Employee Commitment and Support For An Organizational Change: Test of The Three-Component Model in Two Cultures

Copyright © The British Psychological Society
Reproduction in any form (including the internet) is prohibited without prior permission from the Society
185
The
British
Psychological
Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology (2007), 80, 185–211
q 2007 The British Psychological Society
Society
www.bpsjournals.co.uk
Employee commitment and support

for an organizational change: Test of the
three-component model in two cultures
John P. Meyer1*, E. S. Srinivas2, Jaydeep B. Lal3

and Laryssa Topolnytsky4
1
The University of Western Ontario, Canada
2
Xavier Labour Relations Institute (XLRI), Jamshedpur, India
3
Sasken Communication Technologies Limited, India
4
Korn/Ferry International
Although commitment is commonly identified as an essential element for the effective

implementation of organizational change, little empirical evidence exists to support this
claim. We conducted two studies to replicate and extend findings pertaining to
Herscovitch and Meyer’s three-component model of commitment to an organizational
change. In the first study, we examined relations within and across time between
employees’ commitment (affective, normative and continuance) and level of support for
a strategic initiative undertaken by a Canadian utility company in response to
deregulation. In the second study, we tested the model in a sample of managers in an
Indian organization undergoing major restructuring. In both studies we found
considerable support for the relations between commitment and support predicted by
the model. However, we also found evidence for potential culture differences.
Implications for theory, research and change management practice are discussed.
If there is one generalization we can make about leadership and change it is this: No change
can occur without willing and committed followers. Bennis (2000, p. 117)
The sentiments expressed in this simple but bold statement appear to be shared by
many change experts (e.g. Connor, 1992; Kotter, 1996). Change theorists have also
acknowledged the importance of commitment by featuring it prominently in models of
the implementation process (e.g. Armenakis, Harris, & Field, 1999; Klein & Sorra, 1996).
It is perhaps surprising, therefore, that very little empirical research has been conducted
to date to examine the nature and implications of employee commitment to
organizational change. Indeed, it is only recently that measures of commitment to
The research was supported in part by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.
* Correspondence should be addressed to John P. Meyer, Department of Psychology, University of Western Ontario, London,
Ontario, Canada N6A 5C2 (e-mail: meyer@uwo.ca).
DOI:10.1348/096317906X118685
186 John P. Meyer et al.
change have been developed and used to examine its relation to change-relevant
behaviour and performance (Herscovitch & Meyer, 2002; Neubert & Cady, 2001). While
they confirm that commitment and behavioural support are related, these preliminary
studies suggest that the relations might be more complex than is commonly
acknowledged. Consequently, there is a need for a systematic empirical evaluation of the
role played by commitment in explaining employee support for change, which,
according to Bennis and others, is crucial for effective implementation.
Herscovitch and Meyer (2002) recently developed a model of commitment to
organizational change initiatives that could serve to guide such a systematic
investigation. They proposed that commitment could take different forms and have
different implications for the nature and level of employees’ behavioural support for a
change. Although they provided support for their hypotheses in two studies, both
involved cross-sectional designs and were conducted with a relatively unique sample
(i.e. hospital nurses). The purpose of the present research was to replicate and extend
these findings with different samples and in different change contexts. We conducted
two studies. The first was a longitudinal investigation of the relation between
commitment and behavioural support in managerial and non-managerial employees in a
Canadian utility company undergoing a strategic change in response to deregulation.
This study allowed us to examine relations between commitment and support both
within and across time. The second was a cross-sectional study of managerial employees
from a large Indian organization undergoing a major restructuring initiative. Thus, it
allowed us to test Herscovitch and Meyer’s model in a different cultural context. In this
second study, we also introduced a refinement to the behavioural support measures
used by Herscovitch and Meyer, which we believe affords a better test of some of their
hypotheses.
In the following section, we provide a summary of Herscovitch and Meyer’s (2002)
model of commitment to an organizational change. We then summarize their findings
and develop related hypotheses to be tested in the present research. Hypotheses that are
unique to the current research and extend the test of Herscovitch and Meyer’s model are
presented in the introductions to the specific studies.
Herscovitch and Meyer’s model of commitment to an organizational

change
Herscovitch and Meyer (2002) based their model of commitment to an organizational
change on Meyer and Herscovitch’s (2001) general theory of workplace commitment.
They defined commitment to a change as ‘a mindset that binds an individual to a
course of action deemed necessary for the successful implementation of a change
initiative’, and argued that this mindset ‘can reflect (a) a desire to provide support for
the change based on a belief in its inherent benefits (affective commitment to the
change), (b) a recognition that there are costs associated with failure to provide
support for the change (continuance commitment to the change), and (c) a sense of
obligation to provide support for the change (normative commitment to the change)’
(Herscovitch & Meyer, 2002, p. 475). Moreover, they offered a set of hypotheses
concerning the relations between the components of commitment, individually and in
combination, and two forms of change-relevant behaviour: compliance and
discretionary support. These hypotheses and relevant research findings are
summarized below and served as the basis for the development of hypotheses to be
tested in the current research.
Commitment and organizational change 187
As a first step in the test of their model, Herscovitch and Meyer (2002) developed six-
item measures of affective (AC), normative (NC) and continuance (CC) commitment to a
change. They administered these measures, along with measures of organizational
commitment and behavioural support for the change, to two samples of hospital nurses
(predominantly female) experiencing varying forms of organizational change (e.g.
mergers of departments, introduction of new technologies, modifications to shift
schedules). Using confirmatory factor analyses, they demonstrated that the components
of commitment to the change were distinguishable from one another and from
corresponding components of commitment to the organization.
Behavioural support for the change was assessed in two ways. The first involved
multi-item measures of (a) compliance and (b) two forms of discretionary support
(cooperation and championing). The compliance measure tapped employees’
willingness to do what was required of them by the organization in the implementation
of the change. The cooperation measure assessed employees’ acceptance of the ‘spirit’
of the change and willingness to do little extras to make it work. Finally, the
championing measure addressed employees’ willingness to embrace the change and
‘sell’ it to others. The second method of assessment involved the use of a behavioural
continuum anchored at one end by active resistance and at the other by championing,
with compliance in the middle. Participants indicated the point along the continuum
that best described their level of support for the change. The multi-item measures were
used to test hypotheses concerning (a) relations between the components of
commitment and behavioural support and (b) interactions among the commitment
components in the prediction of compliance (i.e. non-discretionary support). The
behavioural continuum measure was used in analyses comparing levels of support
across commitment profiles.
Relations between the commitment components and behavioural support

for a change
Herscovitch and Meyer (2002) predicted that all three forms of commitment would
relate positively to compliance with the requirements for organizational change, but
that only AC and NC would relate positively to higher levels of support. These
predictions were based on the premise that any form of commitment binds an individual
to the behaviours defined within the ‘terms’ of that commitment (cf. Brown, 1996;
Meyer & Herscovitch, 2001). These behaviours are considered non-discretionary and, in
the context of change, include all forms of support required of employees by the
organization (e.g. implementing a new sales strategy). Based on previous commitment
theory (Meyer & Allen, 1997; Meyer & Herscovitch, 2001), Herscovitch and Meyer
argued that the nature of the commitment becomes important in explaining employees’
willingness to go beyond these minimum requirements. Employees who believe in the
change and want to contribute to its success (strong AC) or who feel a sense of
obligation to support the change (strong NC) should be willing to do more than is
required of them, even if it involves some personal sacrifice (e.g. working extra hours to
learn new sales procedures). In contrast, employees whose commitment to the change
is based primarily on the perceived cost of failing to support the change (strong CC)
should do little more than is required.
As expected, Herscovitch and Meyer (2002) found that all three components of
commitment to the change correlated positively with compliance. However, only AC and
NC correlated positively with cooperation and championing – CC correlated negatively,
albeit not significantly, with both forms of discretionary behaviour. These findings not only
support Herscovitch and Meyer’s hypotheses, they are also consistent with results
observed in the organizational commitment literature. In the latter context, staying with the
organization is the behaviour most clearly defined within the terms of the commitment,
whereas work behaviours, particularly organizational citizenship behaviours, are
considered discretionary. AC, NC and CC have all been found to relate negatively with
turnover intentions and turnover, but only AC and NC commitment relate positively to
citizenship behaviour (see Meyer, Stanley, Herscovitch, & Topolnytsky, 2002). Employees
with strong AC and NC are likely to see value in the course of action they are pursuing and
are therefore willing to do whatever is required to benefit the target of that action (e.g.
organization, change initiative). In contrast, employees with strong CC might resent their
loss of autonomy and react by restricting their behaviour to the minimum requirements
(Deci & Ryan, 1985; Gagne & Deci, 2005; Meyer, Becker, & Vandenberghe, 2004).
Therefore, we tested the following hypotheses in the current studies:
Hypothesis 1. AC, NC and CC to an organizational change correlate positively with compliance

with the behavioural requirements for change.
Hypothesis 2. AC and NC to an organizational change correlate positively with discretionary
forms of behavioural support (cooperation and championing), whereas CC correlates negatively
with these behaviours.
To demonstrate the value of considering change as a unique focus of commitment,

