Chapter 2: Employee Commitment

2.1. Introduction

Organisational commitment is an important concept in management and has received significant

attention from organisational researchers (Jaramillo, Mulki, & Marshall, 2005; Meyer, Stanley,
Herscovitch, & Topolnytsky, 2002; Riggle, Edmondson, & Hansen, 2009). Numerous studies on
organisational commitment have been undertaken in the disciplines of behavioural, attitudinal
and motivational sciences, within three broad research streams, through sociological, industrial
and organisational psychology and health psychology (Roodt, 2004). It has been the subject of
excessive research and empirical attention, as a consequence and an antecedent of other work-
related variables (Martin & Roodt, 2008) and has been linked to several workplace outcomes
(Geldenhuys, Łaba & Venter, 2014; Field & Buitendach, 2011). Commented [-1]: You have to start with like: Commitment of
employees is an important phenomenon in the context of
organizations.
Then etymological origin of commitment
A scholarly enquiry into orgnisational commitment reveals that the construct has been Various meanings of commitment in English language
Commitment in psychology and social science
conceptualised and studied in a variety of ways. O’Reilly (1989) defines organizational In this context please refer Dictionary of Social Science and
Dictionary of Psychology
commitment as “an individual psychological bond to the organisation, including a sense of job
involvement, loyalty and belief in the values of the organisation”. According to Cohen (2003),
“commitment is a force that binds an individual to a course of action of relevance to one or more
targets”. Miller (2003) defines organisational commitment as “a state in which an employee
identifies with a particular organisation and its goals, and wishes to maintain membership in the
organisation”. Paulina, Fergusona & Bergeronb (2006) define organisational commitment as “a
psychological state that characterises an employee’s identification, involvement and ultimate
relationship with an organization.” A unanimous definition of organisational commitment,
however, has been elusive in the body of management and leadership research. As Scholl (1981)
suggested, “... a comprehensive definition of commitment and a model of the commitment
process that incorporates divergent points of view does not exist.” Nevertheless, in essence,
organisational commitment is a stabilising force which binds individuals to organisations (Beloor
et al., 2017; Meyer & Herscovitch, 2001; Paul et al., 2016).
Organisational commitment is an important issue in today’s highly competitive business
environment (Jena, 2015; Neelam, Bhattacharya, Sinha & Tanksale, 2015; Pradhan & Jena,
2016). Research exists on the importance of organisational commitment in a variety of contexts,

1
on different people and positions, and diverse labor contexts (Devece, Marqués & Alguacil,
2016). It is crucial because of the significant role it plays in attitudinal, affective, and cognitive
constructs such as job satisfaction and employees' behavior (Wang, 2015), employees' turnover
and attendance, employees' health and well-being, and in performance effectiveness (Meyer et
al., 2002). Further, organisational commitment appears to have strategic importance for
employers because of potential financial returns in the long term (Chambers, 1998). Committed
employees tend to generate high-performance business outcomes as measured by increased sales,
improved productivity, profitability and enhanced employee retention (Rogers, 2001).
Committed employees are thought to be more active (Mowday, Steers & Porter, 1979), to work
harder (Morrow, 1993) and to defend their firms core assets (Spanuth & Wald, 2017). When
commitment strategies are put in place by organisations, desired employee behaviour is created
through forging psychological links between the organisation and employee goals (Eisenhardt,
1985). Employees with a high level of commitment tend to make greater effort to perform and
invest their resources in the organisation (Saal & Knight, 1987). Thus, it has been rightly stated
by Garg and Rastogi (2006), the success of organisations largely depends on the commitment
and effort put by their employees. It is fortunate for an organisation when employees commit to
an organisation by devoting their free time and energy for the growth and prosperity of the
organisation (Cheasakul & Varma, 2016; DiPaola & Hoy, 2005).

2.2. Organisational Commitment: A Theoretical Perspective

The roots of organisational commitment can be traced back to the works of Weber (1947) and
Fayol (1949; Tan, 2016). However, the concept of organisational commitment derives from an Commented [-2]: Please give detail of the works of Weber and
Fayol
article “The Organisation Man” written by Whyte in 1956 (Dixit & Bhati, 2012). In 1958, March Commented [-3]: Whyte must be referred only by himself.

and Simon wrote about commitment relationships that can develop when individuals join Commented [-4]: Simon citation??

organisations (Paul, Kardam & Kataria, 2016). Later, four different but overlapping eras Commented [-5]: This proves the researcher has not taken pain
to explore the original works of Simon
emerged that marked the evolution of organisation commitment. The first era was the Side Bet Commented [-6]: When??

