Affective Commitment as a Core Essence of Organizational Commitment

Abstract

This article responds to the call for the identification of a core essence of organizational commitment. Since this call 14 years ago, scholars studying organizational commitment have not come to an agreement as to the nature of organizational commitment, and how it develops. The research’s fragmentation creates a problem in a time when practitioners are looking toward organizational commitment interventions to attract, retain, and develop talent and enhance employee performance. With organizational commitment research remaining confounding and fragmented, further clarification of what commitment is and how it develops is warranted and important to guide future research and evidence-based practice. Through a review of the competing and overlapping organizational commitment theoretical frameworks and the empirical research on the consequences of affective organizational commitment, this article proposes a conceptual framework in which affective commitment, or the emotional attachment to the organization, is an important core essence of organizational commitment.

Keywords

organizational commitment affective commitment employee commitment employee emotional commitment

On the topic of human motivation, Abraham Maslow stated, “The fact is that people are good. Give people affection and security and they will give affection and be secure in their feelings and their behavior” (Lowry, 1973, p. 18). Securing employees’ affection and subsequent, demonstrated commitment is a rising concern emerging in organization development (OD) and human resource development (HRD) practice. Increasingly, leaders in modern organizations are tasked with attracting, cultivating, and retaining talent with the skills and capabilities to maintain a competitive advantage in their industries (Aguirre, Post, & Hewlett, 2009; Alvino, 2014; Clifton, 2014; Dychtwald, Erickson, & Morison, 2013; Pangarkar & Kirkwood, 2013). The modern environment of economic uncertainty, rapid change, continued globalization, increasing competition, and the rise of the mobile millennial generation serves as the backdrop and potential driver of this increased attention and focus on employee commitment from both practitioners and scholars (Cohen, 2007; Gibb, 2011; Meyer, Stanley, Herscovitch, & Topolnytsky, 2002; Morrow, 2011; Fornes, Rocco & Wollard, 2008).

A poignant example of the practical call to reengage scholarly inquiry into organizational commitment can be observed in one of the most prestigious U.S. government agencies. In the 2014 Government Executive article, “The High Cost of Federal Workforce Depression,” author Howard Risher commented on the current U.S. Secret Service systemic failures by focusing on an endemic lack of morale and emotional commitment to the agency over the past 7 years. Risher (2014) stated,

. . . poor morale can be a cancer that slowly spreads and vitiates the commitment of even those who are seen as role models. The agency fell from 66th on the 2007 list of the “Best Places to Work” to 226 out of 300 in 2013. (para. 5)

Risher observed that poor morale, an attitude or feeling, can consequently impair employee commitment.

Other modern practitioners seem to agree. In 2014, Forbes Magazine published an article titled “Engage Your Employees or Lose Billions.” Alvino (2014) observed that behaviors such as working long hours and productivity are enacted first by an emotional attachment, or commitment, to an organization’s mission or story. In addition, the Association for Talent Development (ATD) released a bulletin titled “Four Ways to Gain Employees Commitment.” Pangarkar and Kirkwood (2013) stated, “Employee engagement is the holy grail for every business leader. It’s described in a variety of ways but generally defined as when employees fully invest emotionally, mentally, and physically so they focus on achieving the organization’s objectives” (para. 1). To further underscore the need for an exploration into what commitment is and how it develops, in 2014, Gallup released a poll that found just three out of every 10 employees felt engaged in their jobs and committed to their organizations (Clifton, 2014).

The recent attention given to engagement and commitment in the popular management press has centered heavily on emotional well-being when describing employee commitment to organizations. William Davies (2015), in The Atlantic article “All the Happy Workers” further examined the modern organizational and societal need for happy and emotionally committed employees. Davies (2015), while highlighting the refocus of corporations on emotional commitment and well-being, stated, “ . . . this is the monistic philosophy of the 21st-century manager: Each worker can become better, in body, mind, and output” (para. 45).

Purpose

At the same time 21st-century managers renew a focus on and investment in employee attitudes and organizational commitment, HRD and OD scholars have lamented that the stream of organizational commitment literature remains confounding, fragmented, and difficult to access (Cohen, 2007; Fischer & Mansell, 2009; Meyer et al., 2002; Morrow, 2011; Mowday, 1999; Solinger, van Olffen, & Roe, 2008; Stazyk, Pandey, & Wright, 2011). The fragmented state of the organizational commitment research, a renewed practitioner focus on commitment as an HRD strategy, and the increased popular attention given to the role of emotional attachment to organizations warrants a modern review of the organizational commitment literature with a focus on affective (or emotional and attitudinal) organizational commitment as termed by Meyer & Allen (1984).

Thus, this article intends to serve as a modern review, analysis, and synthesis of the affective organizational commitment scholarly literature within the broader context of organizational commitment. The ultimate goal of this review is to provide direction for future researchers and practitioners studying organizational commitment, and more specifically, how affective organizational commitment is developed and managed. Furthermore, this review responds to Meyer and Herscovitch’s (2001) call for the definition of a core essence of organizational commitment by arguing that affective commitment is an important core essence of the organizational commitment construct.

This article is organized into the following sections: (a) method, (b) statement of the problem, (c) an integrative literature review of the construct of affective commitment within the context of the broader organizational commitment literature, (d) findings and conceptual model of affective commitment as a core essence of organizational commitment, and (e) implications for researchers and practitioners.

Method

Based on recommendations by Torraco (2005), the following outlines the strategy of selecting and analyzing the articles and texts used in this review. The method of conducting this integrative literature review is in alignment with the article’s stated purpose to synthesize a very complex and confounding stream of organizational commitment research to situate affective commitment as an important core essence of organizational commitment. First, the seminal and high-impact articles and texts on organizational commitment as a general construct were selected and reviewed to capture the evolution of the construct and to review the various competing and overlapping theoretical frameworks. Articles and texts published from 1960 to present were reviewed to scaffold the construct of organizational commitment’s development from its initial appearance in scholarly journals. The time range of selected articles was determined by selecting the first articles specifically naming employee and/or organizational commitment as a distinguished construct (e.g., Becker, 1960; Buchanan, 1974; Gouldner, 1960; Kanter, 1968; Steers, 1977). The high-impact, seminal articles that serve as the scaffolding for this review were initially identified by examining the reference lists of the most often cited (as statistically reported by Google Scholar) meta-analyses and existing literature reviews on organizational commitment published within the past 15 years. The articles on organizational commitment as a general construct were selected to serve as the context and backdrop from which to distinguish the construct of affective commitment and describe its evolution.

Next, articles that presented both one dimensional and multidimensional conceptual models that included definitions of affective organizational commitment as a distinguished construct were selected and reviewed. These articles were selected to compare and contrast the definitions of affective commitment with the early definitions of the general construct of organizational commitment to determine if affective commitment and the original, defined construct of organizational commitment displayed commonalities and therefore may be a theoretical core of organizational commitment. Meyer and Allen’s (1991) three-component model of organizational commitment was selected to serve as the base from which to select and analyze articles that investigated and theorized on the three most widely recognized and studied forms of commitment: affective, normative, and continuance commitment.

Then, articles that focused on both the theoretical frameworks and empirical research of the antecedents and consequences of affective commitment, specifically, were selected and analyzed. In addition, meta-analyses that combined the study of the antecedents and consequences of affective, normative, and continuance commitment were selected and reviewed to determine commonalities and incongruences among the findings. Finally, research articles in the past 15 years that studied and linked HRD practices as antecedents to affective commitment were selected to inform the discussion of implications to practitioners and researchers.