Herscovitch and Meyer (2002) also tested to see whether commitment to a change
initiative accounted for variance in behavioural support beyond that explained by
commitment to the organization. Based on findings in the broader workplace
commitment literature (e.g. Becker, Billings, Eveleth, & Gilbert, 1996; Becker & Kernan,
2003; Siders, George, & Dharwarkar, 2001), they argued that relations between
commitment and behaviour should be stronger when the focus of the commitment and
behaviour are consistent. For example, Becker and colleagues have demonstrated that
behaviour can be influenced by commitments to multiple foci (e.g. organization,
supervisor, team), but the commitment that exerts the strongest influence is that which
has the greatest ‘psychological proximity’ (Lewin, 1943) to the behaviour. Therefore,
not surprisingly, Herscovitch and Meyer found that, although commitment to the
organization (particularly AC) related positively to support for the change, commitment
to the change initiative accounted for considerably more criterion variance. In light of
these findings, we tested the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 3. The three components of employee commitment to the organization and to the
organizational change account for variance in behavioural support for the change, but
commitment to the change accounts for a greater proportion of the variance than does
commitment to the organization.
Combined influence of commitment components

In their general theory of workplace commitment, Meyer and Herscovitch (2001)
argued that (a) AC, NC and CC should interact to influence behaviour and (b) these
interaction effects will be reflected in different patterns of behaviour for employees with
different commitment profiles. Based on earlier theory (Meyer & Allen, 1991) and the
results of the few studies that examined interactions among the component measures
(e.g. Jaros, 1997; Randall, Fedor, & Longenecker, 1990; Somers, 1995), Meyer and
Herscovitch offered a set of propositions concerning the nature of the interaction

and the profile differences. One of their basic predictions was that the strength of the
relation between any one component of commitment and commitment-relevant
behaviour, particularly those behaviours specified within the terms of the commitment,
would be greater when the other components are weak than when they are strong.
They reasoned that, because any form of commitment is sufficient to produce these non-
discretionary behaviours, the correlation between any one component of commitment
and behaviour will be attenuated by the fact that the behaviour is likely to occur even at
low levels of that component as long as one or both of the other components is strong.
Herscovitch and Meyer (2002) tested this hypothesis as it pertains to the relations
between commitment to a change and non-discretionary support for that change.
Although they did not find support for the three-way interaction implied by Meyer and
Herscovitch’s (2001) proposition, they did find evidence for a two-way interaction
between AC and CC. As expected, the relation between each of the two components
and compliance was greater when the other component of commitment was weak as
opposed to strong. With one exception (Gellatly, Meyer, & Luchak, 2006), most of the
evidence for interaction effects involving components of organizational commitment
has also been limited to two-way interactions. Nevertheless, we tested for the three-way
interaction implied in Meyer and Herscovitch’s original proposition.
Hypothesis 4. The relation between any one component of commitment to a change and
compliance will be stronger when the other components are weak than when they are strong.
Meyer and Herscovitch (2001) also predicted that non-discretionary behaviour would
vary across profile groups, but that the probability of behaviour would be quite high as
long as one form of commitment is strong. In contrast, they proposed that the
probability that employees would engage in discretionary behaviour would be low
when continuance commitment alone is strong, but relatively high when AC and/or NC
are strong. (Note, consistent with Meyer and Herscovitch, hereinafter we will refer to
profiles with one dominant component as ‘pure’ profiles.) Moreover, because CC
involves an awareness of constraints on behaviour, they argued that the impact of strong
AC might be weakened when combined with strong CC. That is, when individuals
perceive that they have to do something that they would normally want to do, they
might be less likely to follow through on their commitment than if the constraints were
not present. The presence of external influences can reduce feelings of autonomy (Deci
& Ryan, 1985) and lead to a shift from a promotion focus to a prevention focus (Higgins,
1998), both of which can result in reduction of discretionary effort (Meyer et al., 2004).
Herscovitch and Meyer (2002) tested these predictions using the behavioural
continuum measure described earlier. They created profile groups by performing
median splits on the three commitment scales and compared means on the behavioural
continuum. They found that (a) the means for the pure CC group fell in the compliance
range on the scale, whereas the means for all groups with high AC and/or high NC fell
within the cooperation range or higher on the continuum. Moreover, the mean score for
the group with high AC, high NC and high CC was lower, albeit not significantly, than
that for the corresponding group with low CC. Although Herscovitch and Meyer were
the first to test Meyer and Herscovitch’s (2001) profile predictions, recent studies
comparing behaviour patterns across profiles of organizational commitment also
provided some support (Gellatly et al., 2006; Sinclair, Tucker, Cullen, & Wright, 2005;
Wasti, 2005). Therefore, we tested the following hypotheses:
Hypothesis 5a. Employees comply with the requirements for change as long as one component
of commitment to the change is strong.
Hypothesis 5b. Employees with strong AC or NC go beyond compliance (i.e. cooperating with,
or championing, the change), whereas those with strong CC do not.
Hypothesis 5c. CC tempers the likelihood that employees will engage in discretionary forms of
support behaviour, particularly for employees with strong AC.
STUDY 1
In this study, we collected data just prior to and 8 months after the official launch of an
organizational change. The collection of longitudinal data allowed us to conduct
duplicate within-time analyses to test many of the hypotheses described above. In
addition, it allowed us to examine relations between commitment and behavioural
support over time. Because this is the first attempt to examine relations between
changes in the three components of commitment and changes in behavioural support,
our hypotheses were based on earlier findings pertaining to within-time relations
described earlier, commitment theory and an evaluation of the conditions surrounding
the change itself.
The research site was a moderate-sized Canadian energy company undergoing a
planned structural and cultural transformation (from a bureaucracy to a profit-oriented
and innovative company) to remain competitive in a newly deregulated environment.
Although the impact on individual employees varied, the changes involved adjustments
to the nature of jobs, reporting relationships and levels of accountability. In the time
between the two surveys, approximately 200 permanent employees were laid off and
a slightly greater number of contract workers were hired. In addition, senior
management undertook a number of initiatives to promote the change within the
organization (e.g. ‘town hall’ meetings, site visits, management training). We expected
that these events would influence the nature and strength of employees’ commitment to
the change over the course of the study. For example, we expected that concerns about
future layoffs might have made CC more salient for some. Others might have
experienced increases in AC or NC because the organization was moving in a desired
direction or because they were persuaded by senior management’s efforts to promote
the change. Assuming that commitment of any form would lead to greater compliance,
but that only increases in AC and NC would lead to greater discretionary support, we
tested the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 6. Changes in employees’ AC, NC and CC to the change initiative over time relate
to changes in their level of behavioural support for the initiative. As AC and/or NC increase
(decrease), employees’ willingness to provide discretionary support for the change will increase
(decrease), whereas the reverse will be true for changes in CC.
Method
Participants and data collection procedures
The first survey was administered 1 month prior to the official launch of the planned
change. At this point, employees were generally aware that a major change was planned
for the organization. The entire workforce (N ¼ 1,041) was asked to participate and 699
(67%) responded. The second survey was administered 8 months later. Again, the entire
workforce (N ¼ 1,075) was invited to participate and 640 (60%) responded. For present
purposes, data obtained from the executive group involved in planning and overseeing
the change initiative were not included in the analyses. Within-time analyses were
conducted on data from all of the remaining respondents (Ns ¼ 686 and 630); time-
lagged analyses were conducted using the data from those who responded to both
surveys (N ¼ 337). At Time 1, 33% of respondents were male, 77% worked full time,
11% were managers with direct reports, 21% were managers without direct reports and
67% were frontline workers. At Time 2, 31% of respondents were male, 76% worked full
time, 11% were managers with direct reports, 21% were managers without direct
reports and 66% were frontline workers. In the longitudinal sample, 33% of respondents
were male, 78% worked full time, 14% were managers with direct reports, 24% were
managers without direct reports and 62% were frontline workers.
Surveys were distributed via interoffice mail. Participation in the survey was
voluntary and anonymous. Employees were given 2 weeks to return the surveys.
Reminders were e-mailed and posted on bulletin boards a few days before the deadline
for return. We were able to match Time 1 and Time 2 surveys by having employees put a
self-generated code number on each. The measures included in the survey were
identical for both administrations.
Measures
Because this study was part of a larger investigation of organizational change, our
measures differed slightly from those used by Herscovitch and Meyer (2002).
Specifically, to reduce the length of the survey, we included only the behavioral
continuum measure of support and used an abbreviated form of the commitment to
change measure. All measures included in this study had acceptable reliabilities (see
Table 1) and, unless specified, used five-point (1 ¼ strongly disagree; 5 ¼ strongly
agree) Likert-type scales.
Organizational commitment
AC, NC and CC to the organization were measured using a revised 18-item (six for
each component) version of Allen and Meyer’s (1990; Meyer, Allen, & Smith 1993)
scales. Sample items are, ‘This organization has a great deal of personal meaning for me’,
‘I would feel guilty if I left my organization now’ and ‘I believe I have too few options to
consider leaving this organization’, respectively.
Commitment to the change