Era. The second era was the Psychological Attachment Era. The third era was the Multi-
Dimensional Era and finally the fourth era which is the Present era. Each of the above mentioned Commented [-7]: Who classified it?

eras have significantly influenced organisation commitment as it stands today.** Commented [-8]: Poor research perspective from the author

2
The 1960s marked the early era of the evolution of organisation commitment. In this era, Commented [-9]: No such era has been mentioned in the
previous section
Howard Becker (1960) propounded his “side bet” theory of commitment. Side bets refer to Commented [-10]: Is is Side Bet or Side Bets?

anything of value an individual has invested (e.g., time, effort, money) that would be lost or
deemed worthless at some perceived cost to the individual if he or she were to leave the
organisation (Meyer & Allen, 1984). The threat of losing these investments, along with a
perceived lack of alternatives to replace or make up for the loss of them, commits the person to
Commented [-11]: Again poor quality of literature review
where the researcher instead of understanding Becker’s work has
resorted to Meyer and Allen

the organisation (Cohen, 2007). In general, Becker contended that the greater the number of side
bets, the greater the commitment of the individual (Ritzer & Trice, 1969). Becker put forward his
arguments as follows “…..Several kinds of things valuable to the person may be staked on a
particular line of activity. For instance, the man who hesitates to take a new job may be
deterred by a complex of side bets: the financial loss connected with a pension fund he would
lose if he moved; the loss of seniority and "connections" in his present firm which promise quick
advance if he stays; the loss of ease in doing his work because of his success in adjusting to the
particular conditions of his present job; the loss of ease in domestic living consequent on having
to move his household; and so on.”

According to Meyer and Allen (1984), “This and similar views of commitment can be labeled
‘continuance commitment’ (i.e., commitment to continue a certain line of action).” Kanter
(1968) viewed such cost- induced commitment as 'cognitive—continuance commitment’.
According to him it occurs when there is a ‘profit’ associated with continued participation and a
‘cost’ associated with leaving. Stebbins(1970), viewed continuance commitment as the
‘awareness of the impossibility of choosing a different social identity . . . because of the
immense penalties in making the switch.’ Commented [-12]: Rewrite

Becker's approach sees a close connection between the process of commitment and the process
of turnover. In fact, it identifies organisational commitment as a major factor in the explanation
of voluntary turnover (Cohen, 2007). For operationalizing Becker’s theory, Ritzer and Trice Commented [-13]: ??

(1969) devised the Ritzer and Trice scale (R-TS). This instrument was later modified by
Hrebiniak and Alutto, 1972 to develop the Hrebiniak and Alutto Scale (H-AS). Both these
instruments, according to Meyer & Allen, 1984, require “respondents to indicate the likelihood

3
that they would leave the organisation given various inducements to do so (e.g. increases in pay,
status, freedom, promotional opportunity).” Commented [-14]: So called Side Bet ear has not been properly
represented or analyzed

Cohen and Lowenberg (1990) conducted a meta-analysis of 50 studies that empirically tested
Becker’s side bet model of commitment but found little empirical support for the model
(Wallace, 1997). Due to lack of empirical support, the model has been abandoned as a leading
commitment theory. However, the close relationship between commitment and turnover as
advanced by Becker affected most of the later conceptualisations of organisational commitment
and established turnover as the main behaviour that should be affected by organisational
commitment.

In the Psychological Attachment Era, the focus shifted from cost-induced commitment as Commented [-15]: Author already mentioned the eras are
overlapping. But How side bet era paves ways tp psychological era
reflected in the early era to commitment based on affective or emotional attachment towards the has not been explained

