Antecedents and Outcomes of Organizational Commitment

Author(s): Richard M. Steers

Source: Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 22, No. 1 (Mar., 1977), pp. 46-56
Published by: Sage Publications, Inc. on behalf of the Johnson Graduate School of Management, Cornell
University
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2391745 .
Accessed: 22/11/2013 01:00

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Sage Publications, Inc. and Johnson Graduate School of Management, Cornell University are collaborating
with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Administrative Science Quarterly.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 130.194.20.173 on Fri, 22 Nov 2013 01:00:16 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Antecedents and Out-
comes of Organiza-
tional Commitment
Richard M. Steers
This study was supported by funds
supplied under Office of Naval Re-
search Contract No. N00014-76-C-
0164, NR 170-812 and by a grant
from the National Institute for
Mental Health, Center for Studies
of Metropolitan Problems, No. 1
R03-MH26959-01. The author
wishes to express his appreciation
to James L. Koch, Robert M.
Marsh, Richard T. Mowday, Lyman
W. Porter, Daniel G. Spencer, and
Eugene F. Stone for helpful com-
ments at various stages of the re-
search project.
March1977, volume 22
This content downloaded from 130.194.20.173 on Fri, 22 Nov 2013 01:00:16 AM
This study proposes and tests a preliminary model con-
cerning the antecedents and outcomes of employee
commitment to organizations using a cross-validational
framework. The study was carried out among 382 hospi-
tal employees and 119 scientists and engineers. It was
found that for both samples personal characteristics, job
characteristics, and work experiences influenced com-
mitment. Moreover, commitment was found to be
strongly related to intent and desire to remain for both
samples and moderately related to attendance and turn-
over for one sample. Performance was generally unre-
lated to commitment. Results are compared with earlier
findings and implications for future research are
discussed.*
The concept of employee commitment to organizations has
received increased attention in the research literaturere-
cently as both managers and organizationalanalysts seek
ways to increase employee retention and performance.
Employeecommitment is importantfor several reasons. To
begin with, recent findings indicate that commitment is
often a better predictorof turnoverthan is job satisfaction
(Kochand Steers, 1976; Porteret al., 1974). Moreover,
findings by Mowday, Porter,and Dubin(1974) suggest that
highlycommitted employees may performbetter than less
committed ones. Finally,it has been suggested by some
that commitment may represent one useful indicatorof the
effectiveness of an organization(Schein, 1970; Steers,
1975). These findings have importantimplications for both
organizationtheory and the practice of management.
Organizationalcommitment may be defined as the relative
strength of an individual'sidentification with and involve-
ment in a particularorganization. It can be characterizedby
at least three factors: (1) a strong belief in and acceptance
of the organization's goals and values; (2) a willingness to
exert considerable effort on behalf of the organization; and
(3) a strong desire to maintain membership in the organi-
zation (Portereta!., 1974). Before such a concept can be
operationalized,however, greater understanding is required
concerning the process by which commitments are formed
and how such commitments influence subsequent behav-
ior in organizationalsettings.
Although a variety of studies have been reportedrecently
examining certain aspects of commitment, several prob-
lems remain. First, few studies have taken a systematic or
comprehensive approachto the topic. As a result,we have
little informationto guide us in model-buildingattempts.
Second, cross-validationalstudies in which hypotheses or
models are tested and then replicatedin diverse settings
are rare.Thus, the external validityof many of the existing
findings must remain in doubt. Third,the majorityof exist-
ing studies treat commitment as a dependent variable.
Consequently, little is known about the behavioralout-
comes of commitment. The present study attempted to
provide informationrelevant to all three of these problems
by suggesting a preliminarymodel that incorporatesboth
antecedents and outcomes of organizationalcommitment
46/AdministrativeScience Quarterly
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 OrganizationalCommitment

and then providinga cross-validationaltest of the utilityof

the model.
THE MODEL
The model consists of two parts: (1) antecedents of com-
mitment; and (2) outcomes of commitment. The compo-
nent dealing with antecedents draws heavily on previous
research. When the various studies on determinants of or-
ganizational commitment are examined, it becomes clear
that majorinfluences can be found throughoutthe work
environment. Forthe sake of parsimony,these influences
can be grouped into three main categories: personal
characteristics, job characteristics, and work experiences
(see Figure 1).