AC, NC and CC to the change initiative were measured using 12 items (four for each
form) derived from the measure developed by Herscovitch and Meyer (2002). Sample
items are, ‘I believe in the value of this change’, ‘I feel a sense of duty to work toward this
change’ and ‘I have no choice but to go along with this change,’ respectively.
Behavioural support for the change

Behavioural support for the change was assessed using the 101-point behavioural
continuum developed by Herscovitch and Meyer (2002). The continuum reflects a range
of support behaviours that can be exhibited toward a change. Points along the
continuum were labelled as follows: active resistance (i.e. demonstrating opposition in
response to a change by engaging in overt behaviours that are intended to ensure that
the change fails), passive resistance (i.e. demonstrating opposition in response to a
Table 1. Means, standard deviations, reliabilities and correlations among the Study 1 variables
Variables M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
1. Affective commitment 2.92 .89 (.85)

– org. (T1)
2. Normative 2.17 .78 .60** (.85)
commitment – org. (T1)
3. Continuance 2.68 .84 2.15** .07 (.83)
4. Affective commitment 3.42 .73 .32** .18** 2.22** (.87)
– change (T1)
5. Normative commitment 3.22 .66 .23** .29** .19** .23** (.66)
– change (T1)
6. Continuance 3.21 .72 2.14** 2.02 .44** 2.20** .55** (.72)
commitment – change
(T1)
7. Support for change (T1) 71.11 15.86 .39** .24** 2.18** .47** .21** 2.16** –
Table 1. (Continued)
Variables M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
8. Affective commitment 3.04 .88 .64** .39** 2.20** .30** .13* 2.14* .26** (.86)
– org. (T2)
9. Normative 2.25 .78 .47** .61** .01 .14* .16** 2.08 .18** .60** (.86)
10. Continuance 2.66 .83 2.14* .06 .73** 2.24** .20** .45** 2.22** 2.19** .06 (.83)
11. Affective commitment 3.45 .73 .26** .04 2.37** .50** .04 2.27** .36** .35** .15** 2.30** (.89)
– change (T2)
12. Normative 3.22 .66 .14** .17** .13* .12* .48** .30** .14* .25** .30** .12** .17** (.65)
(T2)
13. Continuance 3.14 .71 2.00 .12* .38** 2.09 .41** .53** 2.06 .00 .09* .41** 2.24** .58** (.72)
(T2)
14. Support for change (T2) 72.83 15.51 .30** .06 2.36** .38** .12* 2.23** .42** .41** .25** 2.25** .58** .24** 2.08 –
Note. Reliabilities are presented on the diagonal in parentheses. Sample size ranges from 679 to 684 for correlations among Time 1 measures, from 623 to 627 for
correlations among Time 2 measures and from 336 to 337 for correlations between Time 1 and Time 2 measures. For support for change, 1 ¼ extreme active
resistance and 100 ¼ full championing of the change.
*p , .05; **p , .01.


change by engaging in covert or subtle behaviours aimed at preventing the success of

the change), compliance (i.e. demonstrating minimum support for a change by going
along with the change, but doing so reluctantly), cooperation (i.e. demonstrating
support for a change by exerting effort when it comes to the change, going along with
the spirit of the change and being prepared to make modest sacrifices) and
championing (i.e. demonstrating extreme enthusiasm for a change by going above and
beyond what is formally required to ensure the success of the change and promoting the
change to others). A written description of each of the anchors was provided.
Participants placed a slash through the portion of the continuum that best characterized
their change-relevant behaviour. Scores from 0 to 20 corresponded to active resistance,
scores from 21 to 40 corresponded to passive resistance, scores from 41 to 60
corresponded to compliance, scores from 61 to 80 corresponded to cooperation and
scores from 81 to 100 corresponded to championing.
Results
The means, standard deviations, reliabilities and correlations among the variables are
reported in Table 1. In absolute terms, organizational commitment, commitment to
the change and behavioural support for the change were fairly consistent across the
8-month period; t-test comparisons of means revealed no significant differences.
However, inspection of the correlations between corresponding measures reveals
considerable change in the rank ordering of employees’ ratings over time (rs range from
.42 to .73).

for the change
Because we only included the behavioural continuum measure of support in this study,
we could not test hypotheses pertaining to relations with specific forms of focal
(compliance) and discretionary (cooperation and championing) behaviour. Instead, we
examined the within-time correlations between the three components of commitment
and the behavioural support continuum reported in Table 1. High scores on the
continuum measure reflect high levels of discretionary behaviour in support of the
change. Consistent with hypothesis 2, AC and NC correlated positively with behavioural
support on both occasions (r ¼ :38 and .12 at Time 1; r ¼ :58 and .24 at Time 2),
whereas CC correlated negatively on both occasions (r ¼ 2:23 and 2 .08), albeit not
significantly at Time 2. Thus, employees with stronger AC and NC tended to report
higher levels of discretionary support than did those with weaker commitment,
whereas those with stronger CC tended to report lower levels of support than those
with weaker commitment.
To test the hypothesis that commitment to the organization and to the change
initiative would both relate significantly to behavioural support, but that commitment to
the change would account for a greater proportion of the variance than would
commitment to the organization, we conducted two hierarchical regression analyses.
In the first, we entered the three components of organizational commitment as
predictors in Step 1, and the three components of commitment to the change in Step 2.
In the second, we reversed the order of entry. The changes in R 2 at each step in these
analyses are reported in Table 2. Commitment to the organization accounted for 16 and
20% of the variance at Time 1 and Time 2, respectively, when entered first, and
Table 2. Hierarchical regression analyses: predicting behavioural support prior to and following the
change from organizational commitment and commitment to the change initiative (Study 1)
Discretionary support
Time 1 Time 2
R2 DR2 R2 DR2
Order 1
Step1
Organizational commitment .16** – .20** –
Step 2
Commitment to the change .30** .13** .40** .20**
Order 2
Step 1
Commitment to the change .25** – .35** –
Step 2
Organizational commitment .30** .04** .40** .05**
Note. The predictors were measured at the same time as the criterion variables.
*p , .05; **p , .01.
accounted for an additional 4 and 5% of the variance, respectively, when entered