organisation such that the strongly committed individual identifies with, is involved in, and
enjoys membership in, the organisation (Allen & Meyer, 1990).The psychological attachment Commented [-16]: Why Allen & Meyer is repeated so many
times? Plagiarism detected
approach was advanced by Porter and his colleagues (Porter, Steers, Mowday & Boulian, 1974;
Porter, Crampon & Smith, 1976; Mowday, Steers & Porter, 1979). The approach attempted to
describe organisational commitment as a focused attitude, uncontaminated by other constructs
such as behavioral intentions. Commitment here was characterized by three psychological
factors: (1) a strong belief in and acceptance of the organisation’s goals and values; (2) a
willingness to exert considerable effort on behalf of the organisation; and (3) a strong desire to
maintain membership in the organisation. In essence, organisational commitment was combined
with three parts, namely, Strong Acceptance, Participation and Loyalty. Like Becker, Porter and
his colleagues also viewed organisational commitment as a uni-dimensional construct. However,
the focus was only on affective commitment (Mowday, 1999). They developed the
Organisational Commitment Questionnaire (OCQ) that produced a single score reflecting the
employee’s overall commitment to the organisation. It is noteworthy that although Porter and his
colleagues offered a different view of commitment and that their model of commitment has been
widely accepted, however, their OCQ has received the critique of producing inflated
relationships with turnover (Meyer and Allen, 1991; O’Reilly and Chatman, 1986, Reichers, Commented [-17]: What are the fundamental differences
between side bet and psychological approaches?
1985). Discuss them in the light of theoretical constructs, Methodological
issues, and levels of analysis

4
As evident from a literature review of organisational commitment, two approaches had emerged
by the 1970s, the behavioural approach as proposed by Howard Becker (1960) and the attitudinal Commented [-18]: Despite the presence of the two approaches
what is the reason for the emergence of behavioural approach?
approach as propounded by Porter and his colleagues (Paul, Kardam & Kataria, 2016). The Commented [-19]: You cannot cite this for a work of 1960

behavioural approach observed organisational commitment as the process of binding individuals

not to the target which is the organisation, but to behavioural acts of employees like remaining in
the organisation (Salancik, 1977). On the other hand, the attitudinal approach perceived Commented [-20]: Is it same to behavioural approach? If not
why is it not explained?
organisational commitment as an individual’s psychological attachment or affective commitment
towards his employing organisation whereby he desires to remain attached to the organisation
(i.e. loyalty), identifies with the values and goals of the organisation (i.e. acceptance or
identification), and is willing to exert effort on behalf of the organisation (i.e. participation or
involvement). Attitudinal or affective commitment, thus, focuses on the emotional bond an
individual has with his organisation (Porter et al., 1974; Steers, 1977).

Later, Meyer & Allen (1984) by combining the behavioural approach of Becker (1960) and the
attitudinal approach of Porter and his colleagues (1974) proposed a two-dimensional model of
organisational commitment. This set the foundation of the multi-dimensional era of
organisational commitment. The first dimension of the proposed model of Meyer & Allen (1984)
was termed affective commitment (AC) and was defined by the researchers as “positive feelings
of identification with, attachment to, and involvement in the work organisation”. Employees with
a strong AC continue employment with the organisation because they want to or desire to do so
(Meyer & Allen, 1991). The second dimension of the proposed model was termed continuance
commitment (CC) and was referred to by the researchers as “commitment based on the costs that
employees associate with leaving the organisation.” Employees whose primary link to the
organisation is based on CC remain because they need to do so (Meyer & Allen, 1991). In
subsequent research, Allen & Mayer (1990) added a third dimension, termed normative
commitment (NC) and defined the dimension as “employees’ feelings of obligation to remain
with the organisation.” Employees with a high level of normative commitment (NC) feel that
they ought to remain with the organisation (Meyer & Allen, 1991). AC, CC, and NC together
formed the basis of the three-component model (TCM) of Meyer and Allen (1990, 1991, and
1997). Meyer & Allen (1991) described the three dimensions of commitment as components of

5
commitment rather than types of commitment as an employee can experience all three forms of
commitment to varying degrees.

Meyer & Allen (1991) put forward their arguments as follows “….. We believe it is more
appropriate to consider affective, continuance, and normative commitment as components, than
as types, of commitment. The latter implies that the psychological states characterizing the three
forms of commitment are mutually exclusive. To the contrary, it seems more reasonable to expect
that an employee can experience all three forms of commitment to varying degrees.” Commented [-21]: Till this point I am astonished to see that
the author has started with four eras, then identifying the first era
with the approach ( Side Bet) under the same name, she goes on
explaining other approaches which bear no apparent relation to the
Meyer and Allen structured the ACS (Affective Commitment Sale) to measure affective other eras.
Instead of a comprehensive flow the write up appears to be
collection of disjoint thought.
commitment, CCS (Continuance Commitment Scale) to measure continuance commitment and
NCS (Normative Commitment Sale) to measure normative commitment. While the ACS was
advanced as a significant improvement over the OCQ, the CCS was advanced as a tool for the
better testing of Becker’s side-bet approach (Cohen, 2007).