Research databases and portals such as Google Scholar, EBSCO Academic Search Premier, JSTOR, and ERIC served as the portals for accessing the literature. The databases were queried using the keywords: affective commitment, organizational commitment, employee commitment, and employee emotional commitment. A total of 75 texts and peer-reviewed articles were selected for review based on the above criteria.

The Problem: Defining a Core Essence of Organizational Commitment

The problem is that when faced with the task of improving employees’ emotional commitment to organizations, practitioners and scholars are faced with confounding and contradictory scholarly research from which to base planned interventions and empirical studies. The popular commentary by practitioners urging a focus on organizational commitment as a means of sustaining a high-functioning workforce incites a simultaneous need for scholars in HRD and OD to examine and clarify the state of organizational commitment research for future empirical investigations and practitioner use.

Practitioners and new scholars exploring organizational commitment literature will find a stream of research that is fragmented, confounding, and contradictory. This problem was raised by Meyer and Herscovitch (2001) when they stated, “Despite the increase in attention given to the study of workplace commitment, there still appears to be considerable confusion and disagreement about what commitment is, where it is directed, how it develops, and how it affects behavior” (p. 299).

Defining a “Core Essence”

In addition, Meyer and Herscovitch (2001) urged the definition and conceptualization of a core essence of organizational commitment to guide future research. A core essence, as described by Meyer and Herscovitch, is a binding force that should drive future theory-building and modeling of the construct of organizational commitment. Core, as defined in the Oxford Dictionary (2015), means the most central and important part of something. Essence is defined as the intrinsic nature or indispensable quality of something.

Therefore, for the purpose of this review, a core essence can be defined as an enduring, indispensable, and central characteristic of the organizational commitment construct that distinguishes it from other constructs. Meyer and Herscovitch’s (2001) attempt at defining a core essence, however, resulted in a proposed multidimensional core, therefore not meeting the definition of a core essence and perhaps adding to the confusion of the complex stream of research and definitions of organizational commitment.

The State of the Literature: 2001-Present

Since Meyer and Herscovitch’s call for the definition of a core essence of organizational commitment in 2001, there remains significant fragmentation and debate as to what the core essence of organizational commitment is and should be (Cohen, 2007; Fischer & Mansell, 2009; Meyer et al., 2002; Morrow, 2011; Solinger et al., 2008; Stazyk et al., 2011). It is important to acknowledge that the fragmented evolution of the scholarship on organizational commitment can be attributed to the diverse disciplines (e.g., psychology, management, sociology) that have undertaken the study of commitment. However, the combination of a renewed practical focus on organizational commitment and a confounding body of research represents a problem for both scholars studying organizational commitment and practitioners developing and implementing interventions focused on organizational commitment. By proposing a core essence of organizational commitment through an updated review of the literature, a narrower and more accessible definition of organizational commitment may assist researchers and practitioners in continuing important empirical research to design effective interventions to develop and manage commitment.

The current dilemma in the organizational commitment literature has risen out of the abundance of healthy scholarly debate that has endured regarding the meanings, definitions, and dimensions of organizational commitment since the early 1960s. Much of the scholarly literature examining organizational commitment sought to clarify and define the construct more narrowly and accurately to provide researchers with a sound framework to base inquiries. However, after more than 50 years of scholarly work on the topic, there remains rigorous debate as to the nature, types, and bases of commitment, and whether dominant frameworks such as Meyer and Allen’s (1991) three-component framework are valid across multiple contexts and accurately describe the phenomenon of commitment. This debate is evidenced by the recent research questioning the efficacy of the theorizing around organizational commitment and its potential role in fragmenting future empirical research (Fischer & Mansell, 2009; Fornes, Rocco & Wollard, 2008; Solinger et al., 2008; Stazyk et al., 2011).

Furthermore, with the significant meta-analyses of organizational commitment research now nearing a decade old and practitioner publications citing commitment as a key variable in workforce development, it is important and useful to conduct a review of the literature that may clarify and focus an area of future organizational commitment research and add to the modern organizational commitment literature.

Organizational Commitment Theories

To further define and distinguish affective commitment as a core essence of organizational commitment, the following will review the existing theoretical frameworks and conceptualizations of organizational commitment and discern how affective commitment remains at the core of these diverting and overlapping theories.

Behavioral Commitment Theory

The definition of the behavioral conceptualization and theory of organizational commitment is perhaps best stated by Mowday, Porter & Steers (1982), when they wrote that behavioral commitment “ . . . relates to the process by which individuals become locked into certain organizations” (p. 26). The primary assertion of the theories of behavioral commitment posits that an individual’s psychological state of commitment to an organization is a consequence of the actions of the individual. Under this theoretical lens, an individual’s behavior also creates the conditions through which a psychological state of commitment is reached. Meyer and Allen (1991), when contrasting the behavioral perspective and the attitudinal perspective of commitment, describe the behavioral perspective as a cycle that starts and ends with the individual’s behavior.

Salancik (1977), in the primary work on behavioral commitment, argued that organizational commitment arises out of (a) an attachment to the individual’s own freely chosen actions, (b) a perceived obligation to follow through with these actions, and (c) the perceived costs of continuing or not continuing the actions. Salancik used the term “volition” to describe the individual’s perception that an action was made out of a free choice. Salancik posited that when volition is high, an individual might feel more personally responsible for that action. In addition, Salancik theorized that perceived costs of continuing the action result in the repetition of past actions in the future.

For example, under the behavioral lens of commitment, if an employee freely chooses to act loyally to a supervisor, then that individual will feel a heightened obligation to continue to act loyally. Moreover, if the costs of not continuing to act loyally are high, the obligation to continue acting loyally will be further heightened; thus producing a psychological state of commitment to the supervisor.

Transactional Commitment Theory

Scholars have also theorized that commitment arises out of an individual’s investment of resources and subsequent rewards (Becker, 1960; Hrebiniak & Alutto, 1972). The transactional perspective is based on the idea that commitment is the result of economic decisions and rationale. Becker’s (1960) “side bet” theory brought this conceptualization of commitment into focus.

Becker (1960) argued that commitment was a result of the perceived loss of an accumulation of specific investments if the individual did not maintain membership in that organization. Examples of these investments could include time, effort, and money (Meyer & Allen, 1984). In the transactional view, the potential risk of losing these investments coupled with the lack of other employment alternatives for the individual may result in commitment to the organization as manifested by longevity. Meyer and Allen (1984, 1991) labeled this type of commitment as “continuance” commitment.

Other scholars have used terms such as instrumental, compliance, or calculative commitment, but rely on Becker’s (1960) side bet theory as their general base (Mathieu & Zajac, 1990; O’Reilly & Chatman, 1986). Balfour and Wechsler (1996) took a different approach to theorizing about transactional commitment and used the term “exchange” commitment and theorized that commitment may be formed directly due to rewards received from the organization.

Obligatory Commitment Theory

Other researchers (Meyer & Allen, 1991; Wiener, 1982) theorized that commitment is partly developed by an individual’s predisposition or mind-set of obligation to an organization. This psychological state of obligation may arise out of specific norms that are internalized by the individual. Scholars adopting what Meyer and Allen (1984) termed “normative” commitment argue that internalized norms of obligation can be developed by a need or perceived expectation to reciprocate specific benefits to an organization. Normative commitment can be seen as having significant, overlapping principles with the ideas of continuance or behavioral-transactional theories of commitment.

