Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
www.emeraldinsight.com/0143-7739.htm
LODJ
33,6
564
Introduction
For an organization to have a sustained competitive advantage in the product and labor
market, highly committed employees are required. Organizational commitment refers
to an individuals feelings about an organization as a whole (Allen and Meyer, 1996).
Given that employees who are highly committed to the organization have a tendency to
remain in the organization (Allen and Meyer, 1996; Whitener and Walz, 1993) and show
positive work-related behaviors (Hausknecht et al., 2009; Meyer et al., 1989; Vandenberghe
et al., 2004), more companies become aware of the value of enhancing employees
organizational commitment and the importance of understanding its antecedents. Thus,
fostering employees organizational commitment becomes the foremost concern for
contemporary organizations to retain talented employees in a knowledge-driven economy
(Neininger et al., 2010; Reiche, 2008). However, employees commitment to the organization
is being challenged by the tendency of todays workers to be more involved to their
profession than to their organization (Burud and Tumolo, 2004).
What predicts organizational commitment has been an important research concern
in the field of human resource (HR) and organization development (OD). The
antecedents of organizational commitment are varied in their nature and origins
as noted by Steers (1977). Previous studies have found that commitment is influenced
by personal characteristics, work experiences, job characteristics, role states, group/
leader relations, and organizational characteristics (Allen and Meyer, 1990; Mathieu
and Zajac, 1990; Steers, 1977). Although the significant implications of various
personal characteristics as the antecedents of organizational commitment have been
identified, relatively little attention has been given to the dispositional source of
commitment (Erdheim et al., 2006). Moreover, most of the studies which have
investigated relationships between personal disposition and organizational
commitment have primarily employed the five-factor model (Big Five) or positive
affectivity/negative affectivity (PA/NA) trait taxonomy (Cropanzano et al., 2006;
Erdheim et al., 2006; Naquin and Holton, 2002).
Heller et al. (2002) noted that three trait taxonomies (i.e. Big Five, PA/NA, and core
self-evaluations) have been generally employed in predicting job attitudes for the last
decade. Core self-evaluations refer to a higher-order concept of an individuals selfevaluation of his or her personal characteristics (Judge et al., 2002) and capture a
fundamental aspect of the self-incorporating four core individual traits: self-esteem,
generalized self-efficacy, locus of control, and emotional stability (Judge et al., 1997). By
using the recent construct of core self-evaluations, a better understanding of the
dispositional source of affective commitment can be provided.
Accumulating evidence has indicated the contributions of various situational
characteristics as key antecedents of organizational commitment (Kuvaas, 2006; Meyer
et al., 2002; Park and Rainey, 2007). Joo and Shim (2010) also asserted that future research
would benefit from a more integrative approach that includes personal and contextual
factors in a study. However, there has been less research conducted to explore the
interaction effect of dispositional traits and situational factors on organizational
commitment. Many studies provided that leadership has been considered as one of the
most important factors influencing employee attitudes and behaviors. In particular,
transformational leaders build a strategic vision, communicate that vision through
framing and use of metaphor, and create commitment toward the vision (Bass and
Avolio, 1994). Transformational leadership, thereby, can have a positive effect on
individuals attitudes and behaviors (Avolio, 1999; Howell and Hall-Merenda, 1999;
Mester et al., 2003; Podsakoff et al., 1996). In this vein, it would be meaningful to examine
employees core self-evaluations and transformational leadership as the antecedents of
employees commitment to the organization.
The primary purpose of this study is to examine the effects of employees core
self-evaluations and perceived transformational leadership of their supervisors on
organizational commitment. We also investigated the interaction effect of core
self-evaluations and perceived transformational leadership on organizational
Organizational
commitment
565
LODJ
33,6
commitment. Research question of this study is: to what extent do core self-evaluations
and transformational leadership influence organizational commitment? Findings from
this study would be expected to provide better understanding of individuals core selfconcepts and their supervisors transformational leader behaviors which help increase
employees commitment to their organizations.