second. In contrast, commitment to the change accounted for 25 and 35% of the
variance at Time 1 and Time 2, respectively, when entered first, and accounted for an
additional 13 and 20% of the variance, respectively, when entered second. Thus,
hypothesis 3 is supported.
Profile comparisons
To test the hypothesis that support for the change initiative would vary across groups
with differing profiles of commitment to the change (hypotheses 5a–c), we created
eight profile groups (i.e. high AC, high NC, high CC; high AC, high NC, low CC; etc.) by
performing median splits on each of the three commitment scales. We then compared
the mean behavioural support scores across groups by conducting a one-way ANOVA,
followed by post hoc comparisons of means (Bonferonni t tests). The ANOVAs
confirmed that behavioural support did vary across profile groups at both Time 1
(F½7; 678 ¼ 23:82, p , .01) and Time 2 (F½7; 622 ¼ 33:56, p , .01).
The results of the individual profile comparisons are summarized in Figure 1. In
support of our prediction that employees would comply with the change as long as one
component of commitment was strong (hypothesis 5a), mean scores on the support
continuum for all profile groups with one or more high scores exceeded 40 (i.e. the
minimum score in the compliance range) at both Time 1 and Time 2. Contrary to
expectation, however, the means for the uncommitted group also exceeded 40 on both
occasions.
To test our hypothesis that strong AC alone or strong NC alone is sufficient to induce
employees to go beyond compliance (i.e. cooperating with or championing the change),
whereas strong CC alone is not (hypothesis 5b), we first examined the means for the
three pure commitment groups (profiles 4, 6 and 7) to determine whether they
exceeded 60 (the minimum score in the cooperation range). At Time 1, the means for
the pure AC group (78.7) and the pure NC group (72.5) exceeded 60, but the mean for
Figure 1. Means on the behavioural continuum for commitment to change profiles, Study 1.
Note. Means denoted by different letters are significantly different at p , .01.
the pure CC group (57.5) did not. At Time 2, the means for all three pure commitment
groups exceeded 60, although the mean for the pure CC groups exceeded it only slightly
(62.1) and did not differ significantly from the mean for the uncommitted group (60.5).
The mean for the pure AC group (81.0) was significantly higher than the means for both
the pure CC and uncommitted groups. Indeed, the mean for the pure AC group
exceeded the minimum score in the championing range (i.e. 80). Although the mean for
the pure NC group (68.7) was also higher than that for the pure CC and uncommitted
groups, the difference was not significant. Thus, our findings provide partial support for
hypothesis 5b.
To test hypothesis 5c, that CC tempers employees’ willingness to engage in
discretionary forms of support behaviour, particularly for employees with strong AC, we
compared profiles in which AC and CC were both high with corresponding profiles in
which CC was low. Although not significant, the differences were in the expected
direction in three of four comparisons; the only reversal was at Time 2 where we found
that support for fully committed employees (i.e. those for whom all three forms of
commitment were strong) was almost identical to that for employees with strong AC
and NC commitment but weak CC (80.1 vs. 79.3). Therefore, there is some, albeit weak,
support for hypothesis 5c.
Time-lagged relations between commitment and support

We tested the hypothesis that change in commitment to the change initiative would be
associated with change in the level of behavioural support (hypothesis 6) using data
obtained from the 337 non-executives who completed both surveys. We conducted
multiple regression analyses with behavioural support at Time 2 as the criterion
variable. The predictors were entered in three steps. First, we entered Time 1 support to
control for any stability in the criterion over time. Next, we entered the Time 1
commitment variables. Finally, we entered the Time 2 commitment variables. Strong
support for our hypothesis requires that, for each form of commitment, the regression
coefficient for the Time 1 measure be significant and negative, the regression coefficient
for the Time 2 measure be significant and positive and the two regression coefficients be
approximately equal in magnitude. Edwards (1994; Edwards & Parry, 1993)
demonstrated that this pattern of coefficients justifies the inference that it is the
algebraic difference between two measures that is associated with the criterion. Weaker
support is provided if the Time 2 measures of commitment are associated with Time 2
behavioural support, even with the Time 1 measures controlled. The results of this
analysis are reported in Table 3.
As expected, behavioural support at Time 1 accounted for significant variance in
support at Time 2 (R 2 ¼ :17, p , .01). Thus, there was some stability in support over
time. The change in R 2 was significant at both Steps 2 (DR 2 ¼ :09, p , .01) and 3
(DR 2 ¼ :18, p , .01). In Step 2, AC and NC related positively to support at Time 2, even
with support at Time 1 controlled, whereas CC related negatively. Of particular interest
are the regression coefficients at Step 3. For AC and NC, the unstandardized regression
coefficients at Time 2 were significant and positive (B ¼ 9:20, p , .01 and 4.90,
p , .01, respectively) and therefore provided weak support for hypothesis 6.
Controlling for support and commitment at Time 1, those employees with stronger
AC and NC at Time 2 reported stronger support for the change at Time 2. Interestingly,
CC at Time 1 and Time 2 were negatively related to the change in support, but only the
coefficient for the Time 1 measure was significant (B ¼ 23:33, p , .01 and 2 1.10, ns,
respectively). Thus, those employees who perceived greater cost associated with failing
to comply with the change initiative at Time 1 were less likely to increase their level of
discretionary support for the change once it was in place.
Summary
In this study we were able to replicate many of the findings reported by Herscovitch and
Meyer (2002) using a very different sample in a different change context. Thus, we
provide some evidence for the generalizability of their model of commitment to an
organizational change. Perhaps more importantly, our findings provide some evidence
that changes in commitment relate to changes in the level of behavioural support during
the early stages of implementation. Specifically, we found that with Time 1 measures of
Table 3. Hierarchical regression analysis: predicting Time 2 behavioural support for the change from
Time 1 support and Time 1 and Time 2 commitment to the change (Study 1)
Unstandardized coefficients Variance explained
Step 1
Behavioural support (T1) .40**
R2 .17**
Adjusted R2 .17
Step 2
Affective commitment to the change (T1) 3.60**
Normative commitment to the change (T1) 3.75**
Continuance commitment to the change (T1) 25.12**
DR2 .09**
R2 .25**
Adjusted R2 .25
Step 3
Affective commitment to the change (T1) .10
Affective commitment to the change (T2) 9.20**
Normative commitment to the change (T1) 1.68
Normative commitment to the change (T2) 4.90**
Continuance commitment to the change (T1) 23.33**
Continuance commitment to the change (T2) 21.10
DR2 .18**
R2 .44**
Adjusted R2 .43
Note. T1 ¼ Time 1; T2 ¼ Time 2.

*p , .05; **p , .01.
support and commitment controlled, the Time 2 measures of AC and NC related

positively to the residual Time 2 support measure. Interestingly, although CC related
negatively to change in support as expected, it was the Time 1 rather than the Time 2
measure that related significantly. We discuss the implications of these findings in more
detail in the General discussion.
STUDY 2
One of our primary objectives in this study was to replicate the findings of Herscovitch
and Meyer (2002) in a different societal culture. Admittedly, the opportunity to collect
data in India was one of convenience, and this study was not intended to provide a true
cross-cultural comparison. Therefore, we did not test any specific hypotheses. However,
it is important to consider ways in which Indian culture differs from that of Canada,
where our Study 1 and Herscovitch and Meyer’s data were collected, and how these
culture differences might affect generalizability. When compared on the culture
dimensions identified by Hofstede (2002) and the Global Leadership and Organizational
Behavior Effectiveness (GLOBE) project (House, Hanges, Javidan, Dorfman, & Gupta,
2004), the most notable differences are on the individualism/collectivism (particularly
in-group collectivism) and power distance dimensions. India scores higher than Canada
on in-group collectivism (i.e. the degree to which individuals express pride, loyalty and
cohesiveness in their organizations or families) and power distance (i.e. the extent to
which a community accepts and endorses authority, power differences and status
privileges).
In their meta-analysis of organizational commitment research, Meyer et al. (2002)
found considerable support for the three-component model in studies conducted both
inside and outside North America. In a more recent follow-up to this analysis, Stanley
et al. (2007) provided further support for the generalizability of the model, but also
found some evidence for moderating effects of the GLOBE culture dimensions,
including in-group collectivism and power distance. For example, they found that NC
related more strongly with thoughts of quitting (negatively) in countries with higher in-
group collectivism practice scores. They also found a stronger negative relation
between NC and thoughts of quitting in countries with higher power-distance practice
scores. In addition, recent studies have reported significant correlations between the
components of commitment and individual differences in the internalization of cultural
values, including individualism/collectivism and power distance (e.g. Clugston, Howell,
& Dorfman, 2000; Wasti, 2003).
In light of the strong evidence for generalizability in the case of organizational
commitment, we expected to find evidence for the generalizability of Herscovitch and
Meyer’s (2002) model of commitment to a change. However, we were also sensitive to
the potential for culture differences and therefore scrutinized our findings carefully for
evidence of such differences.
A second objective in this study was to introduce a refinement to the measurement
of behavioural compliance to allow a more complete test of some of the predictions
made by the model. Compliance can be conceptualized in two ways: (a) willingness to
do what is asked and (b) willingness to do only what is asked. The measure used by
Herscovitch and Meyer (2002) reflects the first of these. When defined and
operationalized as a willingness to do what is asked, compliance does not preclude
higher levels of support. It is perhaps for this reason that Herscovitch and Meyer found
that all three forms of commitment to change correlated positively with compliance. In
this study we also included a measure to reflect the second conceptualization, which we
labelled mere compliance. Including this measure allowed us to test Meyer and
Herscovitch’s (2001) suggestion that employees with a strong CC would restrict their
behaviour to the terms of the commitment, whereas those with strong AC or NC would
be more flexible. Specifically, we tested the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 8. CC to change correlates positively with mere compliance, whereas AC and NC