Attitudinal Commitment Theory

Theories that are based on an attitudinal definition of commitment focus on the desire of the individual to remain in an organization (Meyer & Herscovitch, 2001). Kanter (1968) pioneered the theory of attitudinal commitment by hypothesizing that feelings of cohesion or involvement with an organization likely contributed to an individual’s commitment to that organization. Meyer and Allen (1984, 1991) termed this attitudinal type of commitment as “affective” commitment and base their term on Mowday, Steers, and Porter’s (1979) work in developing the Organizational Commitment Questionnaire (OQM), which measures affective commitment to organizations by measuring values congruence with the organization, feelings of care for the organization, pride in the organization, and willingness to put forth extra effort into the organization.

Meyer and Herscovitch (2001), based on an extensive review of the literature, theorized that affective commitment is developed primarily by an individual’s involvement and identification with the organization. More specifically, they asserted that individuals become intrinsically motivated or involved in a course of action that develops from an identification, association, and attachment with the larger organization’s values and objectives.

Commitment as Multidimensional

Out of the previously reviewed theoretical bases, researchers have developed important multidimensional models that conceptualize organizational commitment as nuanced, with overlapping and multiple meanings and bases that include all of the above definitions and theories (Angle & Perry, 1981; Jaros, Jermier, Koehler, & Sincich, 1993; Meyer & Allen, 1984, 1991; O’Reilly & Chatman, 1986). Perhaps the most well-known and enduring multidimensional conceptualization is Meyer and Allen’s (1991) three-component framework. This framework presents organizational commitment as a complementary relationship between attitudinal and behavioral definitions of commitment. They proposed that affective commitment (the desire to remain in the organization), continuance commitment (the need to remain in the organization), and normative commitment (the mind-set of an obligation to remain in the organization) are interrelated and may be experienced and demonstrated by individuals simultaneously. In fact, Meyer and Allen (1991) proposed that these varying theories of commitment should not be defined as types of commitment, but rather as components of commitment.

Meyer and Allen (1991) also theorized that attitudinal commitment and behavioral commitment are not mutually exclusive theories. For example, they state that affective commitment may result from specific, freely chosen behaviors that, over time, may lead individuals to then feel affectively attached to the organization.

Toward Affective Commitment as the Core of Organizational Commitment

Over the past 10 years, however, authors have challenged the three-component model and similar models that attempt to combine the previous streams of continuance, normative, and affective commitment research (Bergman, 2006; Solinger et al., 2008; Stazyk et al., 2011). These authors argue that the three components are “qualitatively different concepts” (Solinger et al., 2008, p. 73). They argued that the results of empirical studies measuring commitment indicate that affective, or attitudinal, commitment repeatedly correlated more strongly with consequences such as turnover and performance as summarized by important meta-analyses of the research (Cooper-Hakim & Viswesvaran, 2005; Mathieu & Zajac, 1990; Meyer et al., 2002; Riketta, 2005).

For example, Solinger et al. (2008) confirmed previous meta-analyses’ findings (Cooper-Hakim & Viswesvaran, 2005; Meyer et al., 2002) that found affective commitment correlated more strongly with absence (affective = −.15, normative = .05, continuance = .06), performance (affective = .16, normative = .06, continuance = −.07), and organizational citizenship behaviors (affective = .32, normative = .24, continuance = −.01) than continuance commitment and normative commitment. In addition, affective commitment correlated with the widest range of behavioral variables such as helping others, working extra hours, information sharing, and supervisor’s evaluation of performance (Solinger et al., 2008).

Solinger et al. (2008), therefore, argued that, in light of the empirical research, a singular approach to understanding commitment should be the base of future research. More specifically, they posited that a possible return to a solely attitudinal, affective approach is necessary due to the construct’s more conclusive empirical evidence.

In review of the theoretical frameworks that underpin the study of organizational commitment, it is clear that there exists significant debate and confusion around what organizational commitment is, and how it should be conceptualized. Most of the disagreement about the nature of commitment seems to focus on the behavioral and transactional conceptualizations of commitment in light of empirical research findings that indicate a considerably weaker predictive relationship with behavioral and transactional conceptualizations of commitment and consequences of commitment such as employee turnover and absenteeism (Fischer & Mansell, 2009; Meyer & Allen, 1984, 1991; Meyer et al., 2002).

Therefore, there does seem to be a relative constant in the research: attitudinal, affective commitment as a construct is a possible core of organizational commitment and could prove to be an important area of focus for future research and practical application. A review of the research of the evolution of the construct of affective commitment, therefore, helps to position it further as an important core essence of organizational commitment.

Research on Affective Commitment

Foundational Research

Researchers over the past 20 years have generally agreed that the construct of affective commitment can be described as the emotional attachment to an organization as manifested by an individual’s identification with, and involvement in, that organization (Mathieu & Zajac, 1990; Meyer & Allen, 1991; Meyer et al., 2002). The early research that underpins the current study of affective commitment seems to have studied the modern construct of affective commitment without operationally naming it as such. When reviewing and analyzing the modern study of affective commitment, and the practices of managing and developing the construct, it is important to understand its origins.

Cohesion Commitment

One of the first inquiries into affective commitment as a distinct construct was Kanter’s (1968) non-experimental, comparative study of utopian communities. Kanter first proposed and hypothesized three major constructs that facilitate commitment to social communities and organizations: continuance, cohesion, and control. Furthermore, Kanter posited that these three constructs of commitment are manifested in a person by cognition (continuance), cathexis (cohesion), and evaluative (control) mechanisms. It is the second variable, cohesion by cathexis, that formed the notion of cohesion commitment that serves as the basis of the modern research of affective commitment. Kanter (1968) defined cohesion commitment as “ . . . attachment to social relationships which absorb the individual’s fund of affectivity” (p. 501).

Kanter (1968) chose 91 utopian communities and used longevity as an indicator of success. A system that existed for more than 25 years was determined successful and one that existed for fewer than 25 years was deemed unsuccessful. Kanter found, through a 260-question survey designed with hypothesized commitment variables, that successful utopian communities employed strategies to intentionally design cohesion commitment, whereas unsuccessful communities did not structure practices to this effect (Kanter, 1968). Kanter found that one of the key variables of a successful utopian community was “communion” and defined this variable as “becoming part of a whole, the mingling of self with group” (p. 509). This definition still resonates in the affective commitment research today.

Building upon Kanter (1968) and earlier research on profession identification, Sheldon (1971) made an important distinction of affective commitment as a construct by defining commitment as an “attitude or orientation toward an organization which links or attaches the identity of the person to the organization” (p. 143). This distinction of commitment as attitudinal and not solely behavioral helped create the path of the development and distinguishability of affective commitment as a discriminate construct. Sheldon studied scientists and engineers in research laboratories to determine if social involvement and investments impacted the participants’ commitment to their organizations. Sheldon (1971) found that when participants did not involve themselves in the organization through social relationships, in spite of investments (i.e., time spent), they tended to withdraw from the organization.

Buchanan (1974) corroborated Sheldon’s (1971) research and also defined commitment as a psychological bond to an organization. More specifically, Buchanan surveyed 279 business and government managers and found that there are activities that organizations can structure that lead to the development of higher levels of commitment. Specifically, Buchanan found that peer group cohesion and attitudes toward the organization related significantly to commitment, and that tactics focused on early socialization into the organization correlated positively with attitudes of commitment. The early research that defined affective commitment as a construct led to important inquiries into the consequences of low and high levels of affective commitment.