566
2001; Grant and Wrzesniewski, 2010; Judge et al., 2003). Judge et al. (1998) viewed
motivation as one of the possible mechanisms by which positive self-concept influences
job performance:
Organizational
commitment
567
Regarding the psychological processes underlying the relationship of core selfevaluations with job performance, some studies have suggested that cognitive
processes such as goal setting mediated the relationship between core self-evaluations
and job performance (Erez and Judge, 2001). Also, Grant and Wrzesniewski (2010)
found social and emotional process influence the link between core self-evaluations and
job performance by providing that high core self-evaluations are most likely to predict
high performance when people are also high in other-orientation.
More recently, core self-evaluations have been found to be a significant predictor
of a variety of outcomes including goal setting, goal commitment, stress and burnout,
life satisfaction, happiness, job-search persistence, work and family satisfaction,
commitment to change, creativity (Boyar and Mosley, 2007; Bono and Colbert,
2005; Erez and Judge, 2001; Herold et al., 2008; Jung, 2001; Piccolo et al., 2005;
Wanberg et al., 2005). Also, many studies further found the role of various mediators
including jobs characteristics, task complexity, and work environment in the
relationship between core self-evaluations and work outcomes (e.g. Kacmar et al.,
2009; Srivastava et al., 2010). But, researchers have not paid attention to the
relationship between core self-evaluations and organizational commitment as noted
by Kittinger et al. (2009).
In this study, our focus is a direct relationship between core self-evaluations and
organizational commitment. There are several reasons to believe that individuals who
score high on core self-evaluations will have higher organizational commitment than
those with lower core self-evaluations. First, positive self-regard influence situational
appraisals. That is, people with high core self-evaluations are highly confident in their
abilities, and thus they tend to appraise critical events as a challenge in a positive way
and focus on the positive aspects of their jobs (Locke et al., 1996). In contrast, people
with low emotional stability tend to have stress, fear, or feeling of helplessness in
dealing with those challenging events in the organizations (Costa and McCrae, 1992).
Second, individuals who perceive the job as challenging and intrinsically fulfilling
can act as an underlying motivational mechanism and might influence
employees commitment to the organization. Along similar lines, people with high core
self-evaluations tend to have positive expectations about their ability and will show
stronger job responsibilities than those who consider themselves incompetent ( Judge
et al., 1997). Thus, people with high core self-evaluations tend to be more committed to
the organization where individual ability and responsibility should be proven and
demonstrated. Third, those with higher core self-evaluations may experience healthy
relationships within the workplace than those with low core self-evaluations.
Constructive relationships may foster positive interactions and collaboration among
organizational members, which, in turn, may be linked to individuals emotional
attachment to and involvement in their organizations. Based on the review of literature
LODJ
33,6
568
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
intellectual stimulation.
Organizational
commitment
569
LODJ
33,6
570
Organizational
commitment
571
LODJ
33,6
572
constructs and sub-constructs among the proposed variables and the internal
consistency reliabilities of the scales (Howell, 2007; Siegel, 2003). In addition, in order to
address the potential concern of common method variance, we conducted Harmans
single factor test as described by Podsakoff et al. (2003). According to this approach,
there is a common method variance if the exploratory factor analysis (EFA) result
presents only one factor or a single factor explaining the majority of the covariances
of independent and dependent variables (Podsakoff et al., 2003). Confirmatory factor
analysis (CFA) was also performed to assess the construct validity of the measurement
model. The factor structure was assessed by statistically testing the fit between the
proposed model and the measured data in terms of convergent and discriminant
validity (Kline, 2005; Pett et al., 2003; Yang, 2005).
Finally, hierarchical multiple regression analyses were conducted as the main
analyses. A multiple regression analysis is appropriate when a single-metric
dependent variable is hypothesized to be related with multiple metric independent
variables (Howell, 2007; Kline, 2005; Siegel, 2003). In the current study, we tested the
main effects of core self-evaluations and five sub-dimensions of transformational
leadership on employees affective organizational commitment. All values were
centered to control potential multicollinearity of interaction terms.
Results
The results of the study were reported in three parts. First, the descriptive statistics,
correlations, and reliabilities were reported. Second, several factor analyses assessed
the potential common method variance problem as well as overall construct validity of
the measurement model. Lastly, the hierarchical multiple regression model was tested
and the results of the hypothesis testing were addressed.