An extensive literature review of organisational commitment has revealed that TCM of

commitment developed by Meyer and Allen (1997) has emerged as the leading approach in
studying organisational commitment and arguably dominates organisation commitment research
(Bergman, 2006; Cohen 2007; Paul et al., 2016; Simo et al., 2014). Several empirical studies
have assessed the TCM and found a fairly stable underlying structure to Meyer and Allen
organisation commitment scales. Hackett, Bycio & Hausdorf (1994) assessed the construct
validity of Meyer and Allen's (1991) TCM. A Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) of data from
2,301 nurses generally supported the existence of AC, CC and NC. Hartmann & Bambacas
(2000) examined the construct validity of Meyer and Allen's (1990) TCM in a study of women
academic staff in casual employment at an Australian Tertiary Institution. Results indicated the
TCM had a reasonably good fit. In a study of 226 Chinese employees in six foreign- invested
companies, Cheng & Stockdale (2003) examined the construct validity of Meyer and Allen's
(1991) TCM. In this study as well the TCM was found to have a reasonably good fit. Xu &
Bassham (2010) reassessed the construct validity of Allen and Meyer's (1990a) TCM with a new
population of 279 presidential assistants in U.S. higher education. The study showed that TCM
was generally supported by a CFA.

6
Further, several studies have also demonstrated that organisational commitment as
conceptualised in TCM has significant relationships to other organisational behaviour
phenomena. Shirbagi (2007) investigated the relationship between faculty members’ organisation
commitment and leadership frames of chairpersons within Indian and Iranian higher education
institutions. Meyer and Allen’s (1997) OCQ was used in the study and it was found that
significant and positive relationships were observed between organisational commitment and
three out of four frames of leadership. Farooq & Dinney (2009) studied the impact of Authority
Decentralization on organisational commitment in an empirical study of development projects in
Kerala. For measuring organisational commitment, Allen and Meyer’s (1991) survey tool was
used in the study and results indicated that there is a strong and positive relationship between
organisational commitment and authority decentralisation. Fu, Bolander & Jones (2009) studied
the relationships of the three facets of organisational commitment with trust in supervisor,
perceived organisational support (POS) and job satisfaction in a sales context. The items were
adapted from measures developed by Meyer, Allen & Smith (1993) and it was found that trust in
supervisor, POS and job satisfaction have a differential influence on the three forms of
organisational commitment.

However, it is noteworthy that research findings also reveal that there are some severe
limitations associated with the TCM of organisational commitment as well. Some of the
limitations are limited predictive validity, conceptual ambiguity of CC, and concept redundancy
between normative and AC (Cohen, 2007).There is one major conceptual shortcoming that TCM
suffers from. Ko, Price, and Mueller (1997) and Solinger et al. (2008, p.73) have argued that CC,
and NC are “qualitatively different concepts” than AC. More specifically, AC is an attitude Commented [-22]: Why this is a separate paragraph?

defined by its target (i.e., an organisation), whereas continuance and NC are attitudes defined by
their actions (i.e., the act of staying or leaving an organisation). In other words, Solinger and
colleagues contend the TCM conflates attitudes towards an organisation with attitudes about
leaving or staying with an organisation. Conflating attitudes in this way is problematic insofar as
uncommitted employees may chose to stay with an organisation and committed employees may
still leave (Solinger et al., 2008; Stazyk, Pandey, & Wright, 2011). Further, it has been suggested
that the effects of commitment on focal (i.e. staying) and non-focal or discretionary behavior (i.e.
organisational citizenship behaviour) might not be equal for AC, CC and NC. Employees who

7
are committed primarily out of desire might have a stronger inclination to follow through on
their commitment than those who are committed primarily out of obligation or to avoid costs.
Those who are committed primarily to avoid costs might be particularly inclined to find a way to
get out of their commitment (Meyer and Herscovitch, 2001).Therefore, combing different
attitudinal phenomena with different relationships for focal and non-focal behavior would be
logically incorrect (Hoang, 2012; Simo et al., 2014). This follows that the TCM of commitment
which has been the dominant model in organisational commitment research is inconsistent (Simo
et al., 2014).

