Impact of Organizational Structure and Culture on Job Satisfaction, Job Stress and Employee Motivation: a Survey of Existing Litreature
Measurement issues in the Meyer & Allen model of organizational commitment
Steve Jaros Southern University
Paper to be presented at the 2007 Academy of Management Meetings.
The Meyer/Allen three-component model of commitment arguably dominates organizational commitment research. Given its widespread use, the measures used to tap the affective, continuance, and normative commitment constructs merit close scrutiny. This paper will outline some of the key measurement problems and challenges associated with this model, and present recommendations for future research. First, I discuss the degree to which the three Meyer and Allen scales, the ACS, the CCS, and the NCS, tap their associated affective commitment, continuance commitment, and normative commitment constructs. Next, I discuss some measurement issues that pertain specifically to normative commitment. Third, I offer a discussion of measurement issues that pertain specifically to continuance commitment. I conclude with some comments about the model 's generalizability and relationship with recently-developed work attitudes that may overlap its conceptual domain.
I. Degree of correspondence between the ACS, CCS, and NCS and Meyer & Herscovitch 's (2001) conceptualizations of the underlying constructs How well do the ACS, CCS, and NCS reflect the underlying affective, normative, and continuance commitment constructs? In this section, I argue that there are some discrepancies between these scales and the constructs, as defined by Meyer & Herscovitch (2001) and, with respect to normative commitment, Meyer, Becker, & Van Dick (2006), that they are designed to reflect. Meyer & Herscovitch 's definitions of commitment. Meyer & Herscovitch (2001) propose that commitment is “a force that binds an individual to a course of action of relevance to one or more targets.” Employees are theorized to experience this force in the form of three mindsets:
Steve Jaros Southern University
Paper to be presented at the 2007 Academy of Management Meetings.
The Meyer/Allen three-component model of commitment arguably dominates organizational commitment research. Given its widespread use, the measures used to tap the affective, continuance, and normative commitment constructs merit close scrutiny. This paper will outline some of the key measurement problems and challenges associated with this model, and present recommendations for future research. First, I discuss the degree to which the three Meyer and Allen scales, the ACS, the CCS, and the NCS, tap their associated affective commitment, continuance commitment, and normative commitment constructs. Next, I discuss some measurement issues that pertain specifically to normative commitment. Third, I offer a discussion of measurement issues that pertain specifically to continuance commitment. I conclude with some comments about the model 's generalizability and relationship with recently-developed work attitudes that may overlap its conceptual domain.
I. Degree of correspondence between the ACS, CCS, and NCS and Meyer & Herscovitch 's (2001) conceptualizations of the underlying constructs How well do the ACS, CCS, and NCS reflect the underlying affective, normative, and continuance commitment constructs? In this section, I argue that there are some discrepancies between these scales and the constructs, as defined by Meyer & Herscovitch (2001) and, with respect to normative commitment, Meyer, Becker, & Van Dick (2006), that they are designed to reflect. Meyer & Herscovitch 's definitions of commitment. Meyer & Herscovitch (2001) propose that commitment is “a force that binds an individual to a course of action of relevance to one or more targets.” Employees are theorized to experience this force in the form of three mindsets:
References: Allen, N. 2003. Organizational commitment in the military: A discussion of theory and practice. Military Psychology, 15: 237-253. Allen, N. J., & Meyer, J. P. (1990). The measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance and normative commitment to the organization. Bergman, M. (2006). The relationship between affective and normative commitment: review and research agenda Bozeman, D.B., & Perrewe, P.L. (2001). The effect of item content overlap on Organisational Commitment Questionnaire - turnover cognitions relationships. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86: 16-25. Chen, Z. & Francesco, A. (2003). The relationship between 3-component commitment and employee performance in China. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 62: 490- 510. Coyle-Shapiro, J.A.-M., Morrow, P.C. (2006). Organizational and client commitment among contracted employees Dawley, D., Stephens, R. & Stephens, D. (2005). Dimensionality of organizatio commitment in volunteer workers: Chamber of commerce board members and role fulfillment Harrison, D., Newman, D. & Roth, P. (2006). How important are job attitudes? Meta- analytic comparisons of integrative behavioral outcomes and time sequences. Academy of Management Journal, 49: 305-325. Jackson, C., Colquitt, J., Wesson, M., & Zapata-Phelan, C. (2006). Psychological collectivism: A measurement validation and linkage to group performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 884-899. Mackenzie, S., Podsakoff, P., & Jarvis, C. (2005). The Problem of measurement mod misspecification in behavioral and organizational research and some recommended solutions Lee, T., Mitchell, T., Sablynski, C., Burton, J., & Holtom, B. (2004). The effects of j embeddedness on organizational citizenship, job performance, volitional absences, and voluntary turnover Mayer, R. & Schoorman, F. (1996). Differentiating antecedents of organizational commitment: a test of March and Simon 's model. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19: 15-28. Meyer, J. & Allen, N. (1997). Commitment in the Workplace. Sage: Thousand Oaks. Meyer, J. P., Allen, N. J., & Smith, C., (1993). Commitment to organizations and occupations: Extension and test of a three-component Meyer, J., Becker, T., & Van Dick, R. (2006). Social identities and commitments at work: toward an integrative model Meyer, J. P., & Herscovitch, L. (2001). Commitment in the workplace: Toward a general model Meyer, J. P., Stanley, D. J., Herscovitch, L., & Topolnytsky, L. (2002). Mitchell, T. R., Holtom, B. C., Lee, T. W., Sablynski, C. J., & Erez, M. (2001). Why people stay: Using job embeddedness to predict voluntary turnover. Academy of Management Journal, 44: 1102–1121. Ng, T., & Feldman, D. 2007. Organizational embeddedness and occupational embeddedness across career stages. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 70: 336-351. Powell, D. & Meyer, J. 2004. Side-bet theory and the three-component model of organizational commitment Rousseau, D. M., & Wade-Benzoni, K. A. (1995). Changing individual- organizational attachments: A two-way street. In A. Howard (Ed.), The Changing Nature of Work. New York: Jossey-Bass. Wasti, S. (2003). Affective and continuance commitment to the organization: Test of an integrated model in the Turkish context. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 26: 525-550. Wasti, S. A. (2005). Commitment profiles: Combinations of organizational commitment forms and job outcomes Wiener, Y. 1982. Commitment in organizations: A normative view. Academy of Management Review, 7, 418–428. Appendix: Commitment Scale Items (from Allen & Meyer, 1990): Affective Commitment Scale items