Descriptive statistics, correlations, and reliabilities
Table I presents the correlations among the constructs and the internal consistency
reliabilities of the scales. The overall relationships among the five sub-constructs
of transformational leadership were stronger than the relationships with core
self-evaluations and affective organizational commitment. The relationship between
role modeling and group goal promotion was the highest (r 0.77), whereas the
relationship between core self-evaluations and intellectual stimulation was the lowest
(r 0.11). All of the correlations indicated significant relationships ( po0.05) among
the constructs. All measures demonstrated adequate levels of reliability (r 0.78-0.89).
Variables
Table I.
Means, standard
deviations, reliabilities,
and sub-scale zero-order
intercorrelations
Core self-evaluations
Vision articulation
Role modeling
Group goal promotion
Individualized support
Intellectual stimulation
Organizational commitment
M
3.43
3.27
3.28
3.36
3.10
3.26
3.31
SD
0.44 (0.78)
0.71 0.17** (0.87)
0.87 0.13** 0.72** (0.87)
0.81 0.18** 0.66** 0.77** (0.89)
0.78 0.25** 0.37** 0.54** 0.50** (0.80)
0.79 0.11*
0.68** 0.62** 0.58** 0.40** (0.88)
0.72 0.27** 0.43** 0.37** 0.42** 0.29** 0.38** (0.83)
Notes: N 439; *po0.05; **po0.01 (two-tailed tests). Reliability estimates are presented on the
diagonal
Organizational
commitment
573
Note: ***po0.001
w2
df
RMSEA
SRMR
NNFI
CFI
IFI
GFI
AGFI
318.42***
87
0.078
0.061
0.95
0.96
0.96
0.91
0.88
Table II.
Measurement model
evaluation by CFA
LODJ
33,6
574
Table III.
Hierarchical multiple
regression results
for organizational
commitment
Variables
Model 1
0.01
0.09****
0.01
0.01
0.01
Organizational commitment
Model 2
Model 3
0.00
0.12*
0.08
0.02
0.01
0.30***
0.04
0.09*
0.05
0.01
0.01
0.21***
0.22**
0.06
0.18**
0.05
0.12*
0.80
0.00
-
7.50***
0.08
0.08
14.56***
0.25
0.17
Model 4
0.04
0.10*
0.05
0.01
0.00
0.20***
0.22**
0.07
0.18*
0.07
0.12****
0.00
0.01
0.06
0.11*
0.01
10.32***
0.25
0.00
Notes: *po0.05; **po0.01; ***po0.001; ****po0.10. All variables are centered. Interactions are the
products of centered values. All VIF values are o3.49
4
High individualized support
Low individualized support
Organizational
3
commitment
Figure 1.
Interaction effect of core
self-evaluations and
individualized support
on organizational
commitment
Low
High
Core self-evaluations
favorable), personal characteristics are more important. However, for those with low
core self-evaluations, the effect of the supervisors individualized support was greater.
Discussion and conclusion
The findings of this study are discussed in detail on the basis of the hypothesized
model compared with previous research. Then, we discuss the implications of this
study for research and practice in the field of HR and OD. The limitations of this study
and recommendations for future research are also discussed. Finally, some concluding
thoughts are followed.
Key findings
To summarize the major findings of this study, core self-evaluations and
transformational leadership contributed to organizational commitment. More
specifically, employees exhibited higher organizational commitment when they
demonstrated higher core self-evaluations (i.e. self-esteem, generalized self-efficacy,
locus of control, and emotional stability). Employees also showed higher organizational
commitment when employees perceived their supervisors leadership in a transformative
fashion (i.e. vision articulation, group goal promotion, and intellectual stimulation).
About 25 percent of the variance in organizational commitment was explained by the
above-mentioned factors. In terms of effect size, the five dimensions of transformational
leadership (DR2 0.17) were stronger than core self-evaluations (DR2 0.08). As
mentioned earlier, little research has focussed on the relationship between core
self-evaluations and organizational commitment, whereas this study replicated the
previous studies that demonstrated the positive relationship between transformative
leadership and organizational commitment (Avolio et al., 2004; Bycio et al., 1995;
Dumdum et al., 2002; Lowe et al., 1996; Stumpp et al., 2009; Walumbwa and Lawler, 2003).