Consequences of Affective Commitment

More analysis will be provided later on specific, researched consequences of low and high levels of affective commitment, but it is important to note the evolution of commitment as a strategic element in organizations. Arguably, the most notable and relevant problem in organizations related to commitment is employee turnover due to its financial implications. In an initial investigation of how commitment affects turnover, Porter, Crampon, and Smith (1976) studied 212 management trainees in a longitudinal study that measured attitudes over a 15-month period. Attitudes were measured in relation to defined variables of affective commitment including the desire to remain at the organization, willingness to input high effort, and a belief in the values of the organization. Porter et al. (1976) found that employees who exhibited a lack of a positive attitude toward the organization in the first week of employment were more likely to leave the organization. In addition, they found that feelings of “disaffection” (p. 96) were a precursor to eventual turnover. This research would pave the way for future studies that have defined turnover and withdrawal as a consequence of low affective commitment levels and buttress future studies on absenteeism and job performance as potential consequences of low affective commitment (Mathieu & Zajac, 1990; Meyer et al., 2002; Mowday et al., 1982; Mowday et al., 1979).

As reviewed above, the relatively quick evolution of the scholarly research in the 1970s on affective commitment represents the importance of understanding how individuals’ attitudes toward an organization affect their contributions and investment in that organization. Early social scientists played a key role in legitimizing commitment as an important sociological and psychological variable in social organizations. This early research also constructed the foundation upon which researchers began studying how to define and measure affective commitment.

Distinguishing Affective Commitment

In addition to defining the construct of affective commitment, a significant amount of research and discussion has prevailed in distinguishing affective commitment from other forms of commitment. In particular, Becker’s (1960) research described and defined commitment as a result of a series of activities, such as time spent and money invested, termed “side bets,” that motivate an employee to stay in an organization. This view of commitment, termed by Meyer and Allen (1984) as continuance commitment, was widely held and researched (Hrebiniak & Alutto, 1972; Ritzer & Trice, 1969). In addition, Wiener’s (1982) research provided a normative view of commitment that held that an individual’s predisposition of certain values such as loyalty lead to commitment.

Mowday et al. (1979), in developing the predominate measurement instrument of attitudinal organizational commitment, the OQM, found indications of discriminate validity of commitment as a variable distinct from concepts such as job satisfaction, pay, or promotions. The definition of commitment used by Mowday et al. (1979) as “a construct that is global, reflecting a general affective response to the organization as a whole” (p. 226) is significant when distinguishing affective commitment from other conceptualizations. In research testing Becker’s side bet, behavioral-based theory, Meyer and Allen (1984) found that studies testing the theory, such as Hrebiniak and Alutto’s (1972) work, had validity issues in that they were measuring affective commitment variables through a scale developed to measure Becker’s (1960) side bet theory of commitment.

Meyer and Allen’s (1984) study of full-time university employees at various job levels found that tenure (time invested) in an organization was not a specific variable that directly produced commitment. Conversely, they found that time spent in an organization correlated to higher affective commitment measures, which may have led to longer tenures. Meyer and Allen (1984), therefore, found that the nature of commitment was significant in predicting tenure versus tenure predicting commitment. This research further distinguished and solidified that affective commitment as a construct seemed to be a distinct, discriminate, and influential construct, much as Mowday et al. (1979) previously theorized (Meyer & Allen, 1991).

Meyer and Allen (1991) went further in categorizing and deconstructing prevailing debates about the definition and distinction of types of commitment and created a three-component conceptualization of commitment that has been utilized in numerous subsequent research studies. As noted previously, this model describes commitment as a desire (affective), a need (continuance), and an obligation (normative) (Meyer & Allen, 1991; Somers, 1995). Much of the research, however, has found that affective commitment has the strongest predictive relationship with outcomes such as turnover and absenteeism (Meyer et al., 2002).

Measuring Affective Commitment

The seminal work in measuring what Meyer and Allen (1984) termed “affective commitment” is Mowday et al.’s (1979) OQM. This research defined the variables and measures of affective commitment that have been utilized in research on affective commitment over the past 50 years. Moreover, the measurement has been found to be psychometrically sound and valid through rigorous testing in various contexts (Cook & Wall, 1980).

OQM

The OQM consisted of 15 items designed to measure the feelings that individuals have about their organization. The questions on the instrument are phrased both positively and negatively to control for response bias and measure variables of commitment such as values congruence with the organization, feelings of care for the organization, pride in the organization, and willingness to put forth extra effort into the organization (Mowday et al., 1979).

Mowday et al. (1979) administered the OQM to 2,563 employees in various contexts including the public sector, university settings, hospital settings, banks, telephone companies, scientists, engineers, automobile companies, psychiatric technicians, and with retail management trainees. Measures selected for correlational and predictive purposes included job involvement, job satisfaction, career satisfaction, turnover, absenteeism, intent to leave, and performance. Through laborious analysis and testing, they found acceptable evidence of convergent, discriminant, and predictive validity. Arguably, one of the most significant findings relates to the predictive validity of the OQM. Mowday et al. (1979) found that high levels of affective commitment to an organization, among other possible causes, might predict employee turnover, absenteeism, and tenure. The relationship between affective commitment and performance, however, was not as strong (Mowday et al., 1982; Mowday et al., 1979).

The OQM, and its possible predictive nature as a psychometrically sound instrument, has underpinned much of the research on affective commitment, especially when related to measuring the antecedents and consequences of affective commitment.

Meta-Analyses

Several researchers have performed important meta-analyses of the literature on affective commitment that have categorized research of the construct by organizing antecedents, correlates, and consequences of affective commitment (Cooper-Hakim & Viswesvaran, 2005; Mathieu & Zajac, 1990; Meyer et al., 2002; Riketta, 2005). As mentioned in this article’s problem statement, since the topic’s emergence in the 1960s and 1970s, the abounding, fragmented, and sometimes conflicting theories and research on affective commitment seem to have proved difficult for researchers to accurately design research projects to measure and investigate the construct. By creating categories for research, meta-analyses have been an important research method in advancing the knowledge of how affective commitment is developed and managed, and how it affects individuals in organizations.

Primary Consequences of Affective Commitment

A majority of the research conducted on affective commitment since Mowday et al.’s (1979) development of the OQM has focused on the consequences of both high and low levels of affective commitment. Mowday et al. (1982) focused the analysis on “linkages” between the employee and the organization and focused on the nature of those linkages, specifically in relation to turnover and absenteeism as primary consequences. Research has continued to focus on employee retention as a major consequence of affective commitment. However, the study of positive consequences of affective commitment has emerged in the research such as the investigation of the effects of affective commitment on organizational citizenship behaviors and affective commitment as a moderator of stress in the workplace. This research is helping to broaden the scope of modern affective commitment research.

Turnover

Employee retention continues to be a major concern in the research on affective commitment. Mowday et al. (1982) stated that “highly committed employees are by definition desirous of remaining with the organization and working toward organizational goals and should hence be less likely to leave” (p. 38). Many longitudinal studies have found significantly high, negative correlations between affective commitment and turnover (Albrecht & Andreetta, 2011; Angle & Perry, 1981; Cooper-Hakim & Viswesvaran, 2005; Meyer et al., 2002; Morrow, 2011; Mowday et al., 1979; Payne & Huffman, 2005; Randall, 1990; Riketta, 2005; Somers, 1995). Moreover, research has indicated that turnover is most correlative to levels of affective commitment as a distinguished construct than that of the other behavioral and transactional commitment constructs (Solinger et al., 2008; Somers, 1995).