correlate negatively.
Method
Research setting
This study was conducted in one of the largest and oldest (96 years) private sector
organizations in India and was part of a larger study on organizational restructuring. This
organization had established a strong reputation for its orientation toward employee
welfare and continued to enjoy good labour relations even after restructuring. Despite
downsizing its workforce by about 30%, the organization was continuing to improve in
terms of productivity, profits and modernization. Initial cutbacks involved mostly
unionized employees. Consequently, the organization found itself with too many
managers (approximately 5,000) and layers of management (15). Problems were also
identified with the ways in which management designations were assigned. Managers
were often promoted (i.e. given new titles) without much change in their job profiles,
and the assigned designations often did not reflect the relative worth or impact of the
job on the business. Therefore, in the year 2000, the company embarked upon a new
restructuring programme.
As part of the restructuring, all managers were evaluated in assessment centres and
the results were used in making placement decisions. Based on these assessments and
an evaluation of past performance, relations with some managers were severed. In
addition to continued downsizing, the organization delayered by a third. At the time of
this study, the manager assessment part of the restructuring exercise was completed and
managers were redeployed. However, many of the changes necessary to support this
restructuring (e.g. changes to training and development, and performance management
systems) were still in progress.
Sample and procedures

One of the objectives of the broader research programme was to examine organizational
commitment as a potential antecedent of commitment to change; hence, data were
collected in two phases. Data on organizational commitment were collected in phase I
in May 2003. In this phase, a survey was administered to managers from different
departments of the company. Participation from all major departments and management
levels (except the top-level managers) was invited in order to make the sample
representative. Approximately 900 copies of the survey were sent through
organizational channels, but about 60 of them were returned due to non-availability
of the respondents or incorrect addresses. Of the remaining 840, 383 managers (45%)
responded, with 379 providing usable data. Of these 379 respondents, about 280 who
were identifiable by means of a survey code were asked to complete a second survey in
August 2003. This second survey included the commitment to the change and
behavioural support measures and was completed by 129 managers (46% response
rate). For the purposes of this study, analyses were conducted using data from the 129
respondents who completed both surveys. The majority of the 129 respondents were
from the two lower levels (levels 4 and 5) of management (approximately 35% from
each). The sample was predominantly male (95%). The average age was approximately
42 years and the average tenure with the company was 18.4 years. To determine
whether this sample differed from the 151 identifiable respondents who completed the
first survey only, we conducted independent group t tests on the available demographic
and Time 1 study variables (i.e. organizational commitment scales). None of the
differences was statistically significant.
Measures
All measures included in this study had acceptable reliabilities (see Table 4) and, unless
specified, used seven-point (1 ¼ strongly disagree; 7 ¼ strongly agree) Likert-type
scales.
Commitment
We used the Meyer et al. (1993) 18-item measure of organizational commitment.
Commitment to the change was measured using the 18-item scale developed by
Table 4. Descriptive statistics, reliabilities and correlations among the Study 2 variables
M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
1. Affective commitment – change 5.18 1.54 (.94)

2. Continuance commitment – change 4.27 1.38 2 .55** (.83)
3. Normative commitment – change 4.85 1.00 .59** 2.11 (.67)
4. Affective commitment – org. 5.28 1.17 .39** 2.30** .19* (.77)
5. Continuance commitment – org. 4.48 1.44 2 .05 .14 2 .06 .11 (.86)
6. Normative commitment – org. 4.47 1.36 .37** 2.30** .18* .59** .28** (.82)
7. Behavioral continuum 72.57 18.42 .66** 2.36** .46** .14 2.19 .08 –
8. Mere compliance 3.62 1.50 2 .46** .42** 2 .39** 2 .13 .13 2 .04 2.45** (.90)
9. Compliance 5.98 0.81 .36** 2.11 .23** .12 2.12 .09 .25* 2 .09 (.78)
10. Cooperation 5.48 0.70 .59** 2.23* .54** .25** 2.12 .16 .61** 2 .30** .56** (.71)
11. Championing 5.80 0.89 .68** 2.37** .57** .28** .004 .22* .62** 2 .41** .42** .74** (.91)
Note. Reliabilities (coefficient alpha) are presented in the diagonal in parentheses. A – indicates a single item.
*p , .05; **p , .01.

Herscovitch and Meyer (2002). Both instruments include six items for each of the AC,
NC and CC components (see Study 1 for sample items).
Behavioural support for the change

We used the two measures of behavioural support developed by Herscovitch and Meyer
(2002). The first measure was the same 101-point behavioural continuum used in Study
1. The second measure used was a set of multi-item scales intended to reflect
compliance (three items: e.g. ‘I accept role changes’), cooperation (eight items: e.g. ‘I
work toward the change consistently’), and championing (six items: e.g. ‘I encourage
the participation of others in the change’). In addition, we included a five-item measure
of mere compliance for this study. Three of the items were adapted from Herscovitch
(1999) and the authors developed two additional items. A sample item is, ‘I will only do
what is absolutely necessary when it comes to this change’.
Results
Because this study was conducted in a different societal culture, we began by examining
the factor structure of the commitment to change scales. We conducted a principal axis
factor analysis with a direct oblimin rotation that allowed for correlations among the
factors. The analysis revealed three factors with eigenvalues greater than 1.0 and
accounting for 62.3% of the common variance. A scree plot also suggested three factors.
Although the three factors were primarily defined by AC, NC and CC items, respectively,
several of the NC items loaded more highly on, or cross-loaded on, the AC factor.
Therefore, although AC and CC were clearly distinguishable from one another, AC and
NC were not. For purposes of hypothesis testing, we treated NC as a separate scale, but
note that findings concerning this scale must be interpreted with caution. The
means, standard deviations and reliability estimates for all of the study variables are
reported in Table 4.

for a change
To test our hypotheses concerning the relations between the components of
commitment to the change and both non-discretionary and discretionary support for the
change, we examined the relevant correlations in Table 4. As expected, AC and NC to
the change correlated positively with self-reported compliance (r ¼ :36 and .23,
respectively), cooperation (r ¼ :59 and .54, respectively) and championing (r ¼ :68 and
.57, respectively), and negatively with mere compliance (r ¼ 2:46 and 2 .39,
respectively). Although CC to the change did not correlate significantly with
compliance (r ¼ 2:11), it did correlate significantly with mere compliance (r ¼ :42)
and with cooperation and championing (r ¼ 2:23 and 2 .37, respectively) as expected.
Thus, hypotheses 1, 2 and 8 are largely supported.
To test the hypotheses that commitment to the organization and to the change initiative
would both relate significantly to behavioural support, but that commitment to the change
would account for a greater proportion of the variance than would commitment to the
organization, we conducted hierarchical regression analyses similar to those in Study 1. The
results are reported in Table 5. Commitment to the organization accounted for a significant
portion of the variance for two of the five support measures (cooperation and
championing; R 2 ¼ :09 and .08, respectively) when entered first, but did not account for
significant incremental variance in any of the analyses when entered second. In contrast,
Table 5. Hierarchical regression analyses: predicting behavioural support prior to and following the change from organizational commitment and commitment to
the change initiative (Study 2)
Behavioural
Compliance Mere compliance Cooperation Championing continuum
R2 DR2 R2 DR2 R2 DR2 R2 DR2 R2 DR2
Order 1
Step1
Organizational commitment .04 .04 .09* .08* .06
Step 2
Commitment to the change .15** .12** .33* .29** .41** .33** .52** .43** .48** .41**
Order 2
Step 1
Commitment to the change .14** .30** .40** .52** .44**
Step 2
Organizational commitment .15** .02 .33** .03 .41** .01 .52** .01 .48** .04
*p , .05; **p , .01.