Thus, the theoretical contribution lies in that this study took an integrative approach
encompassing personal and contextual factors in a study. It found a significant
relationship between core self-evaluations and organizational commitment and the
interaction effects of core self-evaluations and transformational leadership.
In this study, we examined the relationship between core self-evaluations and
organizational commitment. As mentioned before, previous studies found that core
self-evaluations is a significant predictor of a variety of outcomes including goal
setting, goal commitment, stress and burnout, life satisfaction, happiness, job-search
persistence, work and family satisfaction, commitment to change, creativity, and job
performance (Boyar and Mosley, 2007; Bono and Colbert, 2005; Erez and Judge, 2001;
Herold et al., 2008; Jung, 2001; Piccolo et al., 2005; Wanberg et al., 2005). However,
researchers have not paid attention to the relationship between core self-evaluations
and organizational commitment (Kittinger et al., 2009). One of the contribution of this
study is that it found a direct relationship between the two.
As mentioned earlier, affective commitment has a much stronger relation with
transformational leadership than continuance or normative commitment has (Bycio
et al., 1995). Most transformational leadership studies have failed to examine the impacts
of the sub-constructs of transformational leadership. In this study, we found that while
vision articulation, group goal promotion, and intellectual stimulation were the
significant predictors for organizational commitment, role modeling and individualized
support were weak in terms of correlations and non-significant in regression analysis.
More specifically, transformational leaders can inspire employees by articulating
a vision that enhances employees confidence and expectations (Martin and Epitropaki,
2001). Thus, employees who are intrinsically motivated by this leaders articulation of
appealing vision can make them more committed to their organization. In addition,
transformational leaders promote cooperation among employees and encourage them
to collaborate toward a common goal. By getting employees to transcend their own
self-interest for collective interests or a common good of the organization (Pillai and
Williams, 2004; Yukl, 1998), transformational leaders can motivate followers become
more attached to the organization. Transformational leaders also encourage employees
Organizational
commitment
575
LODJ
33,6
576
to question extant beliefs, challenge the status quo, and develop innovative approaches
to deal with organizational issues rather than passively follow (Bass, 1985; Shin and
Zhou, 2003). Through intellectual stimulation, transformational leader can further
create an organizational environment in which employees feel psychological safety in
generating innovative ways of solving problems and thus, become more committed to
the organization (Avolio and Bass, 1988).
However, this study found that by providing an appropriate role model for
followers, employees respect, trust in, and emotionally identify with the leader and
the unit (Bass, 1998; Walumbwa et al., 2004), but role modeling turned out to be a nonsignificant predictor for organizational commitment. Through individualized support,
transformational leaders respect their followers and understand their personal
feelings and needs, resulting in more engaged and devoted followers. As a result of
regression analysis, however, individualized support was a non-significant predictor
for organizational commitment. It can predict job satisfaction or group commitment
but not organizational commitment.
Implications
Theoretical implication of this study lies in that it examined the direct relationship
between core self-evaluations and organizational commitment and the interaction
effect of core self-evaluations and transformational leadership as a situational factor on
organizational commitment. Practical implications are suggested for managers who
deal with people management issues on a daily basis and for HR/OD professionals
who develop relevant practices for the purpose of enhancing organizational commitment.
HR/OD professionals can support employees organizational commitment at the
group and individual levels by developing, improving, and delivering relevant
practices. With regard to personal characteristics, core self-evaluations provide a
composite of four core traits (self-esteem, generalized self-efficacy, locus of control, and
emotional stability). Employees with higher self-esteem, self-efficacy, emotional
stability, and internal locus of control tend to be more committed to their organization.
Since personality tends to be stable over time, it can be used in recruiting and selecting
the right person in the right position at the right time.
HR/OD practitioners can also support managers by providing relevant HR practices
and services including training programs. For instance, leadership development
training that focusses on vision articulation, group goal promotion, and intellectual
stimulation would lead to the higher level of organizational commitment. One of the
key findings of this study is that individualized support by the leader can enhance
organizational commitment even for those with low core self-evaluations. That is, HR/
OD professionals can help managers change their leadership in a transformative
fashion (vision articulation, group goal promotion, and intellectual stimulation) by
providing relevant training programs and developmental relationships such as
coaching and mentoring. Managers need to play a role as a coach by providing
constructive feedback designed to bring the most out of people by showing that
they are respected and valued (Goodstone and Diamante, 1998; Hargrove, 1995;
Hudson, 1999).