Absenteeism

In addition, affective commitment has been found to be one of the primary predictors of absenteeism of employees, although correlations have been weaker than those of employee turnover. Higher levels of affective commitment have been shown in studies to lower absenteeism rates (Mathieu & Zajac, 1990; Mowday, Porter, & Steers, 2013; Mowday et al., 1982; Randall, 1990; Solinger et al., 2008; Somers, 1995, 2009).

Organizational citizenship behaviors

Studies have also shown that affective commitment is positively correlated and predictive with exhibited organizational citizenship behaviors (Liu, 2009; Meyer et al., 2002; Shore & Wayne, 1993; Williams & Anderson, 1991). Organizational citizenship has been generally defined as the discretionary behavior of the individual to exhibit extra effort that is not recognized by a formal rewards or evaluative system (Katz, 1964; Organ, 1988, 1997). The implications of these findings in organizations are especially important in the modern context. In the continued age of globalization and innovation, where organizations are attempting to maximize employee output, further investigation on the impact of creating an emotional bond between the individual and the organization and behaviors is warranted.

Stress

A growing area of research into the consequences of affective commitment has centered on the moderating effects of affective commitment on stress in the workplace (Meyer et al., 2002; Schmidt, 2007). Schmidt (2007) found that affective commitment may mediate stress levels in the workplace by diminishing feelings of burnout and emotional exhaustion. The research into this consequence remains limited, yet promising, in terms of potential contributions to the management of employee well-being.

Primary Antecedents of Affective Commitment

Due to the empirical links made between affective commitment and turnover, absenteeism, organizational citizenship behaviors, and stress, the study of the antecedents of affective commitment has surged (Meyer et al., 2002). It has been well-documented, through meta-analyses, that the primary antecedents of affective commitment are demographic variables, individual differences, work experiences, and investments (Cooper-Hakim & Viswesvaran, 2005; Mathieu & Zajac, 1990; Meyer et al., 2002; Riketta, 2005). However, studies have shown that the most strongly correlated antecedent of affective commitment continues to be work experience variables (Meyer et al., 2002).

Work experiences

In a summary on what is known about the management and development of affective commitment, Morrow (2011) found that research has shown empirical evidence that socialization, high-commitment human resource (HR) practices, and interpersonal relationships have a role in positively correlating to high levels of affective commitment. Research has also demonstrated that HR practices that are grounded in the theories of organizational commitment can positively shape employee attitudes related to affective commitment to organizations (Kehoe & Wright, 2013; Morrow, 2011; Paré & Tremblay, 2007; Sun et al., 2007; Whitener, 2001).

The literature has shown that the key high-commitment HR practices that affect levels of affective commitment can be categorized as recruitment and selection, socialization, mentoring and social networking, and training and development (N. J. Allen & Meyer, 1990; Bauer, Bodner, Erdogan, Truxillo, & Tucker, 2007; Chatman, & O’Reilly, 1990; Hellman & McMillin, 1994; Nyhan, 1999; Payne & Huffman, 2005; Saks & Ashforth, 1997; Whitener, 2001). In addition to research linking specific HR practices to affective commitment, there has also been increasing research on the impact of individuals’ perceptions of those practices on affective commitment.

Perceived organizational support

As Bartlett (2001) found, individual perceptions of organizational practices appear to have an effect on levels of affective commitment. Numerous studies corroborate the finding that employees’ perceptions of, access to, and involvement with organizational practices seem to affect an individual’s level of affective commitment (e.g., D. G. Allen & Shanock, 2013; Eisenberger, Fasolo, & Davis-LaMastro, 1990; Kinnie, Hutchinson, Purcell, Rayton, & Swart, 2005; Rhoades, Eisenberger, & Armeli, 2001; Whitener, 2001). This literature also suggests two variables related to the positive perceptions of organizational practices: perceived organizational support and trust.

Trust

Perceptions of organizational practices can also be manifested and measured in terms of trust within an organization. Specifically, Nyhan (1999) posited that trust can be distinguished as interpersonal trust and systemic trust. Nyhan found in a review of the literature that interventions focused on trust typically come in the form of building systemic trust (top-down). However, Nyhan’s study of more than 600 employees in the public sector found that trust within interpersonal relationships was more correlative to levels of affective commitment than systemic trust. This study suggests the need for organizations to focus on bottom-up interventions to build trust and therefore support the development of affective commitment.

Findings

The findings below respond to the purpose of this article: to review the affective organizational commitment scholarly literature within the broader context of organizational commitment to argue that affective commitment is a core essence of organizational commitment. Three significant findings of this review are (a) affective commitment seems to serve as a historical and theoretical base for organizational commitment theories, (b) affective commitment may more strongly influence work behaviors than other components or proposed forms of commitment, and (c) affective commitment may be reasonably considered a core essence of organizational commitment.

Affective Commitment as the Historical and Theoretical Base of Commitment

Based on this review, the earliest studies and conceptualizations of organizational commitment focused on commitment as an attitude of cohesion to, or emotional involvement and connection with, an organization (Buchanan, 1974; Kanter, 1968; Mowday et al., 1979; Sheldon, 1971). For example, within the development of the predominate and psychometrically sound instrument measuring organizational commitment, the OQM, Mowday et al. (1979) defined organizational commitment as “a construct that is global, reflecting a general affective response to the organization as a whole” (p. 226). Kanter (1968) defined organizational commitment as the “ . . . attachment to social relationships which absorb the individual’s fund of affectivity” (p. 501), and Sheldon (1971) defined commitment as “ . . . an attitude or orientation toward an organization which links or attaches the identity of the person to the organization” (p. 143).

These historical and theoretical roots of commitment are important when synthesizing and understanding this large body of research. Although many conceptualizations since the 1960s and 1970s have depicted commitment as equally weighted components (affective, normative, continuance), the attitudinal, affective construct of commitment has remained central and constant through a wide diversity of the theorizing and multidimensional conceptualizations of organizational commitment (e.g., Cooper-Hakim & Viswesvaran, 2005; Mathieu & Zajac, 1990; Meyer & Allen, 1984, 1991; Meyer et al., 2002). Moreover, empirical studies have situated affective commitment as more correlative to changes in work behaviors than other theorized components of commitment, further distinguishing the construct. This is significant and may signal a need to return to defining commitment based on the attitudinal or affective measure, much as the early scholars hypothesized at the outset of organizational commitment research.

Affective Commitment and Work Behaviors

In numerous studies, synthesized by important meta-analyses, the construct of affective commitment was repeatedly found to have a significantly higher correlative relationship with the key consequences of organizational commitment than the behavioral or transactional constructs and conceptualizations of organizational commitment (Cooper-Hakim & Viswesvaran, 2005; Mathieu & Zajac, 1990; Meyer et al., 2002; Riketta, 2005). Specifically, affective commitment correlated more strongly with absence (affective = −.15, normative = .05, continuance = .06), performance (affective = .16, normative = .06, continuance = −.07), and organizational citizenship behaviors (affective = .32, normative = .24, continuance = −.01) than continuance commitment and normative commitment. In addition, affective commitment correlated with the widest range of behavioral variables such as assisting fellow employees, working longer hours, information sharing, and supervisors’ evaluations of performance (Solinger et al., 2008).

Therefore, it may be hypothesized through this review that, as the most influential form of commitment, affective commitment may mediate and affect employee behavior and reactions to transactions with the organization.