commitment to the change accounted for significant variance in all five criteria when
entered first (R 2 ¼ :14 to .52) and accounted for significant incremental variance in all five
analyses when entered second (R 2 ¼ :12 to .43). Thus, hypothesis 3 is supported. It is
interesting to note that, despite their failure to separate in the factor analysis, AC and NC to
the change both accounted for unique variance in analyses involving discretionary support
(cooperation and championing) as the dependent variable.
Interactions among the commitment components

To test hypothesis 4 concerning the interaction of the three commitment
components in the prediction of compliance behaviour, we conducted moderated
multiple regression analyses using the compliance measure as the dependent
variable. We entered the commitment to change variables in Step 1, the two-way
interaction terms in Step 2 and the three-way interaction term in Step 3. Following
recommendations by Aiken and West (1991), the commitment measures were
centered by subtracting the mean and the interaction terms were created by
multiplying the centred values. We found that the three components of
commitment to change accounted for 14% of the variance in compliance, but we
found no evidence for significant two- or three-way interactions. Thus, hypothesis 4
was not supported.
Profile comparisons
Finally, to test the hypotheses regarding differences in support behaviour across
profile groups (hypotheses 5a–c), we created subgroups with different commitment
profiles by performing median splits on the three commitment to change scales. As
in Study 1, we then compared the mean scores for these profile groups on the
continuum measure by conducting a one-way ANOVA, followed by post hoc
comparisons of means (Bonferonni t tests) (see Figure 2). There were not enough
individuals in one of the profile groups (the high AC, high CC and low NC group)
to be included in the analysis. Therefore, we conducted the analyses with the
remaining seven groups.
The one-way ANOVA revealed a significant difference in means across the seven
profile groups (F½6; 87 ¼ 10:11, p , .001). Consistent with hypothesis 5a, we
found that the means for the pure AC group (80.6), the pure NC group (77.2) and
the CC group (52.4) all exceeded the minimum score in the compliance range (40)
on the continuum. As predicted in hypothesis 5b, the mean scores for all profile
groups involving high AC and/or high NC fell within the cooperation range of the
continuum or higher (i.e. above 60). We also obtained modest evidence for the
predicted tempering effect of CC (hypothesis 5c). Although not significantly
different, the mean support score for employees with high scores on all three
components was lower than it was for employees with high scores on AC and NC
commitment and low scores on CC. An unexpected finding was that the
uncommitted group had a mean score (68.8) that fell within the cooperation range
of the continuum. Interestingly, the mean support score for this uncommitted group
was significantly higher than for the pure CC group.
Summary
In this study we were able to replicate many but not all of the findings reported by
Herscovitch and Meyer (2002). For example, the pattern of relations between the
Figure 2. Means on the behavioural continuum for commitment to change profiles, Study 2.
Note. Means denoted by different letters are significantly different at p , .01.
three components of commitment to the change and the non-discretionary and

discretionary behavioural support measures was very similar to that observed by
Herscovitch and Meyer. Similarly, behaviour varied across commitment profiles in
much the same way as it did in Herscovitch and Meyer’s study. We also found that
commitment to the change was a better predictor of behavioural support for the
change than was commitment to the organization. However, this was not a
completely fair test in this study because commitment to the organization was
measured 3 months before the commitment to the change and behavioural support
measures were obtained.
The most notable differences in our findings compared to those of Herscovitch and
Meyer (2002) was (a) our failure to provide evidence for a clear distinction between AC
and NC to the change; (b) our lack of evidence for the interaction of the components of
commitment in the prediction of compliance behaviour; and (c) our finding that the
uncommitted group had support scores in the cooperation range. Although these
discrepancies might be due to culture differences, it is important to note that we also
found that the uncommitted group scored in the cooperation range in Study 1.
Moreover, the fact that we did not find evidence for interactions could be due to our
small sample (McClelland & Judd, 1993). Therefore, of the three differences in findings,
the failure to find a clear distinction between AC and NC is perhaps the most likely
candidate for a culture explanation. We explore this possibility in great detail in the
General discussion below.
Finally, this study demonstrates the value of distinguishing between compliance and
mere compliance as outcome measures. Mere compliance implies a restriction of
support to those behaviours that are required of employees. Our findings suggest that
employees with strong CC are more likely to restrict their behaviour than those with
weaker commitment.
GENERAL DISCUSSION
The results of our studies were generally consistent with prediction and with previous
findings. Like Herscovitch and Meyer (2002), we found that AC and NC to a change
initiative relate positively to both non-discretionary (compliance) and discretionary
(cooperation and championing) support behaviour, whereas CC relates positively with
compliance and negatively with discretionary support. We also found that commitment
to a change accounts for more variance in support for the change than does
commitment to the organization. The fact that we obtained results similar to
Herscovitch and Meyer with very different samples and change contexts provides some
evidence for the generalizability of their model.
In addition to replicating earlier findings, our research extends previous research in
several respects. First, in Study 1 we examined relations between commitment and
behavioural support for a change over time. Although we did not find strong evidence
for a link between change in commitment and change in level of support, we did find
that (a) levels of commitment going into the change related significantly to the level of
support reported 7 months into the change and (b) AC and NC to the change at Time 2
related significantly and positively to level of support, even with the Time 1 measures of
the predictors and criterion controlled. Interestingly, we also found that CC to the
change at the outset was negatively related to support 8 months later, even when the
Time 1 measure of support was controlled. We discuss this and other findings pertaining
to CC in more detail below. Although still falling short in their ability to allow us to draw
conclusions about causality, these findings provide stronger evidence than has been
available previously (Herscovitch & Meyer, 2002; Neubert & Cady, 2001) for dynamic
relations between employee commitment and support as an organizational change
unfolds.
Second, the findings from Study 2 allowed us to examine the generalizability of the
commitment to change model to at least one non-western societal culture. This is an
important consideration because management theories developed in North America are
often adapted in other cultures without due consideration to their generalizability
(Boyacigiller & Adler, 1991). Although there were some exceptions to be discussed
below, the findings we obtained with a sample of Indian managers were very similar to
those obtained by Herscovitch and Meyer (2002) with Canadian nurses. Thus, while
much more work needs to be done, the model shows some promise for generalizability
outside North America.
Finally, the results of Study 2 also extend those of Herscovitch and Meyer (2002) by
demonstrating relations between the components of commitment and ‘mere
compliance’ to the requirements for change. Herscovitch and Meyer demonstrated
that all three forms of commitment correlated positively with willingness to do what is
minimally required by the organization to implement the change (i.e. compliance). Our
findings go beyond this by demonstrating that employees with a strong CC are more
likely to restrict their behaviour to what is absolutely required. In contrast, those who
have strong AC and/or NC state a willingness to go beyond minimum requirements
and do what is require to make the change work, even if it requires some sacrifice on
their part.
Cross-cultural generalizability of the commitment to change model