Limitations and recommendations for future research
In terms of methodology, this study has several potential limitations. First, the sample
of this study, consisting mostly of highly educated male managers, is likely restricted
to a certain group with similar demographic characteristics (e.g. male junior managers
with relatively high education levels). Second, this study, like most organizational
commitment studies, relied on self-reported and reflective recollection of the indicators
of the constructs by employees. Thus, the results of the study might be influenced by
the employees reports concerning their perceptions of their leaders behaviors and
their personality measures. Last but not least, this empirical study confines itself to a
cross-sectional survey method, which leaves room for speculation with regard to
causality among the variables. To solve these limitations methodologically, future
research needs to be based on objective indicators and multiple sources. In addition, to
increase the generalizability of the present study, more studies in various industries
representing diverse demographic groups are needed.
Conclusion
Today, many firms are attempting to become an employer of choice, which refers to an
organization that outperforms their competition in attracting, developing, and retaining
people with required talent for their businesses (Joo and McLean, 2006). While HR
practices are important for enhancing their employment brand as an employer of choice,
employees personalities, and the role of leadership are critical for committed employees.
Thus, organizational commitment cannot be overemphasized in todays business arena.
The current investigation puts forward the important task of examining how core
self-evaluations and transformational leadership affect organizational commitment. This
study provides significant value for managers by suggesting that they should primarily
facilitate their leadership behaviors to help improve employees commitment to their
organizations. HR/OD professionals can help their employees win the race of maintaining
a competitive advantage. Finally, we hope that this study will provide insights into
future research. More research on the dynamics of leadership behaviors, individual
personalities, contextual factors, and organizational outcomes is needed in the future.
References
Allen, N.J. and Meyer, J.P. (1990), The measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance,
and normative commitment to the organization, Journal of Occupational Psychology,
Vol. 63 No. 1, pp. 1-18.
Allen, N.J. and Meyer, J.P. (1996), Affective, continuance, and normative commitment to the
organization: an examination of construct validity, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 49
No. 3, pp. 252-76.
Avolio, B.A. and Bass, B.M. (1988), Transformational leadership, charisma and beyond, in
Hunt, J.G., Balaga, B.R., Bachler, H.P. and Schriesheim, C. (Eds), Emerging Leadership
Vista, Pergamon Press, Emsford, NY, pp. 29-50.
Avolio, B.J. (1999), Full Leadership Development: Building the Vital Forces in Organizations, Sage,
Thousand Oaks, CA.
Avolio, B.J., Zhu, W., Koh, W. and Bhatia, P. (2004), Transformational leadership and
organizational commitment: mediating role of psychological empowerment and
moderating role of structural distance, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 25
No. 8, pp. 951-68.
Barling, J., Weber, T. and Kelloway, E.K. (1996), Effects of transformational leadership training
on attitudinal and financial outcomes: a field experiment, Journal of Applied Psychology,
Vol. 81 No. 6, pp. 827-32.
Bass, B.M. (1985), Leadership and Performance Beyond Expectations, Free Press, New York, NY.
Bass, B.M. (1998), Transformational Leadership: Industry, Military, and Educational Impact,
Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ.
Organizational
commitment
577
LODJ
33,6
578
Bass, B.M. and Avolio, B.J. (1990), The implication of transactional and transformational
leadership for individual, team, and organizational development, in Woodmna, R.W.
and Pasmore, W.A. (Eds), Research in Organizational Change and Development, Vol. 4,
JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, pp. 231-72.
Bass, B.M. and Avolio, B.J. (1994), Improving Organizational Effectiveness Through
Transformational Leadership, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Bono, J.E. and Colbert, A.E. (2005), Understanding responses to multi-source feedback: the role
of core self-evaluations, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 58 No. 1, pp. 171-203.
Bono, J.E. and Judge, T.A. (2003), Core self-evaluations: a review of the trait and its role in job
satisfaction and job performance, European Journal of Personality, Vol. 17 No. S1, pp. 5-18.