Affective Commitment as a Core Essence of Organizational Commitment

Thus, through this review and synthesis, affective commitment may reasonably be considered what Meyer and Herscovitch (2001) called for as a core essence of organizational commitment. At the outset of this article, a core essence was defined as an enduring, indispensable, and central characteristic of the organizational commitment construct that distinguishes it from other constructs. Through this review of the literature, affective commitment was found to be an enduring, demonstrably indispensable, and central characteristic of organizational commitment.

Conceptual Model

As a result of this study, and to depict its findings, a new conceptual model of affective commitment as the core essence of organizational commitment is proposed (Figure 1). The model depicts the synthesis of this review of the literature. Affective commitment is represented as the center core and source that most strongly affects individual behaviors and feelings, shapes individual perceptions, and may mediate the individual’s reactions to organizational transactions. In addition, the complementary relationships between transactions, behaviors, perceptions, and feelings included in Meyer and Allen’s (1991) three-component model are depicted through bi-directional arrows between these concepts. The dashed, returning arrows to affective commitment from major concepts also include the assertion that affective commitment can be further enhanced through a pattern of behaviors, transactions, perceptions, and feelings (Meyer & Allen, 1991). However, it is important to note that as a result of this review, the model depicts affective commitment as the primary influencer and source of the subsequent components.

Figure 1.

Concept map of affective commitment as the core essence of organizational commitment.

Implications

Defining affective commitment as a core essence of organizational commitment has important implications for both practitioners and researchers. Affective commitment has been generally defined as the emotional attachment to the organization. Jaros et al. (1993) defined affective commitment as “the degree to which an individual is psychologically attached to an employing organization through feelings such as loyalty, affection, warmth, belongingness, fondness, pleasure, and so on” (p. 954). Meyer and Allen (1991) defined it as “the employee’s emotional attachment to, identification with, and involvement in the organization” (p. 67). Given that high levels of affective commitment affect employee behaviors, the major question, then, for practitioners is, “How does the organization strategically plan for, and facilitate an emotional bond between the employee and the organization?” The primary question for researchers is, “What are the predictors and causes of high levels of affective commitment?”

Implications for Researchers

Researchers must seek to answer the question, “What are the predictors of high levels of affective commitment?” To inform practitioners, there is a need for scholars to undertake empirical research studies with predictive validity that link certain organizational interventions and practices with high levels of affective commitment. Morrow (2011) stated that “researchers are fond of saying more longitudinal studies on a given topic are needed. Sadly, this admonition applies to the relatively mature construct of affective commitment” (p. 31). Specifically, new antecedents need to be identified in the modern environment in which organizations operate. Research that studies the effects of potentially new antecedents of affective commitment such as social identities, new media, social media, and technology is also needed. Current practices in organizations that focus on emotional attachment specifically should be researched. These types of inquiries could lead to a model of optimal, empirically researched practices to inform practitioners seeking to enhance employee retention and productivity by focusing on affective commitment.

Implications for Practitioners

As practitioners look to building commitment as both a business and talent management strategy, it is important to focus on what practices are in place to secure an emotional bond to the organization. Although many organizations may focus on benefits, salaries, positions, and career advancement structures as a means of building commitment, they may be overlooking what research has found to be a possible antecedent to these elements: the affective, emotional bond employees have with their organizations. Research has identified key practices that organizations should investigate and plan for. These practices have been termed “high commitment” HR practices (Kehoe & Wright, 2010). Moreover, the planning of HR practices with development of affective commitment in mind seems critical to retaining talent.

High-Commitment HR Practices

Research has demonstrated that HR practices that are grounded in the theories of organizational commitment can positively shape employee attitudes related to affective commitment to organizations (Kehoe & Wright, 2010; Morrow, 2011; Paré & Tremblay, 2007; Whitener, 2001). In addition, researchers have found that HR practices that focus on commitment positively affect employee perceptions of the organization, which can result in higher levels of affective commitment as well as increased organizational trust (Allen & Shanock, 2013; Kinnie et al., 2005; Nyhan, 1999; Sun et al., 2007). The ability for employees to feel involved and aware of HR practices has also been found to contribute to elevating affective commitment levels (Morrow, 2011).

Recruitment, Selection, and Socialization

Researchers have found that developing and managing affective commitment begins at the point of recruitment and within initial entry experiences in an organization. Caldwell et al. (1990) built upon research on recruitment and socialization and found that when organizations use techniques such as rigorous and careful recruitment and selection and design initial experiences that encourage new members to learn about and accept the values of a new organization, commitment is positively affected. In addition, socialization practices that focus on organizational values and include positive role modeling at the management level had an effect on new members’ affective commitment to the organization (Caldwell et al., 1990; O’Reilly & Caldwell, 1981).

In conjunction with socialization practices that feature a high investment in organizational values and positive role modeling, Hellman and McMillin (1994) found that organizations that provide socialization experiences in which newcomers are able to define their role in the organization and become familiar with its norms quicker resulted in higher levels of affective commitment. Allen and Meyer (1990) also found that newcomer socialization experiences in which anxiety was alleviated through the presence of a defined structure and process correlated positively with commitment to the organization. In addition, researchers have found that such newcomer socialization experiences have the ability to embed newcomers in their organizations (Bauer et al., 2007). Saks and Ashforth (1997) utilized Van Maanen and Schein’s (1979) framework of socialization to find that reducing uncertainty and anxiety affect newcomers’ affective commitment to organizations and ultimately facilitate the process of embedding newcomers in the organization’s culture and value systems.

In a practice manual titled “Employee Engagement and Commitment” published by the Society for Human Resource Management, Vance (2006) offered managers key ingredients for employee engagement and commitment. These ingredients enact the theoretical literature previously discussed and represent a focus on values-based recruitment strategies, commitment-oriented hiring processes, and onboarding training that builds self-efficacy, self-esteem, and commitment as key variables for managers when structuring organizational practices to create the conditions necessary for high affective commitment levels (Vance, 2006).

Based upon the synthesis of current available literature, organizations that recruit and select intensively and have an intentionally structured newcomer socialization plan that focuses on the education of organizational values and norms, anxiety-reduction and job role clarification, and positive role modeling may be creating the conditions necessary for developing positive affective commitment levels among their employees.

Mentoring and Social Networking

An important variable in creating the conditions necessary to support the affective commitment of employees in organizations is examining the contexts and interpersonal relationships in which HR practices take place (Morrow, 2011). One specific area of research has centered around the effects of mentoring relationships on organizational commitment levels (Nyhan, 1999; Payne & Huffman, 2005). There have been empirical studies that have shown mentoring relationships have a positive effect on affective commitment. Payne and Huffman (2005) theorized, based on the literature, that there are three probable explanations for this effect: (a) mentoring helps employees personally identify with the organization, (b) mentoring assists with stress management, and (c) positive role modeling and relationships may foster better attitudes about work. Specifically, Payne and Huffman found that mentees who had mentors in a supervisory capacity reported higher levels of affective commitment to the organization. Therefore, the nature and intentionality of the relationship are important for practical considerations (Ragins, Cotton, & Miller, 2000).

More specifically, Craig, Allen, Reid, Riemenschneider, and Armstrong (2013) found that employees who engaged in psychosocial mentoring (i.e., a relationship focused on intrinsic motivation) and had a positive mentoring experience reported higher levels of affective commitment to the organization. In addition to one-on-one relationships, utilizing social exchange theory as a base, researchers have also examined the effects of friendship and social networks on affective commitment levels among employees (Brass, 1995; Morrison, 2002). Morrison (2002) found that employees with social networks beyond their functional work units reported higher levels of affective commitment to the larger organization.

The emerging research of both formal and informal interpersonal relationships as antecedents to developing and managing affective commitment represents an area for future research and application to practice.