Personal Characteristics
(need for achievement,
age, education)

Outcomes
JobJob Characteristis . Desire to remain
Characteristics Organizational Intent to remain
(task Identity, optional Comtmn Atnanc
interaction, feedback) Commitment Attendance
Employee retention
Job performance

Work Experiences
(group attitudes,
organizational dependability,
personal import)

Figure 1. Hypothesized antecedents and outcomes of organizational

commitment.

Personal characteristics consist of those variables which

define the individual.Forinstance, commitment has been
shown to be related to age (Hrebiniak,1974; Lee, 1971;
Sheldon, 1971), opportunitiesfor achievement (Brown,
1969; Hall,Schneider, and Nygren, 1970; Lee, 1971;
Patchen, 1970), education (Kochand Steers, 1976), role
tension (Hrebiniakand Alutto, 1972), and central life inter-
est (Dubin,Champoux,and Porter,1975). Because of the
diversity of samples and commitment measures that were
used in these studies, they were used in the present inves-
tigation as guidelines for the formulationof hypotheses.
The model furthersuggests that job characteristics may
also influence commitment to some degree, although the
influence is probablymore pronounced for other affective
responses, like job satisfaction (Stone and Porter,1975). In
particular,we would expect, based on priorresearch,that
commitment would be influenced by job challenge (Bu-
chanan, 1974; Halland Schneider, 1972), opportunitiesfor
social interaction (Sheldon, 1971), and the amount of feed-
back providedon the job (Ross and Zander, 1957; Porter
and Steers, 1973).
Finally,drawing on the work of Buchanan (1974) and
others, the model suggests that commitment is influenced
by the nature and qualityof an employee's work experi-
ences during his or her te nure in an organization. Work
47/ASQ

This content downloaded from 130.194.20.173 on Fri, 22 Nov 2013 01:00:16 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 experiences are viewed as a major socializing force and as
such represent an important influence on the extent to
which psychological attachments are formed with the or-
ganization. Experiences that have been found to influence
commitment include group attitudes toward the organiza-
tion (Buchanan, 1974; Patchen, 1970), organizational de-
pendability and trust (Buchanan, 1974; Hrebiniak, 1974),
perceptions of personal investment and personal impor-
tance to an organization (Buchanan, 1974; Patchen, 1970;
Sheldon, 1971), and rewards or the realization of expecta-
tions (Grusky, 1966).
Thus, the first component of the proposed model suggests
that important influences on commitment can be found in
three general areas of organizational life. A major advan-
tage of the present study is that it allows for the simul-
taneous examination of the various antecedents in order to
identify the relative strength of relation of each with
commitment. Previous studies were more focused and typ-
ically did not provide an adequate test of the relative
weights of each antecedent.
The second component of the model hypothesizes that
commitment leads to several specific behavioral outcomes.
First, highly committed employees should have a strong
desire and intent to remain with the organization. Such an
outcome is implicit in the definition of commitment.
Moreover, such behavioral intentions should be manifested
in subsequent employee retention or turnover (Porter et a!.,
1974). In addition, commitment would be expected to be
related to attendance. Employees who are highly commit-
ted to the goals of an organization and have positive at-
titudes toward it should be more likely to have a strong
desire to come to work and contribute toward goal attain-
ment. Finally, commitment was hypothesized to be related
to performance under the assumption that committed em-
ployees would expend greater effort on the job. This sec-
ond part of the model was set forth more on an exploratory
level because of the paucity of empirical data available for
guidance. Even so, it was felt that knowledge of such pos-
sible outcomes was equally important as information con-
cerning antecedents. When taken together, it was hoped
that this study would provide for a cross-validated test
among divergent samples of the generalizability of the
proposed model of organizational commitment.