The multi-dimensional era of organisation commitment saw the emergence of several other
multi-dimensional approaches of organisational commitment other than the TCM of
commitment. However, the one advanced by O'Reilly and Chatman (1986) emerged as a leading
one. Based on Kelman’s (1958) work on attitude and behavior change, O’Reilly and Chatman
(1986) suggested that the attachment between an employee and an organisation could take three
forms: compliance, identification, and internalization. Based on Kelman’s (1958) work on
attitude and behavior change, O’Reilly and Chatman (1986) suggested that the attachment
between an employee and an organisation could take three forms: compliance, identification, and
internalization. Compliance reflects instrumental behavior designed to gain rewards (Mowday,
1999). This is the shallowest form of attachment. Identification occurs when employees behave
because they want to maintain a relationship with an organisation due its attractive values or
goals, even though the values or goals may not be personally adopted (Mowday, 1999). This
form of commitment is a step further into deeper attachment. Internalisation reflects behavior
driven by internal values or goals that are consistent with those of the organisation (Mowday,
1999).This is the deepest form of attachment. Another interesting contribution of O'Reilly and
Chatman was their view of the relationship between organisational commitment and outcomes.
While previous approaches (Becker, 1960; Porter et al., 1974) emphasized commitment as an
important determinant mainly of turnover, O'Reilly and Chatman argued that the psychological
attachment could result in other behaviours and pointed to organisational citizenship behaviour
(OCB) as a relevant outcome of commitment (Cohen, 2007).

Studies that have applied the O'Reilly and Chatman scales have pointed out some problems with
them. Vandenberg, Self, and Sep (1994) concluded that the identification scale contributed

8
nothing beyond the explanations already captured through the OCQ. Others concluded quite
correctly that internalization and identification appear to be tapping similar constructs and that
the compliance dimension does not really reflect psychological attachment to the organisation
(Bennett & Durkin, 2000; Caldwell, Chatman, & O’Reilly, 1990; O’Reilly, Chatman, &
Caldwell, 1991) Mathieu & Zajac, 1990; Meyer & Herscovitch, 2001). In summary, while
O'Reilly and Chatman presented an interesting approach to commitment, for unclear reasons and
because of its questionable operationalization, few researchers have followed this approach.

The multi-dimensional era was followed by the present era. In the present era, the popular
models that were developed include Cohen’s four-component model (2007) and Person-centred
model of commitment (Meyer and Herscovitch, 2001)

One of the biggest differences between the models of previous eras and Cohen’s four component
model (2007) is that the latter includes notion of time in the conceptualisation of commitment
which was missing in the earlier models of commitment. Cohen’s theory advanced four forms of
organisational commitment. Two of these forms develop before entry into the organisation and
two develop after. The first two forms that develop before one's entry into the organisation are
instrumental commitment propensity, which is derived from one's general expectations about the
quality of the exchange with the organisation in terms of the expected benefits, and rewards one
might receive from it, and normative commitment propensity, which is a general moral
obligation towards the organisation. The two forms developed after entry are instrumental
commitment, which results from one's perception of the quality of the exchange between one's
contributions and the rewards that one's receives, and affective commitment, defined as a
psychological attachment to the organisation demonstrated by identification with it, emotional
involvement and a sense of belonging (Cohen,2007). However, a literature review shows that
Cohen’s model of commitment needs to be empirically tested and receive qualified support to be
able to emerge as a leading approach to studying organisational commitment.

There has been a recent trend toward the use of a person-centered model in organisation
commitment research. The person-centered model is different from all other models because this
model is directed towards exploring the combined or concurrent influence of Affective

9
Commitment (AC), Continuance Commitment (CC) and Normative Commitment (NC) on job
outcomes. The person-centered approach is based on the notion that each employee will have a
commitment profile reflecting the relative strength of his/her affective, normative and
continuance commitment to the organisation. Meyer and Herscovitch (2001) derived eight
commitment profiles reflecting high or low scores on each of the three components of
commitment ranging from highly committed (High AC, CC and NC) to uncommitted (low AC,
CC and NC). Six commitment profiles lay between these two anchors. They also offered a set of
propositions concerning the nature of interactions among the components and the behaviors
associated with varying commitment profiles. These propositions have been tested in several
studies (e.g., Gellatly, Meyer, & Luchak, 2006; Johnson, Groff, & Taing, 2009; Meyer, Kam,
Goldenberg, & Bremmer, 2013; Meyer, Morin & Vandenberghe, 2015; Meyer, Stanley, &
Parfyonova, 2012; Somers, 2009, 2010; Stanley, Vandenberg, Vandenberghe, & Bentein, 2009;
Wasti, 2005) and received qualified support. Thus, the person-centered approach views
individuals in a more holistic fashion, and affords the opportunity to address complex
interactions among the commitment mindsets (Meyer, Morin & Vandenberghe, 2015).