Although our findings in Study 2 with Indian managers were similar in many respects to
those reported in Study 1 with Canadian energy-sector employees and by Herscovitch
and Meyer (2002) with Canadian nurses, there was one particularly notable exception –
the results of our factor analysis failed to provide clear evidence of a distinction between
AC and NC to the change. It should be kept in mind, however, that despite this evidence
for distinctiveness, AC and NC to the change both accounted for unique variance in
regression analyses predicting discretionary support for the change (i.e. cooperation
and championing). Moreover, we cannot rule out the possibility that other factors,
including the nature of the sample and/or the nature of the change initiative, may have
contributed to the stronger relation between AC and NC in the Indian sample.
Nevertheless, we speculate here on ways that differences in societal culture might have
contributed to this finding. Our objective is to identify potential limits to cross-cultural
generalizability to be explored in future research.
As noted earlier, a comparison of the Canadian and Indian cultures reveals
differences on the individualism/collectivism and power distance dimensions
(Hofstede, 2002; House et al., 2004). Compared with Canadians, citizens of India are
more likely to express pride, loyalty and cohesiveness in their organizations or families,
and to accept and endorse authority, power differences and status privileges. These
differences could affect the nature of commitment across the two cultures, as well as its
relations to behaviour.
It is perhaps not surprising that the most notable difference across studies involved the
relation between AC and NC. These components are generally positively related, but the
relation has been found to vary considerably across studies. In their meta-analysis, Meyer
et al. (2002) reported an overall corrected correlation of .63 between AC and NC to
organizations. They also found that the correlation was greater in studies conducted
outside North America (r ¼ :69) than in studies conducted within North America
(r ¼ :59). Studies in collectivist cultures such as China (Cheng & Stockdale, 2003), South
Korea (Chen & Francesco, 2003; Ko, Price, & Mueller, 1997) and Turkey (Wasti, 2005) have
reported particularly strong correlations between AC and NC. Wasti (2002) suggested that
the strong societal norms that exist in collectivist cultures not only make NC a particularly
salient component of commitment, but might also affect its relations with AC and CC.
Recent findings by Gellatly et al. (2006) might help to explain why the correlation
between NC and the other two components vary with context, including societal
culture. They noted that the obligation characterizing NC could take two forms: moral
imperative and indebted obligation. In the former, obligation tends to be accompanied
by desire (AC), such that the individual wants to do what he or she believes ought to be
done (i.e. because it is the right thing to do). In the latter, the obligation is based on
others’ expectations and failure to fulfill their obligation is seen as a cost (CC). Although
Gellatly et al. found that the ‘two faces’ of NC could be seen within an organization and
therefore within cultures, it is possible that the prevalence of the each will vary across
cultures. For example, Janoff-Bulman and Leggatt (2002) recently found that Latino
students (collectivists) were more likely that American students (individualists) to
experience both a sense of ‘want’ and ‘should’ with regard to the fulfilment of social
obligations. American students tended to believe that they should fulfil their social
obligations, but were much less likely than Latinos to want to do so. Thus, desire (AC)
and obligation (NC) might be more strongly related in a collectivist culture like India.
In light of the foregoing discussion, it is interesting to note that the correlation
between NC and AC to the organizational change was stronger in our Indian sample than
in our Canadian sample, whereas the correlation between NC and CC was stronger in the
Canadian sample than in the Indian sample. This might suggest that the Indian mangers
were more accepting of their obligations than were the Canadian employees, perhaps
because of their greater acceptance of authority in general (power distance) or their

desire to do what is in the best interests of the organization (collectivism). In contrast,
Canadian employees might have been more inclined to focus on the costs of failing to
fulfill their obligations. However, it is important to note that the correlations between NC
and AC in Herscovitch and Meyer’s (2002) samples of Canadian nurses were more in line
with that for our Indian managers than for our Canadian energy-sector employees. The
correlations between NC and CC for the Canadian nurse samples fell between the
correlations observed in our two studies. Arguably, nurses as a group display a greater
collectivist orientation than other employee groups, even within individualist societies.
Therefore, if societal culture does affect the relations among the components of
commitment, this effect is likely to be moderated by other factors, including the extent to
which the dominant values within a culture are internalized (cf. Clugston et al., 2000;
Wasti, 2003). Researchers who test the cross-cultural generalizability of the three-
component model in future research would be well advised to assess the extent to which
culture values have been internalized by the samples under consideration.
Limitations
As we noted earlier, the two studies reported here both make a contribution to our
understanding of the link between commitment and support for an organizational
change. However, these studies are not without limitations. Some of these limitations
were alluded to above, including the fact that we did not conduct a true cross-cultural
comparison and that even our longitudinal analysis does not allow us to draw firm
conclusions about causality. Moreover, there are many differences in the samples and
settings in our studies and those conducted by Herscovitch and Meyer (2002). Although
this is helpful in making judgments about generalizability when the findings converge, it
makes it difficult to explain differences.
Perhaps the other most notable limitation in the present research was our reliance
on self-report measures of both commitment and behavioural support. This creates a
potential common-method bias problem that makes the interpretation of zero-order
correlations more difficult. However, common method bias is less problematic for tests
of hypotheses concerning incremental, interaction or time-lagged effects because the
variance explained by common method is partialled out in the first step of the regression
analysis. The fact that we have only self-report measures of support might also raise
concerns about self-serving bias. We attempted to minimize this concern by ensuring
anonymity in both studies. Our decision to use self-report measures was driven in part
by the fact that objective measures of support would be difficult to attain given the
variability in the way the changes would affect participants and in the nature of their
responses. We also recognized that ratings made by others (peers, supervisors) could be
inaccurate. For example, supervisors and peers might have little opportunity to observe
the participants’ change-related behaviours. Indeed, resistant behaviours might be
intentionally hidden from others. Nevertheless, we acknowledge that it might be useful
to obtain multi-source data in subsequent research.
Implications for change management