METHOD
Samples and Research Sites
The study was carried out among two diverse samples of
employees in separate organizations. The first sample con-
sisted of employees of a major Midwestern hospital. Sub-
jects held a wide variety of technical and non-technical
positions, including administratOrs, registered nurses,
licensed vocational nurses, service workers, and clerical
employees. The average age of the subjects was 35, while
the average tenure was 8 years. Educational backgrounds
ranged from high school degrees through M.S. degrees.
The second sample consisted of research scientists and
engineers employed by a major independent research labo-
481ASQ

This content downloaded from 130.194.20.173 on Fri, 22 Nov 2013 01:00:16 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Organizational Commitment

ratory.Subjects held various technical and administrative

positions. The average age of the subjects was 38; the
average tenure was 10 years. Educationalbackgrounds
ranged from bachelor's through doctoraldegrees. Subjects
were engaged in a wide variety of both basic and applied
research projects, principallyin engineering.
Measures
In orderto test the sufficiency of the model, measures
were secured on the following sets of variables.
Personal characteristics. Measures of personal characteris-
tics included age, education, and tenure, plus the need
strengths of achievement, affiliation, autonomy, and
dominance. Need strengths were measured using the Man-
ifest Needs Questionnaire (MNQ)developed by Steers and
Braunstei n (1976). This instrumentuses behaviorally-based
measures to elicit subject responses concerning the
strength of each of the four needs. Followingthe work of
Murray(1938), it is arguedthat behavior is motivated
largelyby the extent to which various needs are manifest
and that need manifestation is best measured through
recordedbehaviors instead of affective responses. By
using a behaviorally-basedresponse format, it was hoped
that more accurate measures would be obtained concern-
ing what subjects actuallydid (that is, which needs were
actively pursued)instead of how they felt.
Validationand reliabilitystudies on the MNQ(Steers and
Braunstein, 1976) indicate acceptable test-retest reliabilities
(rangingfrom .72 to .86) and internalconsistencies (.56 to
.83). Moreover,cross-validated evidence of convergent,
discriminant, and predictive validitywas found on the
MNQwhen comparedwith various independentlymea-
sured criteria.For instance, need forachievement as mea-
sured by the MNQcorrelated.55 with behavior ratingsby
judges, while need for dominance correlated.74. Median
off-diagonal correlationsbetween the scales ranged from
.06 to .18. These findings, when taken together, are con-
sistent with Murray'stheory and provide supportfor the
adequacy of the MNQ for measuring need strengths in
work settings.
Job characteristics. Perceived job characteristics were
measured using the scales developed by Hackman and
Lawler(1971). The four core dimensions measured were:
autonomy, variety, feedback, and task identity. In addition,
opportunityfor optional interaction (that is, the opportunity
to develop close friendships at work)was also measured
because of its purportedinfluence on commitment as dis-
cussed above. The psychometric propertiesof this instru-
ment are reportedin Hackman and Lawler(1971). Scale
intercorrelationsfor the present study ranged from .13 to
.61, with a median of .39.
Workexperiences. Workexperiences were measured using
an instrumentdeveloped by Buchanan (1974). In orderto
remain consistent with the theoretical model outlined
above and to avoid problems of multicolinearitybetween
study variables that emerged elsewhere, the following ex-
periences were selected for examination: (1) group at-
491ASQ