Boyar, S.L. and Mosley, D.C. Jr (2007), The relationship between core self-evaluations and work
and family satisfaction: the mediating role of work-family conflict and facilitation, Journal
of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 71 No. 2, pp. 265-81.
Burns, J.M. (1978), Leadership, Harper & Row, New York, NY.
Burud, S. and Tumolo, M. (2004), Leveraging the New Human Capital: Adaptive Strategies,
Results Achieved, and Stories of Transformation, Davies-Black Publishing, Mountain
View, CA.
Bycio, P., Hackett, R.D. and Allen, J.S. (1995), Future assessment of Basss (1985)
conceptualization of transactional and transformational leadership, Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 80 No. 4, pp. 468-78.
Costa, P.T. Jr and McCrae, R.R. (1992), Revised NEO Personality Inventory and NEO Five-Factor
Inventory, Psychological Assessment Resource, Odessa, FL.
Cropanzano, R., James, K. and Konovsky, M.A. (2006), Dispositional affectivity as a predictor of
work attitudes and job performance, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 14 No. 6,
pp. 595-606.
Diamantopoulos, A. and Siguaw, J.A. (2000), Introducing LISREL, Sage, London.
Dumdum, U.R., Lowe, K.B. and Avolio, B.J. (2002), A meta-analysis of transformational and
transactional leadership correlates of effectiveness and satisfaction: an update and
extension, in Avolio, B.J. and Yammarino, F.J. (Eds), Transformational and Charismatic
Leadership: The Road Ahead, Vol. 2, Elsevier Science, Oxford, pp. 36-66.
Dvir, T., Eden, D., Avolio, B.J. and Shamir, B. (2002), Impact of transformational leadership on
follower development and performance: a field experiment, Academy of Management
Journal, Vol. 45 No. 4, pp. 735-44.
Erdheim, J., Wang, M. and Zickar, M.J. (2006), Linking the Big Five personality constructs
to organizational commitment, Personality and Individual Differences, Vol. 41 No. 5,
pp. 959-70.
Erez, A. and Judge, T.A. (2001), Relationship of core self-evaluations to goal setting, motivation,
and performance, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 86 No. 6, pp. 1270-9.
Fuller, J.B., Peterson, C.E., Hester, K. and Stringer, D.Y. (1996), A quantitative review of research
on charismatic leadership, Psychological Reports, Vol. 78 No. 1, pp. 271-87.
Goodstone, M.S. and Diamante, T. (1998), Organizational use of therapeutic change:
strengthening multi-score feedback systems through interdisciplinary coaching,
Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, Vol. 50 No. 3, pp. 152-63.
Grant, A.M. and Wrzesniewski, A. (2010), I wont let you downyor will I? Core self-evaluations,
other-orientation, anticipated guilt and gratitude, and job performance, Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 95 No. 1, pp. 108-21.
Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J. and Anderson, R.E. (2010), Multivariate Data Analysis, 7th ed.,
Pearson Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Organizational
commitment
579
LODJ
33,6
580
Kline, R.B. (2005), Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling, 2nd ed., Guilford
Press, New York, NY.
Kuvaas, B. (2006), Work performance, affective commitment, and work motivation: the roles
of pay administration and pay level, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 27 No. 3,
pp. 365-85.
Locke, E.A., McClear, K. and Knight, D. (1996), Self-esteem and work, International Review of
Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 1-32.
Lowe, K.B., Kroeck, K.G. and Sivasubramaniam, N. (1996), Effectiveness correlates of
transformational and transactional leadership: a meta-analytic review of the MLQ
literature, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 385-425.
Martin, R. and Epitropaki, O. (2001), Role of organizational identification, on Implicit Leadership
Theories (ILTs), transformational leadership and work attitudes, Group Processes and
Intergroup Relations, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 247-62.
Mathieu, J.E. and Zajac, D.M. (1990), A review and meta-analysis of the antecedents, correlates
and consequences of organizational commitment, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 108 No. 2,
pp. 171-94.
Mester, C., Visser, D. and Roodt, G. (2003), Leadership style and its relation to employee attitudes
and behaviour, SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 72-82.