Our findings, in conjunction with the few other empirical studies of the relations between
commitment and support for organizational change (Herscovitch & Meyer, 2002;
Neubert & Cady, 2001), are consistent with the claim that employee commitment is a key
to the successful implementation of organizational change (e.g. Bennis, 2000; Connor,
1992; Klein & Sorra, 1996). Commitment to the organization itself would appear to be
beneficial, but commitment to the change initiative might be even more important.
However, not all commitments are alike. Not surprisingly, AC was found to have the
strongest positive relations with both non-discretionary and discretionary support, both
within and across time, and in both North American and Indian organizations. NC was
also positively related and made an incremental contribution to the prediction of support
in the Canadian sample, but was not distinguishable from AC in the Indian sample.
Neither our research nor that conducted by Herscovitch and Meyer (2002) specifically
addressed the antecedents of AC or NC, but based on commitment theory (e.g. Meyer &
Allen, 1997; Meyer & Herscovitch, 2001) and studies addressing related reactions to
change, including openness (e.g. Wanberg & Banas, 2000), readiness (Armenakis, Harris,
& Mossholder, 1993) and coping (Judge, Thoreson, Puckic, & Welbourne, 1999), we can
speculate that among the important antecedents will be fairness in the implementation of
the change (Daly & Geyer, 1994), trust in management (Mishra & Spreitzer, 1998),
communication (Schweiger & DeNisi, 1991) and effective leadership (Sagie & Koslowski,
1994). These are relations that need to be examined in future research.
Finally, our findings provide very strong evidence to indicate that CC does not
substitute for AC or NC commitment to a change initiative. Although few change
managers might claim to use strategies specifically intended to foster CC, we suspect that
it might become a strategy of default if careful attention is not paid to finding ways to
develop AC or NC. The latter strategies (e.g. building trust, communication) take time,
and time is often in short supply under conditions of change. Consequently, in the
absence of clear signs of justice, support and leadership, employees might view
management as having a ‘do it or else’ attitude, particularly if the changes involve layoffs
or cutbacks that signal to employees that their jobs are in jeopardy. Our findings suggest
that employees who comply with the requirements for change primarily because of the
perceived costs of failing to do so will do little more than what is required of them. The
uncertainties surrounding change often make it difficult for management to anticipate all
of the things that employees will need to do to make the change work. They must
therefore rely on employees to buy into the change and to determine what they need to do
to be effective. Employees with strong AC and/or NC are likely to do so. Those with
a strong CC alone are not.
References
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions.
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Allen, N. J., & Meyer, J. P. (1990). The measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance and
normative commitment. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 63, 1–18.
Armenakis, A. A., Harris, S., & Field, H. (1999). Paradigms of organizational change: Change agent
and change target perspectives. In R. Golembiewski (Ed.), Handbook of organizational
behavior. New York: Marcel Dekker.
Armenakis, A. A., Harris, S. G., & Mossholder, K. W. (1993). Creating readiness for change. Human
Relations, 46, 681–703.
Becker, T. E., Billings, R. S., Eveleth, D. M., & Gilbert, N. L. (1996). Foci and bases of employee
commitment: Implications for job performance. Academy of Management Journal, 39,
464–482.
Becker, T. E., & Kernan, M. (2003). Matching commitment to supervisors and organizations to in-
role and extra-role performance. Human Performance, 16, 327–348.
Bennis, W. (2000). Leadership of change. In M. Beer & N. Nohria (Eds.), Breaking the code of
change (pp. 113–121). Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Boyacigiller, N. A., & Adler, N. J. (1991). The parochial dinosaur: Organizational science in a global
context. Academy of Management Review, 16, 262–290.
Brown, R. B. (1996). Organizational commitment: Clarifying the concept and simplifying the
existing construct typology. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 49, 230–251.
Chen, Z. X., & Francesco, A. M. (2003). The relationship between the three components of
commitment and employee performance in China. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 62, 490–510.
Cheng, Y., & Stockdale, M. S. (2003). The validity of the three-component model of organizational
commitment in a Chinese context. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 62, 465–489.
Clugston, M., Howell, J. P., & Dorfman, P. W. (2000). Does cultural socialization predict multiple
bases and foci of commitment? Journal of Management, 26, 5–30.
Connor, D. R. (1992). Managing at the speed of change: How resilient managers succeed and
prosper where others fail. New York: Villard Books.
Daly, J. P., & Geyer, P. D. (1994). The role of fairness in implementing large-scale change: Employee
evaluations of process and outcome in seven facility relocations. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 15, 623–638.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human
behavior. New York: Plenum.
Edwards, J. R. (1994). The study of congruence in organizational behavior research: Critique and a
proposed alternative. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 58, 51–100.
Edwards, J. R., & Parry, M. E. (1993). On the use of polynomial regression equations as an
alternative to difference scores in organizational research. Academy of Management Journal,
36, 1577–1613.
Gagne, M., & Deci, E. L. (2005). Self-determination theory and work motivation. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 26, 331–362.
Gellatly, I. R., Meyer, J. P., & Luchak, A. A. (2006). Combined effects of the three components of
commitment on focal and discretionary behavior: A test of Meyer and Herscovitch’s
propositions. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 69, 331–345.
Herscovitch, L. (1999). Employee commitment to organizational change: Extension and
evaluation of a three-component model. Unpublished master’s thesis, University of Western
Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada.
Herscovitch, L., & Meyer, J. P. (2002). Commitment to organizational change: Extension of a three-
component model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 474–487.
Higgins, E. T. (1998). Promotion and prevention: Regulatory focus as a motivational principle. In
M.P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (vol.30, pp. 1–46). New York:
Academic Press.
Hofstede, G. (2002). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behavior, institutions, and
organizations across nations (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W., & Gupta, V. (2004). Culture, leadership, and
organizations. The GLOBE study of 62 societies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Janoff-Bulman, R., & Leggatt, H. K. (2002). Culture and social obligation: When shoulds are
perceived as wants. Journal of Research in Personality, 36, 260–270.
Jaros, S. J. (1997). An assessment of Meyer and Allen’s (1991) three-component model of
organizational commitment and turnover intentions. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 51,
319–337.
Judge, T. A., Thoresen, C. J., Pucik, V., & Welbourne, T. M. (1999). Managerial coping with
organizational change. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 107–122.
Klein, K. J., & Sorra, J. S. (1996). The challenge of innovation implementation. Academy of
Management Review, 21, 1055–1080.
Ko, J-W., Price, J. L., & Mueller, C. W. (1997). Assessment of Meyer and Allen’s three-component model
of organizational commitment in South Korea. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 961–973.
Kotter, J. P. (1996). Leading change. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Lewin, K. (1943). Defining the field at a given time. Psychological Review, 50, 292–310.
McClelland, G. H., & Judd, C. M. (1993). Statistical difficulties of detecting interactions and
moderator effects. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 376–390.
Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1991). A three-component conceptualization of organizational
commitment. Human Resource Management Review, 1, 61–89.
Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1997). Commitment in the workplace: Theory, research, and
application. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Meyer, J. P., Allen, N. J., & Smith, C. A. (1993). Commitment to organizations and occupations:
Extension and test of a three-component conceptualization. Journal of Applied Psychology,
78, 538–551.
Meyer, J. P., Becker, T. E., & Vandenberghe, C. (2004). Employee commitment and motivation:
A conceptual analysis and integrative model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 991–1007.
Meyer, J. P., & Herscovitch, L. (2001). Commitment in the workplace: Toward a general model.
Human Resource Management Review, 11, 299–326.
Meyer, J. P., Stanley, D. J., Herscovitch, L., & Topolnytsky, L. (2002). Affective, continuance, and
normative commitment to the organization. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 61, 20–52.
Mishra, A. K., & Spreitzer, G. M. (1998). Explaining how survivors respond to downsizing: The
roles of trust, empowerment, justice, and work redesign. Academy of Management Review,
23, 567–588.
Neubert, M. J., & Cady, S. H. (2001). Program commitment: A multi-study longitudinal field
investigation of its impact and antecedents. Personnel Psychology, 54, 421–448.
Randall, D. M., Fedor, D. B., & Longenecker, C. O. (1990). The behavioral expression of
organizational commitment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 36, 210–224.
Sagie, A., & Koslowsky, M. (1994). Organizational attitudes and behaviors as a function of
participation in strategic and tactical change decisions: An application of path-goal theory.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15, 37–47.
Schweiger, D. M., & DeNisi, A. S. (1991). Communications with employees following a merger:
A longitudinal field experiment. Academy of Management Journal, 34, 110–135.
Siders, M. A., George, G., & Dharwadkar, R. (2001). The relationship of internal and external
commitment foci to objective job performance measures. Academy of Management Journal,
44, 570–579.
Sinclair, R. R., Tucker, J. S., Cullen, J. C., & Wright, C. (2005). Performance differences among four
organizational commitment profiles. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 1280–1287.
Somers, M. J. (1995). Organizational commitment, turnover, and absenteeism: An examination of
direct and interaction effects. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 16, 49–58.
Stanley, D. J., Meyer, J. P., Jackson, T. A., Maltin, E. R., McInnis, K. Kumsar, Y., & Sheppard, L. (2007,
April). Cross-cultural generalizability of the three-component model. Paper presented at the
annual meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, New York, USA.
Wanberg, C. R., & Banas, J. T. (2000). Predictors and outcomes of openness to changes in a
reorganizing workplace. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 132–142.
Wasti, S. A. (2002). 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. (2003). The influence of culture values on antecedents of organizational commitment:
An individual-level analysis. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 52, 533–554.
Wasti, S. A. (2005). Commitment profiles: Combinations of organizational commitment forms and
job outcomes. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 67, 290–308.
Received 13 August 2005; revised version received 3 March 2006

Employee Commitment and Support For An Organizational Change: Test of The Three-Component Model in Two Cultures

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Исходное описание:

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Employee Commitment and Support For An Organizational Change: Test of The Three-Component Model in Two Cultures

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Copyright © The British Psychological Society

Employee commitment and support

John P. Meyer1*, E. S. Srinivas2, Jaydeep B. Lal3

Although commitment is commonly identified as an essential element for the effective

186 John P. Meyer et al.

Herscovitch and Meyer’s model of commitment to an organizational

Commitment and organizational change 187

Relations between the commitment components and behavioural support

188 John P. Meyer et al.

Hypothesis 1. AC, NC and CC to an organizational change correlate positively with compliance

To demonstrate the value of considering change as a unique focus of commitment,

Combined influence of commitment components

Commitment and organizational change 189

Herscovitch offered a set of propositions concerning the nature of the interaction

190 John P. Meyer et al.

Commitment and organizational change 191

Commitment to the change

Behavioural support for the change

1. Affective commitment 2.92 .89 (.85)

*p , .05; **p , .01.

Commitment and organizational change 193

194 John P. Meyer et al.

change by engaging in covert or subtle behaviours aimed at preventing the success of

Relations between the commitment components and behavioural support

Commitment and organizational change 195

accounted for an additional 4 and 5% of the variance, respectively, when entered

196 John P. Meyer et al.

Commitment and organizational change 197

Time-lagged relations between commitment and support

198 John P. Meyer et al.

Unstandardized coefficients Variance explained

Note. T1 ¼ Time 1; T2 ¼ Time 2.

support and commitment controlled, the Time 2 measures of AC and NC related

Commitment and organizational change 199

Hypothesis 8. CC to change correlates positively with mere compliance, whereas AC and NC

200 John P. Meyer et al.

Sample and procedures

1. Affective commitment – change 5.18 1.54 (.94)

Commitment and organizational change 201

202 John P. Meyer et al.

Behavioural support for the change

Relations between the commitment components and behavioural support

R2 DR2 R2 DR2 R2 DR2 R2 DR2 R2 DR2

*p , .05; **p , .01.

Commitment and organizational change 203

204 John P. Meyer et al.

Interactions among the commitment components

Commitment and organizational change 205

three components of commitment to the change and the non-discretionary and

206 John P. Meyer et al.

Cross-cultural generalizability of the commitment to change model

Commitment and organizational change 207

208 John P. Meyer et al.

because of their greater acceptance of authority in general (power distance) or their

Implications for change management

Commitment and organizational change 209

210 John P. Meyer et al.

Commitment and organizational change 211

Received 13 August 2005; revised version received 3 March 2006

Вам также может понравиться