This content downloaded from 130.194.20.173 on Fri, 22 Nov 2013 01:00:16 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 titudes toward the organization; (2) the extent to which
subjects' expectations were met by the realities of the job;
(3) feelings of personal importance to the organization
based upon the actions of the organization over time; and
(4) the extent to which the organization was seen as being
dependable in carrying out its commitments to employees.
Each work experience measure attempts to tap one rela-
tively discreet aspect of organizational life. Interscale corre-
lations across work experiences ranged from .48 to .68,
with a median of .55.
Organizational commitment. Commitment was measured
using a questionnaire developed by Porter (Porter et al.,
1974). Each item of the questionnaire asks the subject to
express his or her agreement or disagreement with the
item on a seven-point Likert scale, ranging from "strongly
agree" to "strongly disagree." Internal consistency on this
instrument for the present sample was .88 (coefficient
alpha). Mean commitment levels for the two samples were
5.1 for the hospital sample and 4.4 for the research labora-
tory (with 7.0 representing the highest possible level of
commitment).
Desire and intent to remain. Single item measures of sub-
jects' desire to remain and intent to remain were secured
on seven-point scales ranging from strongly disagree to
strongly agree.
Behaviors. Job performance was measured in the hospital
sample by asking immediate supervisors to rate subjects
on four related performance dimensions: overall perfor-
mance, quality of work, quantity of work, and promotion
readiness. In the research laboratory sample, it was only
possible to obtain a global measure of overall job perfor-
mance. Attendance was measured as the number of days
absent from work. Finally, employee turnover data were
collected for a period of one year in the hospital sample; it
was not possible to obtain this information for the re-
search laboratory.
Data Collection
In both samples, questionnaires were administered on-site
by university researchers during regular working hours.
Subjects were informed that participation was voluntary
and were assured of confidentiality of responses. Of the
initial random samples, usable questionnaire data were
gathered from 382 hospital employees (87 percent of the
sample) and 119 scientists and engineers (82 percent of
the sample).

RESULTS
Antecedents of Commitment
Initially, attention was focused on testing the first part of
the model dealing with the three sets of antecedents of
organizational commitment. Toward this end, separate mul-
tiple correlations were run between each of the three sets
of hypothesized antecedents and commitment. Since in-
terest centered on which set of antecedents was more
strongly related to commitment, all the relevant variables in
each of the three antecedent categories were used in their
50/ASQ

This content downloaded from 130.194.20.173 on Fri, 22 Nov 2013 01:00:16 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Organizational Commitment

Table 1

Multiple Correlations between Antecedents and Organizational Commit-

ment for Both Samples

Antecedents Hospital Scientists and

Employees Engineers
(N=382) (N= 119)
R F-value R F-value

Personal characteristics .55 24.96g .42 3.28

Job characteristics .64 47.861 .38 3.89
Work experience .71 89.261 .64 20.04g

*Significant at.01 level.

*Significantat.001 level.

respective analyses. To provide for a cross-validation of

results, this analysis was performed on both samples. The
results are presented in Table 1.
The findings provide support for the first part of the model
presented in Figure 1 by virtue of the fact that all three
sets of antecedents were significantly related to commit-
ment. This finding emerged for both samples. It was also
found that, for both samples, work experiences were more
closely associated with commitment (R=.71 and .64) than
the other two sets of variables, thereby providing partial
support for Buchanan's (1974) thesis that commitment is
largely a function of work experiences. However, these
findings extend this thesis by noting the importance of the
other two sets of antecedents, thus emphasizing the di-
verse sources of factors affecting employee commitment
in organizations.
On a more specific level, interest was next focused on an
attempt to identify those specific variables that most
strongly influenced employee commitment. To accomplish
this, step-wise multiple regression analyses were run for
both samples using all of the independent variables from
the three major antecedent categories and treating organi-
zational commitment as the dependent variable (see Table
2). For the hospital sample, nine of the variables entered
the equation at a significant level, yielding a multiple
R=.81 (R2 s=.65). For the research laboratory sample,
seven variables entered the equation at a significant level,
yielding a multiple R=.71 (R2s=.48). Thus, in both samples,
a substantial portion of the variance was attributable to the
predictor variables.
A comparison of the two regression analyses reveals sev-
eral important findings. To begin with, six antecedent vari-
ables were significantly associated with commitment in
both samples: need for achievement, group attitudes to-
ward the orga nization, education (inversely), orga nizational
dependability, personal importance to the organization, and
task identity. The ability to replicate these findings across
two studies suggests that these variables may represent
relatively stable antecedents of organizational commit-
ment.
Second, it also was found that four additional variables
were significantly related to commitment in one sample
51/ASQ