Training and Development

Research related to investigating the empirical links between training and development initiatives and affective commitment levels, specifically, is limited and in its early stages in comparison with the literature available on the practices of recruitment, socialization, and interpersonal relationships (Bartlett, 2001). Vance (2006) indicated training and development is a key ingredient in fostering affective commitment and theorized that the investment in training and development that builds knowledge and skill translates into self-efficacy, self-esteem, and therefore employee commitment. This theory, however, remains relatively unexamined by modern researchers.

Bartlett (2001) utilized the three-component model of commitment to examine the relationship between training and commitment levels within the health care field, specifically. Although he did not uncover positive results related to the levels of affective commitment among employees based on the structure of training, Bartlett found that perceived access to training was a significant variable in affecting employees’ levels of affective commitment to the organization. A review of the literature indicates that the investigation of the relationship of training structure and organizational learning design on levels of affective commitment represents a gap in the literature, and a potentially fruitful area for scholars to examine.

Conclusion

The objective of this review was to respond to Meyer and Herscovitch’s (2001) call for the identification of a core essence of organizational commitment research. Within the last 14 years, scholars studying commitment have still not come to an agreement as to the nature of organizational commitment and how it develops. This fragmentation creates a problem in a time when practitioners are looking toward organizational commitment interventions to attract and retain talent and improve performance. With organizational commitment research remaining confounding and fragmented, further clarification of what commitment is and how it develops is warranted to guide future research and evidence-based practice. Through a review of the competing and overlapping theoretical frameworks on organizational commitment and the empirical research on the consequences of organizational commitment, the construct of affective commitment seems to be at the core of organizational commitment (Solinger et al., 2008) and an important focus for future research and practice.

Affective commitment, first termed by Meyer and Allen (1984), refers to the emotional attachment of an individual to the organization. The reviewed research indicates that affective commitment is more predictive of major organizational consequences such as turnover, absenteeism, and organizational citizenship behaviors than the theorized behavioral or transactional constructs of organizational commitment. This has important implications for both researchers and practitioners. First, researchers may utilize the conceptualization offered in this article to guide future research and longitudinal studies on the antecedents of affective commitment, specifically. Second, practitioners may use this article to begin examining how their organization focuses on fostering an emotional bond between the individual and the organization within existing and newly developed HR practices.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

Funding

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

Author Biography

Zachary A. Mercurio is a PhD student in the Organizational Learning, Performance, and Change program at Colorado State University in Fort Collins, CO.

References

Aguirre

Post

Hewlett

S. A.

(2009). The talent innovation imperative. Strategy+ Business, 56, 39-49.

Albrecht

S. L.

Andreetta

(2011). The influence of empowering leadership, empowerment and engagement on affective commitment and turnover intentions in community health service workers: Test of a model. Leadership in Health Services, 24, 228-237.

Allen

D. G.

Shanock

L. R.

(2013). Perceived organizational support and embeddedness as key mechanisms connecting socialization tactics to commitment and turnover among new employees. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34, 350-369.

Allen

N. J.

Meyer

J. P.

(1990). Organizational socialization tactics: A longitudinal analysis of links to newcomers’ commitment and role orientation. Academy of Management Journal, 33, 847-858.

Alvino

(2014, 29 September). Engage your employees or lose billions. Forbes Magazine. Retrieved from http://www.forbes.com/sites/womensmedia/2014/09/29/engage-your-employees-or-lose-billions/

Angle

H. L.

Perry

J. L.

(1981). An empirical assessment of organizational commitment and organizational effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 26, 1-14.

Balfour

D. L.

Wechsler

(1996). Organizational commitment: Antecedents and outcomes in public organizations. Public Productivity & Management Review, 19, 256-277.

Bartlett

K. R.

(2001). The relationship between training and organizational commitment: A study in the health care field. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 12, 335-352.

Bauer

T. N.

Bodner

Erdogan

Truxillo

D. M.

Tucker

J. S.

(2007). Newcomer adjustment during organizational socialization: A meta-analytic review of antecedents, outcomes, and methods. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 707-721.

10.

Becker

H. S.

(1960). Notes on the concept of commitment. American Journal of Sociology, 66, 32-40.

11.

Bergman

M. E.

(2006). The relationship between affective and normative commitment: Review and research agenda. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27, 645-663.

12.

Brass

D. J.

(1995). A social network perspective on human resources management. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, 13(1), 39-79.

13.

Buchanan

(1974). Building organizational commitment: The socialization of managers in work organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 19, 533-546.

14.

Chatman

J. A.

O’Reilly

C. A.

(1990). Building organizational commitment: A multifirm study. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 63, 245-261.

15.

Clifton

(2014, 8 October). Why being engaged at work isn’t as simple as being happy. Gallup: The Chairman’s Blog. Retrieved from http://thechairmansblog.gallup.com/2014/10/why-being-engaged-at-work-isnt-as.html

16.

Cohen

(2007). Commitment before and after: An evaluation and reconceptualization of organizational commitment. Human Resource Management Review, 17, 336-354.

17.

Cook

Wall

(1980). New work attitude measures of trust, organizational commitment and personal need non-fulfilment. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 53(1), 39-52.

18.

Cooper-Hakim

Viswesvaran

(2005). The construct of work commitment: Testing an integrative framework. Psychological Bulletin, 131, 241-259.

19.

Craig

C. A.

Allen

M. W.

Reid

M. F.

Riemenschneider

C. K.

Armstrong

D. J.

(2013). The impact of career mentoring and psychosocial mentoring on affective organizational commitment, job involvement, and turnover intention. Administration & Society, 45, 949-973.

20.

Davies

(2015, 6 June). All the happy workers. The Atlantic. Retrieved from http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/06/all-the-happy-workers/394907/

21.

Dychtwald

Erickson

T. J.

Morison

(2013). Workforce crisis: How to beat the coming shortage of skills and talent. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press.

22.

Eisenberger

Fasolo

Davis-LaMastro

(1990). Perceived organizational support and employee diligence, commitment, and innovation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 51-59.

23.

Fischer

Mansell

(2009). Commitment across cultures: A meta-analytical approach. Journal of International Business Studies, 40, 1339-1358.

24.

Fornes

S. L.

Rocco

T. S.

Wollard

K. K.

(2008). Workplace commitment: A conceptual model developed from integrative review of the research. Human Resource Development Review, 7, 339-357.

25.

Gibb

(2011). Human resource development. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.

26.

Gouldner

H. P.

(1960). Dimensions of organizational commitment. Administrative Science Quarterly, 4, 468-490.

27.

Hellman

C. M.

McMillin

W. L.

(1994). Newcomer socialization and affective commitment. The Journal of Social Psychology, 134, 261-262.

28.

Hrebiniak

L. G.

Alutto

J. A.

(1972). Personal and role-related factors in the development of organizational commitment. Administrative Science Quarterly, 17, 555-573.

29.

Jaros

S. J.

Jermier

J. M.

Koehler

J. W.

Sincich

(1993). Effects of continuance, affective, and moral commitment on the withdrawal process: An evaluation of eight structural equation models. Academy of Management Journal, 36, 951-995.

30.

Kanter

R. M.

(1968). Commitment and social organization: A study of commitment mechanisms in utopian communities. American Sociological Review, 33, 499-517.

31.

Katz

(1964). The motivational basis of organizational behavior. Behavioral science, 9, 131-146.

32.

Kehoe

R. R.

Wright

P. M.

(2013). The impact of high-performance human resource practices on employees’ attitudes and behaviors. Journal of Management, 39, 366-391.