Meyer, J.P. and Allen, N.J. (1984), Testing the side-bet theory of organizational commitment:
some methodological considerations, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 69 No. 3,
pp. 372-8.
Meyer, J.P. and Allen, N.J. (1991), A three-component conceptualization of organizational
commitment, Human Resource Management Review, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 61-89.
Meyer, J.P. and Allen, N.J. (1997), Commitment in the Workplace: Theory, Research, and
Application, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Meyer, J.P., Allen, N.J. and Smith, C.A. (1993), Commitment to organizations and occupations:
extension and test of a three-component conceptualization, Journal of Applied Psychology,
Vol. 78 No. 4, pp. 538-51.
Meyer, J.P., Stanley, D.J., Herscovitch, L. and Topolnytsky, L. (2002), Affective, continuance, and
normative commitment to the organization: a meta-analysis of antecedents, correlates,
and consequences, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 61 No. 1, pp. 20-52.
Meyer, J.P., Paunonen, S.V., Gellatly, I.R., Goffin, R.D. and Jackson, D.N. (1989), Organizational
commitment and job performance: its the nature of the commitment that counts, Journal
of Applied Psychology, Vol. 74 No. 1, pp. 152-6.
Moss, S.A. and Ritossa, D. (2007), The impact of goal orientation on the association between
leadership style and follower performance, creativity and work attitudes, Leadership,
Vol. 3 No. 4, pp. 433-56.
Mowday, R., Steers, R. and Porter, L. (1982), Employee-Organization Linkages: The Psychology of
Commitment, Absenteeism, and Turnover, Academic Press, New York, NY.
Naquin, S.S. and Holton, E.F. III (2002), The effects of personality, affectivity, and work
commitment on motivation to improve work through learning, Human Resource
Development Quarterly, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 357-76.
Neininger, A., Lehmann-Willenbrock, N., Kauffeld, S. and Henschel, A. (2010), Effects of team
and organizational commitment a longitudinal study, Journal of Vocational Behavior,
Vol. 76 No. 3, pp. 567-79.
OReilly, C.A. III and Chatman, J. (1986), Organizational commitment and psychological
attachment: the effects of compliance, identification, and internalization on prosocial
behavior, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 71 No. 3, pp. 492-9.
Park, S.M. and Rainey, H.G. (2007), Antecedents, mediators, and consequences of affective,
normative, and continuance commitment: empirical tests of commitment effects in
federal agencies, Review of Public Personnel Administration, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 197-226.
Penny, K.I. (1996), Appropriate critical values when testing for a single multivariate outlier by
using the Mahalanobis distance, Applied Statistics, Vol. 45 No. 1, pp. 73-81.
Pett, M.A., Lackey, N.R. and Sullivan, J.J. (2003), Making Sense of Factor Analysis: The Use of
Factor Analysis for Instrument Development in Health Care Research, Sage, Thousand
Oaks, CA.
Piccolo, R.F., Judge, T.A., Takahashi, K., Watanabe, N. and Locke, E.A. (2005), Core
self-evaluations in Japan: relative effects on job satisfaction, life satisfaction, and
happiness, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 26 No. 8, pp. 965-84.
Pieterse, N.A., Van Knippenberg, D., Schippers, M. and Stam, D. (2010), Transformational and
transactional leadership and innovative behavior: the moderating role of empowerment,
Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 31 No. 4, pp. 609-23.
Pillai, R. and Williams, E.A. (2004), Transformational leadership, self-efficacy, group
cohesiveness, commitment, and performance, Journal of Organizational Change
Management, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 144-59.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B. and Bommer, W. (1996), Transformational leader behaviors
and substitutes for leadership as determinants of employee satisfaction, commitment,
trust, and organizational citizenship behaviors, Journal of Management, Vol. 22 No. 2,
pp. 259-98.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J. and Podsakoff, N.P. (2003), Common method biases in
behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies, Journal
of Applied Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 5, pp. 879-903.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Moorman, R.H. and Fetter, R. (1990), Transformational leader
behaviors and their effects on followers trust in leader, satisfaction, and organizational
citizenship behaviors, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 107-42.