This content downloaded from 130.194.20.173 on Fri, 22 Nov 2013 01:00:16 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Table2
Results of MultipleRegression Analysesfor Specific AntecedentVariables
on Commitment for Both Samples

IndependentVariables Hospital Scientists and

Employees Engineers
Beta F Beta F
Needforachievement .19 32.52g .25 13.46g
Groupattitudes .20 21.750 .24 6.800
Education -.15 19.040 -.24 11.04
Taskidentity .13 12.61 0 .13 3.29
Optionalinteraction .19 25.580
Age .16 19.070
Met expectations .15 10.09g
Organizationaldependability .12 6.11* .27 9.790
Personalimportance .10 4.82 .22 4.730
Feedback .17 3.900
R=.81, R2,=65 R=.71,R2S=.48

N=382, df=1,373 for hospitalemployees; N=1 19, df=1,1 12 forscientists

and engineers.
*Significantat .05 level.
*Significant at .01 level.
*0Significantat .001 level.

but not the other. These variables were: opportunitiesfor

optional interaction, age, met expectations, and feedback.
Finally,an analysis of the findings revealed that specific
antecedents that significantly relatedto commitment could
be found in all three general antecedent categories. This
finding provides supportfor the notion that all three
categories represent importantinfluences on commitment,
as suggested in the model.
Outcomes of Commitment
In orderto test the second component of the model, Pear-
son product-momentcorrelationswere run between com-
mitment and each outcome variable.As shown in Table 3,
commitment was found to be related to both desire to re-
main and intent to remain for both samples. Moreover,it
was also found to be related to attendance for the scien-
tists and engineers but not for hospital employees. In addi-
Table3
Pearson Product-MomentCorrelationsbetween Commitment and Out-
come Variables for Both Samples
OutcomeVariables OrganizationalCommitment
Hospitalemployees Scientists and engineers
(N=382) (N=119)
Desireto remain .440 360
Intentto remain .310 .380
Attendance .08 .280
Turnover -.170 NA
Overallperformance .05 .05
QuaIityof work .07 NA
Quantityof work 1 NA
Promotionreadiness l10 NA
NA=Not available.
*Significant at .05 level.
*Significant at .01 level.
*0Significant at .001 level.

52lASQ

This content downloaded from 130.194.20.173 on Fri, 22 Nov 2013 01:00:16 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Organizational Commitment

tion, commitment was found to be inversely related to em-

ployee turnover in the hospital sample. (Comparative data
on turnover from the other sample were unavailable.) Fi-
nally.,commitment was marginally related to two of four
performance measures for hospital employees, but was not
related to the global performance measure for the scien-
tists and engineers.
Thus, while support for part of the second half of the
model emerged, particularlywith respect to intent and de-
sire to remain and actual turnover, the data appear to be
inconclusive with respect to attendance and job perfor-
mance.