33.

Kinnie

Hutchinson

Purcell

Rayton

Swart

(2005). Satisfaction with HR practices and commitment to the organisation: Why one size does not fit all. Human Resource Management Journal, 15(4), 9-29.

34.

Liu

(2009). Perceived organizational support and expatriate organizational citizenship behavior: The mediating role of affective commitment towards the parent company. Personnel Review, 38, 307-319.

35.

Lowry

R. J.

(1973). AH Maslow: An intellectual portrait. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.

36.

Mathieu

J. E.

Zajac

D. M.

(1990). A review and meta-analysis of the antecedents, correlates, and consequences of organizational commitment. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 171-194.

37.

Meyer

J. P.

Allen

N. J.

(1984). Testing the “side-bet theory” of organizational commitment: Some methodological considerations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 372-378.

38.

Meyer

J. P.

Allen

N. J.

(1991). A three-component conceptualization of organizational commitment. Human Resource Management Review, 1, 61-89.

39.

Meyer

J. P.

Herscovitch

(2001). Commitment in the workplace: Toward a general model. Human Resource Management Review, 11, 299-326.

40.

Meyer

J. P.

Stanley

D. J.

Herscovitch

Topolnytsky

(2002). Affective, continuance, and normative commitment to the organization: A meta-analysis of antecedents, correlates, and consequences. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 61, 20-52.

41.

Morrison

E. W.

(2002). Newcomers’ relationships: The role of social network ties during socialization. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 1149-1160.

42.

Morrow

P. C.

(2011). Managing organizational commitment: Insights from longitudinal research. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 79, 18-35.

43.

Mowday

R. T.

(1999). Reflections on the study and relevance of organizational commitment. Human Resource Management Review, 8, 387-401.

44.

Mowday

R. T.

Porter

L. W.

Steers

R. M.

(1982). Employee-organization linkages: The psychology of commitment, absenteeism, and turnover. New York, NY: Academic Press.

45.

Mowday

R. T.

Steers

R. M.

Porter

L. W.

(1979). The measurement of organizational commitment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 14, 224-247.

46.

Mowday

R. T.

Porter

L. W.

Steers

R. M.

(2013). Employee-organization linkages: The psychology of commitment, absenteeism, and turnover. Academic Press.

47.

Nyhan

R. C.

(1999). Increasing affective organizational commitment in public organizations: The key role of interpersonal trust. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 19(3), 58-70.

48.

O’Reilly

C. A.

III Caldwell

D. F.

(1981). The commitment and job tenure of new employees: Some evidence of postdecisional justification. Administrative Science Quarterly, 26, 597-616.

49.

O’Reilly

C. A.

Chatman

(1986). Organizational commitment and psychological attachment: The effects of compliance, identification, and internalization on prosocial behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 492-499.

50.

Organ

D.W.

(1988). Organizational citizenship behavior: The good soldier syndrome. New York, NY: Lexington Books.

51.

Organ

D. W.

(1997). Organizational citizenship behavior: It’s construct clean-up time. Human Performance, 10, 85-97.

52.

Pangarkar

Kirkwood

(2013). Four ways to gain employees commitment. Association for Talent Development. Retrieved from http://www.astd.org/Publications/Newsletters/ASTD-Links/ASTD-Links-Articles/2013/03/Four-Ways-to-Gain-Employees-Commitment

53.

Paré

Tremblay

(2007). The influence of high-involvement human resources practices, procedural justice, organizational commitment, and citizenship behaviors on information technology professionals’ turnover intentions. Group & Organization Management, 32, 326-357.

54.

Payne

S. C.

Huffman

A. H.

(2005). A longitudinal examination of the influence of mentoring on organizational commitment and turnover. Academy of Management Journal, 48, 158-168.

55.

Porter

L. W.

Crampon

W. J.

Smith

F. J.

(1976). Organizational commitment and managerial turnover: A longitudinal study. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 15, 87-98.

56.

Ragins

B. R.

Cotton

J. L.

Miller

J. S.

(2000). Marginal mentoring: The effects of type of mentor, quality of relationship, and program design on work and career attitudes. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 1177-1194.

57.

Randall

D. M.

(1990). The consequences of organizational commitment: Methodological investigation. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 11, 361-378.

58.

Rhoades

Eisenberger

Armeli

(2001). Affective commitment to the organization: The contribution of perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 825-836.

59.

Riketta

(2005). Organizational identification: A meta-analysis. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 66, 358-384.

60.

Risher

(2014). The high cost of federal workplace depression. Government Executive. Retrieved from http://www.govexec.com/management/2014/10/secret-service-woes-show-high-cost-poor-morale/96305/

61.

Ritzer

Trice

H. M.

(1969). An empirical study of Howard Becker’s side-bet theory. Social Forces, 47, 475-478.

62.

Saks

A. M.

Ashforth

B. E.

(1997). Organizational socialization: Making sense of the past and present as a prologue for the future. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 51, 234-279.

63.

Salancik

G. R.

(1977). Commitment and the control of organizational behavior and belief. In Staw

B. M.

Salancik

G. R.

(Eds.), New directions in organizational behavior (pp. 1-54). Chicago, IL: St. Clair-Press.

64.

Schmidt

K. H.

(2007). Organizational commitment: A further moderator in the relationship between work stress and strain? International Journal of Stress Management, 14, 26-40.

65.

Sheldon

M. E.

(1971). Investments and involvements as mechanisms producing commitment to the organization. Administrative Science Quarterly, 16, 143-150.

66.

Shore

L. M.

Wayne

S. J.

(1993). Commitment and employee behavior: Comparison of affective commitment and continuance commitment with perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 774-780.

67.

Solinger

O. N.

van Olffen

Roe

R. A.

(2008). Beyond the three-component model of organizational commitment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 70-83.

68.

Somers

M. J.

(1995). Organizational commitment, turnover and absenteeism: An examination of direct and interaction effects. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 16, 49-58.

69.

Somers

M. J.

(2009). The combined influence of affective, continuance and normative commitment on employee withdrawal. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 74, 75-81.

70.

Stazyk

E. C.

Pandey

S. K.

Wright

B. E.

(2011). Understanding affective organizational commitment: The importance of institutional context. The American Review of Public Administration, 41, 603-624.

71.

Steers

R. M.

(1977). Antecedents and outcomes of organizational commitment. Administrative Science Quarterly, 22, 46-56.

72.

Sun

L. Y.

Aryee

Law

K. S.

(2007). High-performance human resource practices, citizenship behavior, and organizational performance: A relational perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 558-577.

73.

Torraco

R. J.

(2005). Writing integrative literature reviews: Guidelines and examples. Human Resource Development Review, 4, 356-367.

74.

Vance

R. J.

(2006). Employee engagement and commitment: A guide to understanding, measuring and increasing engagement in your organization. Alexandria, VA: SHRM Foundation.

75.

Van Maanen

Schein

E. H.

(1979). Toward a theory of organizational socialization. Research in Organizational Behavior, 1, 209-264.

76.

Whitener

E. M.

(2001). Do “high commitment” human resource practices affect employee commitment? A cross-level analysis using hierarchical linear modeling. Journal of Management, 27, 515-535.

77.

Wiener

(1982). Commitment in organizations: A normative view. Academy of Management Review, 7, 418-428.

78.

Williams

L. J.

Anderson

S. E.

(1991). Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as predictors of organizational citizenship and in-role behaviors. Journal of Management, 17, 601-617.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB