this study highlighted the mediating role that introjected motivation plays in the relationship between cultural context and organizational commitment. In other words, this study showed that introjected motivation was both more present and more effective in the Iranian context.

Variation in the role introjected motivation plays in different cultural contexts or for individuals with different cultural backgrounds depends upon variation in the factors that contribute to internalization. External cultural norms and values, such as pride, reputation, and conformity, are reflections of social expectations that vary across social and cultural contexts (Miller et al., 2011), and the salience of social norms differs across cultural contexts (Gelfand et al., 2008). This study, therefore, contends that the greater strength of social norms in some cultural contexts can result in introjected motivation being as effective as identified motivation in shifting individuals toward organizational commitment and subsequently higher performance.

Building on the work of scholars in the two fields of motivational theory and organizational commitment theory (Deci and Ryan, 2000; Meyer and Allen, 1991), this research has taken an empirical and analytical approach to explore how motivational processes work differently in different cultural contexts and for individuals with different culturally informed values. In summary, the theoretical implications of this research are threefold. First, the current study is one of the few studies identifying organizational commitment profiles rather than comparing and contrasting a single form of commitment. More importantly, to the best of the author’s knowledge, this research is the first to identify organizational commitment profiles in an Iranian context. Second, the current study provided a more practical account of effective leadership and its impact on organizational commitment in different cultural contexts by considering the augmentation effect of transformational and transactional leadership styles. Finally, the variances in the role of motivational processes in two different cultural contexts were most clearly articulated in this research project by shifting the focus to the cultural psychology to explore drivers of employees’ behavior.

This study has been able to explain the nature and prominence of employee commitment profiles across two different cultural contexts, taking the dynamics of cultural psychology into account. The findings and explanations should provide managers who are working in culturally diverse contexts, a means of understanding how and why different motivational techniques are more or less likely to contribute to the development of desirable organizational commitment profiles. This research demonstrates the importance of understanding cultural psychology in designing effective motivational processes in organizations. Organizations can develop desirable organizational commitment by creating an environment in which motivations are based on individuals’ personal and cultural values. Managers, particularly in multicultural workplaces, are encouraged to understand individuals’ culturally driven values and to establish alignment between their values and those of the organization.

Future research and limitations

Two propositions for further research have emerged from this study. First, introjected motivation is likely to be as effective as identified motivation in a cultural context in which social norms are strongly salient and/or for employees for whom, pride and reputation are integrated values. Second, a deficit in introjected motivation among employees in a culturally diverse organization may result in a deficit in desirable organizational commitment profiles.

Further research is needed to test these propositions using large-scale quantitative and qualitative methods to expand the study to other cultural contexts. Additional research exploring the value internalization process in relation to cultural differences with a particular focus on diverse workplaces would deepen the findings. Moreover, only two countries, Australia and Iran, were studied in the investigation, so although this comparative study is illustrative, future research across multiple countries and firms could apply a multilevel model including company and country level and, potentially, also organizational level.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Leila Afshari

References

Abrams

Ando

Hinkle

(1998) Psychological attachment to the group: cross-cultural differences in organizational identification and subjective norms as predictors of workers’ turnover intentions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 24(10): 1027–39.

Afshari

Gibson

(2015a) Development of organizational commitment and value internalization. World Journal of Management 6(2): 187–98.

Afshari

Gibson

(2015b) Why culture matters to leadership, motivation, and willing organizational commitment? In: Proceedings of the 3rd ICMLG2015 international conference on management, Leadership and Governance (eds C Ingley J Lockhart ), Auckland, NZ, 12–13 February 2015, pp. 17–26. ACPIL.

Afshari

Gibson

(2016) How to increase organizational commitment through transactional leadership. Leadership and Organization Development Journal 37(4): 507–19.

Afshari

Young

Gibson

, et al. (2019) Organizational commitment: exploring the role of identity. Personnel Review 49(3): 774–790.

Bass

(1997) Does the transactional–transformational leadership paradigm transcend organizational and national boundaries. American Psychologist 52(2): 130–9.

Bass

(1999) Two decades of research and development in transformational leadership. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology 8(1): 9–32.

Bass

Avolio

(1995) Full Range Leadership Development: Manual for the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. Mind Garden: Palo Alto.

Bennis

(2007) The challenge of leadership in the modern world. American Psychologist 62(1): 2–5.

10.

Brislin

MacNab

Worthley

, et al. (2005) Evolving perceptions of Japanese workplace motivation: an employee-manager comparison. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management 5(1): 87–104.

11.

Burnham

Anderson

(2004) Multimodel inference: understanding AIC and BIC in model selection. Sociological Methods and Research 33(2): 261–304.

12.

Busenbark

Krause

Boivie

, et al. (2016) Toward a configurational perspective on the CEO: a review and synthesis of the management literature. Journal of Management 42(1): 234–68.

13.

Chen

Francesco

(2000) Employee demography, organizational commitment, and turnover intentions in China: do cultural differences matter? Human Relations 53(6): 869–87.

14.

Chiu

Fang

Chen

, et al. (2001) A robust and scalable clustering algorithm for mixed type attributes in large database environment. In: Proceedings of the seventh ACM SIGKDD international conference on knowledge discovery and data mining (eds Provost

Srikant

), San Francisco, CA, 26–29 August 2001, pp. 263–8. USA: Association for Computing Machinery.

15.

Cohen

(2007) Methods in cultural psychology. In: Kitayama

Cohen

(eds), Handbook of Cultural Psychology. New York: Guilgord Press, pp. 196–236.

16.

Dartey-Baah

(2015) Resilient leadership: a transformational-transactional leadership mix. Journal of Global Responsibility 6(1): 99–112.

17.

Dastmalchian

Javidan

Alam

(2001) Effective leadership and culture in Iran: an empirical study. Applied Psychology: An International Review 50(4): 532–58.

18.

Deci

Ryan

(2000) The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: human needs and the self-determination of behaviour. Psychological Inquiry 11: 227–68.

19.

Dorfman

Javidan

Hanges

, et al. (2012) GLOBE: a twenty year journey into the intriguing world of culture and leadership. Journal of World Business 47(4): 504–18.

20.

Drath

McCauley

Palus

, et al. (2008) Direction, alignment, commitment: toward a more integrative ontology of leadership. Leadership Quarterly 19(6): 635–53.

21.

Gagné

Deci

(2005) Self-determination theory and work motivation. Journal of Organizational Behavior 26(4): 331–62.

22.

Gagne

Chemolli

Forest

, et al. (2008) A temporal analysis of the relation between organisational commitment and work motivation. Psychologica Belgica 48(2–3): 219–41.

23.

Gardner

Wickramasinghe

Pierce

(2018) Values congruence, organization-based self-esteem, and employee responses: evidence from Sri Lanka. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management 18(3): 349–72.

24.

Gelfand

Leslie

Fehr

(2008) To prosper, organizational psychology should…adopt a global perspective. Journal of Organizational Behavior 29(4): 493–517.

25.

Green

Roos

(2012) Australia’s manufacturing future. Discussion paper prepared for the Prime Minister’s Manufacturing Taskforce. Australia: University of Technology Sydney.

26.

Hofstede

(1980) Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in Work Related Values. Beverly Hills: SAGE.

27.

Hui

Fock

(2004) Empowerment effects across cultures. Journal of International Business Studies 35(1): 46–60.

28.

Jackson

Meyer

Wang

(2013) Leadership, commitment, and culture: a meta-analysis. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies 20(1): 84–106.

29.

Judge

Piccolo

(2004) Transformational and transactional leadership: a meta-analytic test of their relative validity. Journal of Applied Psychology 89(5): 755–68.

30.

Kessler

Bruursema

Rodopman

, et al. (2013) Leadership, interpersonal conflict, and counterproductive work behavior: an examination of the stressor-strain process. International Association for Conflict Management and Wiley Periodicals 6(3): 180–90.

31.

Lamont

Kennelly

(2012) A qualitative exploration of participant motives among committed amateur triathletes. Leisure Sciences 34(3): 236–55.

32.

Leung

Morris

(2015) Values, schemas, and norms in the culture–behavior nexus: a situated dynamics network. Journal of International Business Studies 46(1): 1028–50.

33.

Lofquist

Matthiesen

(2018) Viking leadership: How Norwegian transformational leadership style effects creativity and change through organizational citizenship behavior (OCB). International Journal of Cross Cultural Management 18(3): 309–25.

34.

Mekpor

Dartey-Baah

(2017) Leadership styles and employees’ voluntary work behaviors in the Ghanaian banking sector. Leadership and Organization Development Journal 38(1): 74–88.

35.

Meyer

Allen

(1991) A three-component conceptualization of organizational commitment. Human Resource Management Review 1(1): 64–98.

36.

Meyer

Herscovitch

(2001) Commitment in the workplace: toward the general model. Human Resource Management Review 11(3): 299–326.

37.

Meyer

Morin

AJS

(2016) A person-centered approach to commitment research: theory, research, and methodology. Journal of Organizational Behavior 37(4): 584–612.

38.

Meyer

Allen

Smith

(1993) Commitment to organizations and occupations: extension and test of a three-component conceptualization. Journal of Applied Psychology 78(4): 538–51.

39.

Meyer

Stanley

Jackson

, et al. (2012) Affective, normative, and continuance commitment levels across cultures: a meta-analysis. Journal of Vocational Behaviour 80(2): 225–45.

40.

Meyer

Stanley

Parfyonova

(2012) Employee commitment in context: the nature and implication of commitment profiles. Journal of Vocational Behavior 80(1): 1–16.

41.

Miller

Das

Chakravarthy

(2011) Culture and the role of choice in agency. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 101(1): 46–61.

42.

Nasab

Afshari

(2019) Authentic leadership and employee performance: mediating role of organizational commitment. Leadership and Organization Development Journal 40(5): 548–60.

43.

Payne

(2006) Examining configurations and firm performance in a suboptimal equifinality context. Organization Science 17(6): 756–70.

44.

Popper

Zakkai

(1994) Transactional, charismatic and transformational leadership: conditions conducive to their predominance. Leadership and Organization Development Journal 15(6): 3–7.

45.

Randall

(1993) Cross-cultural research on organizational commitment: a review and application of Hofstede’s Value Survey Module. Journal of Business Research 26(1): 91–110.

46.

Sarstedt

Mooi

(2019) Cluster analysis. In: Sarstedt

Mooi

(eds) A Concise Guide to Market Research. Springer Texts in Business and Economics. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer, pp. 237–84.

47.

Van Knippenberg

Sitkin

(2013) A critical assessment of charismatic-transformational leadership research: back to the drawing board? The Academy of Management Annals 7(1): 1–60.

48.

Van Knippenberg

Sleebos

(2006) Organizational identification versus organizational commitment: self-definition, social exchange, and job attitudes. Journal of Organizational Behavior 27(5): 571–84.

49.

Wasti

(2005) Commitment profiles: combinations of organizational commitment forms and job outcomes. Journal of Vocational Behavior 67(2): 290–308.

50.

Wasti

(2016) Understanding commitment across cultures: an overview. In: Meyer

(ed.), Handbook of Employee Commitment. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 363–75.

51.

Wasti

Peterson

Breitsohl

, et al. (2016) Location, location, location: contextualizing workplace commitment. Journal of Organizational Behavior 37(4): 613–32.

52.

Yang

(2005) Can the strengths of AIC and BIC be shared? Biometrika 92(4): 937–50.

53.

Zaidman

Elisha

(2016) What generates the violation of psychological contracts at multinational corporations? A contextual exploratory study. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management 16(1): 99–119.