DISCUSSION
Several important conclusions emerge from these findings.
First, it can be concluded that antecedents of organiza-
tional commitment are quite diverse in their nature and
origin. In the present study, commitment in both samples
was influenced by need for achievement, group attitudes
toward the organization, education (inversely), organiza-
tional dependability, perceived personal importance to the
organization, and task identity. A common theme that runs
through many of these variables is the notion of exchange
(March and Simon, 1958; Hrebiniak and Alutto, 1972). Indi-
viduals come to organizations with certain needs, desires,
skills, and so forth, and expect to find a work environment
where they can utilize their abilities and satisfy many of
their basic needs. When the organization provides such a
vehicle (for example, where it makes effective use of its
employees, is dependable, and so forth), the likelihood of
increasing commitment is apparently enhanced. When the
organization is not dependable, however, or where it fails
to provide employees with challenging and meaningful
tasks, commitment levels tend to diminish. Moreover,
when employees have higher levels of education, it may
be more difficult for an organization to provide sufficient
rewards (as perceived by the individual) to equalize the
exchange. Hence, more highly educated people (who also
tend to be more cosmopolitan) would be less committed to
the organization and perhaps more committed to a profes-
sion or trade.
A second important finding of the present study was that
major influences on organizational commitment can be
found in all three antecedent categories (personal charac-
teristics, job characteristics, and work experiences). Thus,
some support is provided for the adequacy of the first
component of the model as described in Figure 1.
Moreover, while all three sets of antecedents appear to be
important, work experiences were found to be more closely
related to commitment than personal or job characteristics
for both samples. Such findings reinforce and enlarge upon
the earlier efforts of Buchanan (1974), Hall and Schneider
(1972), and Hrebiniak and Alutto (1972) by identifying the
more salient features of the commitment process.

The findings of the present study also provide partial sup-

port for the second component of the model dealing with
the possible outcomes of organizationalcommitment.
53/ASQ

This content downloaded from 130.194.20.173 on Fri, 22 Nov 2013 01:00:16 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Strong support was found for the proposition that com-
mitment is associated with increases in an employee's de-
sire and intent to remain with an organization. In view of
the definition of commitment, this finding is not surpris-
ing. More importantly, commitment was also significantly
and inversely related to employee turnover. This finding
supports earlier studies among divergent samples (Koch
and Steers, 1976; Porter etal., 1974) and suggests that one
of the most significant outcomes of increased commitment
is a more stable work force.
In addition, commitment was related to attendance for one
sample but not the other. While the present data are not
sufficient to explain these mixed results, it is possible that
this relationship was contaminated by the pooling of vol-
untary and involuntary absences in the attendance mea-
sure. Even so, the strong positive relationship between
these two variables for the one sample cannot be ignored
and suggests a fruitful area for future research.
Finally, several comments are in order concerning the
rather weak relationship between commitment and per-
formance. While it was hypothesized that these two vari-
ables would be related, such an association was found in
only two of the five possible situations. Moreover, the
magnitude of the two significant relationships was small.
Hence, it must be concluded that no direct or consistent
association exists between commitment and subsequent
job performance for these samples.
Several possible explanations exist for this counterintuitive
finding. First, it is conceivable that the two organizations
under study, in their efforts to reduce turnover and absen-
teeism, tended to retain more security-minded "settlers,"
who were loyal but to whom high performance was not
role relevant. In other words, there may be a self-selection
process in operation here whereby moderate or low per-
formers feel comfortable (and committed) in a nonthreaten-
ing environment, while high performers seek challenge
elsewhere. Thus, the organization tends to end up with a
more stable but less productive or creative work force.
Several lines of evidence may be found in support of this
explanation. For instance, neither of the organizations
studied were profit-oriented in the conventional sense.
Since operating costs were passed along to patients or
customers, pressures for efficiency may have been some-
what reduced. Instead, both organizations may have as-
sumed a posture of attempting to retain their highly
trained, specialized (and hard to replace) technical person-
nel at a cost of reduced output. Hence, one explanation
may lie in the nature of the organizations studied. In addi-
tion, observational data from both organizations suggest
that top managers were strongly concerned about
employee relations and rather ambivalent about high level
performance. In fact, while managers were sensitive to
such indices as turnover and absenteeism (both were seen
as measures of job satisfaction), they encountered great
difficulty in specifying relevant criteria for good employee
performance. A recent review of studies of organizational
effectiveness suggests that highly effective organizations
54/ASQ