Reiche, B.S. (2008), The configuration of employee retention practices in multinational
corporations foreign subsidiaries, International Business Review, Vol. 17 No. 6,
pp. 676-87.
Rhoades, L., Eisenberger, R. and Armeli, S. (2001), Affective commitment to the organization: the
contribution of perceived organizational support, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 86
No. 5, pp. 825-36.
Shin, S.J. and Zhou, J. (2003), Transformational leadership, conservation, and creativity:
evidence from Korea, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 46 No. 6, pp. 703-14.
Siegel, A.F. (2003), Practical Business Statistics, 5th ed., McGraw Hill/Irwin, New York, NY.
Srivastava, A., Locke, E.A., Judege, T.A. and Adams, J.W. (2010), Core self-evaluations as causes
of satisfaction: the mediating role of seeking task complexity, Journal of Vocational
Behavior, Vol. 77 No. 2, pp. 255-65.
Steers, R.M. (1977), Antecedents and outcomes of organizational commitment, Administrative
Science Quarterly, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 46-56.
Stumpp, T., Hulsheger, U.R., Muck, P.M. and Maier, G.W. (2009), Expanding the link between
core self-evaluations and affective job attitudes, European Journal of Work and
Organizational Psychology, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 148-66.
Walumbwa, F.O. and Lawler, J.J. (2003), Building effective organizations: transformational
leadership, collectivist orientation, work-related attitudes, and withdrawal behaviors
in three emerging economies, International Journal of Human Resource Management,
Vol. 14 No. 7, pp. 1083-101.
Organizational
commitment
581
LODJ
33,6
582
Walumbwa, F.O., Wang, P., Lawler, J.J. and Shi, K. (2004), The role of collective efficacy in
the relations between transformational leadership and work outcomes, Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 77 No. 4, pp. 515-30.
Wanberg, C.R., Glomb, T.M., Song, Z. and Sorenson, S. (2005), Job-search persistence during
unemployment: a 10-wave longitudinal study, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 90 No. 3,
pp. 411-30.
Wang, P. and Rode, J.C. (2010), Transformational leadership and follower creativity: the
moderating effects of identification with leader and organizational climate, Human
Relations, Vol. 63 No. 8, pp. 1105-28.
Whitener, E.M. and Walz, P.M. (1993), Exchange theory determinants of affective and
continuance commitment and turnover, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 42 No. 3,
pp. 265-81.
Vandenberghe, C., Bentein, K. and Stinglhamber, F. (2004), Affective commitment to the
organization, supervisor, and work group: antecedents and outcomes, Journal of
Vocational Behavior, Vol. 64 No. 1, pp. 47-71.
Xenikou, A. and Simosi, M. (2006), Organizational culture and transformational leadership as
predictors of business unit performance, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 21 No. 6,
pp. 566-79.
Yang, B. (2005), Factor analysis methods, in Swanson, R.A. and Holton, E.F. III (Eds), Research
in Organizations: Foundations and Methods of Inquiry, Berrett-Koehler, San Francisco, CA,
pp. 181-99.
Yukl, G. (1998), Leadership in Organizations, 4th ed., Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Further reading
Joo, B.-K. (2010), Organizational commitment for knowledge workers: the roles of organizational
learning culture, leader-member exchange quality, and turnover intention, Human Resource
Development Quarterly, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 69-85.
Joo, B.-K. and Park, S.Y. (2010), Career satisfaction, organizational commitment, and turnover
intention: the effects of goal orientation, organizational learning culture and developmental
feedback, Leadership and Organization Development Journal, Vol. 31 No. 6, pp. 482-500.
Northouse, P.G. (2004), Leadership: Theory and Practice, 4th ed., Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
About the authors
Baek-Kyoo (Brian) Joo is an Assistant Professor of Human Resources Management in the College
of Business at Winona State University, Minnesota. Baek-Kyoo (Brian) Joo is the corresponding
author and can be contacted at: bjoo@winona.edu
Hea Jun Yoon is a PhD candidate in Human Resource Development in the Department of
Organizational Leadership, Policy, and Development at the University of Minnesota.
Chang-Wook Jeung is a PhD candidate in Human Resource Development in the Department
of Organizational Leadership, Policy, and Development at the University of Minnesota.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.