This content downloaded from 130.194.20.173 on Fri, 22 Nov 2013 01:00:16 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Organizational Commitment

are generally characterized by an achievement orientation

and employee centeredness (Steers, 1977). The two organi-
zations studied tended to ignore the first characteristic (or
were unable to assess it accurately) and stress the second.
Consequently, it would not be surprising that organizational
commitment would not be translated into high levels of
performance.
A second possible explanation for the absence of a
commitment-performance relationship may lie in the cur-
rent conceptualization of the commitment construct. Specif-
ically, previous studies of commitment have tended to
view commitment simultaneously as an affective response
to an employee's environment and as a behavioral inten-
tion concerning future performance (Fishbein, 1967).
Hence, we tend to think of a highly committed employee
as one who strongly identifies with the organization (that
is, "I feel good about working here") and who is willing to
exert high levels of effort on behalf of the organization
(that is, "I want to do my best for this company"). Concep-
tually, however, it may be more meaningful to distinguish
between "passive" commitment and "active" commit-
ment. In the present study, it is conceivable that the
employees experienced primarily a passive form of com-
mitment and that, for some reason, such affective re-
sponses were not translated into behavioral intentions
(that is, active commitment). If such a view is correct, it
suggests a rethinking of the current approach to the study
of organizational commitment, as well as renewed efforts
at measuring its various facets.
The third possible explanation for the lack of a commitment-
performance relationship follows from existing research on
motivation and workbehavior(Porterand Lawler, 1968; Steers
and Porter, 1975; Vroom, 1964). Specifically, contemporary
theories of work motivation suggest that job performance is a
function of three variables: motivation level, ability, and role
clarity (Porterand Lawler, 1968). Recent research has indicated
thatall threeof these variables are important in the determina-
tion of employee performance. Existing definitions of organi-
zational commitment appear to be largely concerned with the
motivational aspects of such a model. That is, a highly comm it-
ted person is thought to exert high levels of effort. However,
the notion of organizational commitment as defined in the
literature exists independently of human abilities and role
clarity. Hence, it seems logical to assume that at least part of
the fai lure to f ind a strong commitment-performance relation-
ship may have resulted from the failure to control for abilities
and role clarity in the present analyses. Again, such a conclu-
sion carries with it recommendations for future investiga-
tions.
The three suggested explanations for the lack of a
commitment-performance relationship are not mutually ex-
clusive. In fact, they are quite complementary. When taken
together, they suggest that highly committed employees
will tend to perform well to the extent that: (1) organiza-
tions stress high achievement orientations concomitantly
with good employee relations; (2) passive commitment (of-
ten called loyalty) can be translated into active commit-
ment; and (3) employees possess the requisite skills and
55/ASQ

This content downloaded from 130.194.20.173 on Fri, 22 Nov 2013 01:00:16 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

REFERENCES
Brown, Michael
1969 "Identificationand some
conditions of organizational
involvement."Administrative Joseph A. Alutto
Science Quarterly,14:346- 355. 1972 "Personal and role-related
Buchanan, Bruce
1974 "Buildingorganizational
commitment:the socializa-
tion of managers in workor-
ganizations." Administrative
Science Quarterly,19:533-546.
Dubin, Robert,Joseph E. Cham-
poux, and LymanW. Porter
1975 "Centrallife interests and or-
ganizationalcommitmentof
blue-collarand clericalwork-
ers." AdministrativeScience
Quarterly,20: 411-42 1.
Fishbein, Martin
1967 "Attitudeand the prediction
of behavior."In M. Fishbein
(ed.), Readings in Attitude
Theoryand Measurement:
477-492. New York:Wiley.
Grusky,Oscar
1966 "Careermobilityand organi-
zational commitment."Ad-
ministrativeScience Quar-
terly, 10: 488-503.
Hackman,J. Richard,and Edward
E. Lawler III
1971 "Employeereactions to job
characteristics."Journalof
AppliedPsychology,55:
259-286.
Hall, Douglas T., and Benjamin
Schneider
1972 "Correlatesof organizational
identificationas a function
of career patternand organi-
zationaltype." Administrative
Science Quarterly,17: 340-
350.
Hall, Douglas T., Benjamin
Schneider, and H. T. Nygren
1970 "Personalfactors in organiza-
tiona! identification."Ad-
ministrativeScience Quar-
terly, 15: 176-189.
Hrebiniak,Lawrence G.
1974 "Effects of job level and par-
ticipationon employee at-
titudes and perceptionsof in-
fluence." Academyof Man-
This content downloaded from 130.194.20.173 on Fri, 22 Nov 2013 01:00:16 AM
abilities and fully understand and accept their particular
organizational roles. In other words, it appears that more
complex models must be developed and tested in the fu-
ture concerning the behavioral outcomes of employee
commitment to organizations. The present preliminary
model is offered as a stimulus to such efforts.
Richard M. Steers is on the faculty of the Graduate
School of Management and Business, University of
Oregon.
agement Journal, 17: 649-
662.
Hrebiniak, Lawrence, G., and
factors in the development of
organizational commitment."
Administrative Science Quar-
terly, 17: 555-572.
Koch, James L., and Richard M.
Steers
1976 Job Attachment, Satisfaction,
and Turnover among Public
Employees. Technical Report
No. 6, Office of Naval Re-
search, University of Oregon.
Lee, Sang M.
1971 "An empirical analysis of or-
ganizational identification."
Academy of Management
Journal, 14: 213-226.
March, James G., and Herbert A.
Simon
1958 Organizations. New York:
Wi ley.
Mowday, Richard T., Lyman W.
Porter, and Robert Dubin
1974 "Unit performance, situa-
tional factors, and employee
attitudes in spatially sepa-
rated work units." Organiza-
tional Behavior and Human
Performance, 12: 231-248.
Murray, Henry
1938 Explorations in Personality.
New York: Oxford University
Press.
Patchen, Martin
1970 Participation, Achievement,
and Involvement on the Job.
Englewood Cliffs, N.J.:
Prentice-Hall.
Porter, Lyman W., and Edward E.
Lawler III
1968 Managerial Attitudes and
Performance. Homewood, Ill.:
Irwin.
Porter, Lyman W., and Richard M.
Steers
1973 "Organizational, work, and
personal factors in employee
turnover and absenteeism."
Psychological Bulletin, 80:
161-1 76.
56/ASQ
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Porter,LymanW., RichardM.
Steers, RichardT. Mowday, and
Paul V. Boulian
1974 "Organizationalcommitment,
job satisfaction, and turnover
among psychiatrictechni-
cians." Journalof Applied
Psychology,59: 603-609.
Ross, I. C., and Alvin Zander
1957 "Need satisfaction and
employee turnover."Person-
nel Psychology, 10: 327-338.
Schein, Edgar
1970 OrganizationalPsychology.
EnglewoodCliffs, N.J.:
Prentice-Hall.
Sheldon, MaryE.
1971 "Investments and involve-
ments as mechanisms pro-
ducing commitmentto the
organization."Administrative
Science Quarterly, 16:142-
150.
Steers, RichardM.
1975 "Problemsin the measure-
ment of organizationaleffec-
tiveness." Administrative
Science Quarterly,20: 546-
558.
1977 OrganizationalEffectiveness:
A BehavioralView. Santa
Monica, Ca.: GoodyearPub-
lishing Company.
Steers, RichardM., and Daniel N.
Braunstein
1976 "A behaviorally-basedmea-
sure of manifest needs in
worksettings." Journalof
VocationalBehavior,9:
251-266.
Steers, RichardM., and LymanW.
Porter
1975 Motivationand WorkBe-
havior.New York:McGraw-
Hill.
Stone, Eugene F., and LymanW.
Porter
1975 "Job characteristicsand job
attitudes: a multivariate
study."Journalof Applied
Psychology,60: 57-64.
Vroom, Victor
1964 Workand Motivation.New
York:Wiley.