However, despite the fact that the person-centered approach views individuals in a more holistic
fashion and affords the opportunity to address complex interactions among the commitment
mindsets (Meyer, Morin & Vandenberghe, 2015), the model is complex and cannot be measured
clearly (WeiBo, Kaur, & Jun, 2010).

The conceptualization of organisational commitment in the different eras as discussed above is

summarised in table 1. *

10
Table 1: Conceptualisation of Organisational Commitment in the Different Eras. Commented [-23]: The table’s content have not been reflected
at the write up above

Name of the era Researchers (s) Conceptualization of Basis of

commitment Conceptualization
The Early Era: Howard Becker (1960) Cost-induced or Calculative Based on an
 Becker’s Side Bet Commitment. employee’s
Approach perceived costs of
leaving his
employing
organisation.
The Second Era: Porter and his colleagues Attitudinal or Affective Based on the
 The Psychological (Porter, Steers, Mowday & Commitment. emotional
Attachment Approach Boulian, 1974; Porter, attachment of an
Crampon & Smith, 1976; employee towards
Mowday, Steers & Porter, his employing
1979. organisation.
The Multi-Dimensional
approach era:

 O'Reilly and O'Reilly and Chatman Compliance, Identification, Based on the

Chatman (1986) and Internalization forms of degree to which an
Model of commitment. employee
Commitment internalizes or
adopts
characteristics or
perspectives of the
organisation.
 The Three Meyer & Allen (1984, Continuance, Affective and Based on the need,
Component Model of 1990, 1991, 1997) Normative forms of desire, and/or
Commitment commitment. obligation to
maintain
membership in the
organisation.
The Present Era :

 Cohen’s Four Aaron Cohen (2007) Instrumental Commitment Based on the

Component Model of
Commitment
 Person-Centred Allen and Meyer (1990),
Model of Meyer and Herscovitch
Commitment (2001); Gellatly, Meyer, &
Luchak, 2006; Meyer,
Morin & Vandenberghe,
2015; Meyer, Stanley, &
Parfyonova, 2012; Somers,
2009, 2010; Wasti, 2005
among others.
* Table 1 which is based on a literature review of Organisational Commitment is the authors’ own and not sourced from
elsewhere.
Propensity, Normative timing of
Commitment Propensity, commitment and
Instrumental Commitment the bases of
and Affective commitment. commitment.
Highly Committed, Affective Based on the
dominant, Continuance combined (rather
dominant, Normative than the relative)
dominant, Affective- influence of
Continuance dominant, continuance,
Affective-Normative affective and
dominant, Continuance- normative
Normative commitment on
dominant, and uncommitted work outcomes.

11
2.3. Affective Commitment: The Core Essence of Organisational Commitment.

The previous section of this chapter traced the evolution of organisational commitment over
several decades ever since its inception to the present times. While tracing the evolution of
organisational commitment, it was revealed that although there has been scholarly inquiry into
organisational commitment for over several decades now, there remains significant debate with
respect to the meaning, definition, dimensions and measurement of the organisational
commitment construct. Researchers have not been able to come to any consensus as to what the
core essence of organisational commitment is and should be (Cohen, 2007; Fischer & Mansell,
2009; Meyer, Stanley, Herscovitch, & Topolnytsky, 2002; Morrow, 2011; Solinger et al., 2008;
Stazyk, Pandey, & Wright, 2011). In an attempt to identify a core essence of organisational
commitment and to conceptualise the construct more precisely and accurately, several conceptual
models of organisational commitment were proposed by several researchers across the different
eras of the evolution of organisational commitment, each accompanied by a recommended
measure or set of measures.

Considering the conceptual inadequacies and lack of empirical support of the popular models of
organisational commitment, Solinger et al. (2008) recommended that the attitude–behaviour
model by Eagly and Chaiken (1993) which elaborated the theory of reasoned action (Ajzen &
Fishbein, 1980; Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975) and the theory of planned behaviour (Ajzen,1991) may
be adopted as a generic commitment model based on which a range of models that can predict
various organisational behaviours beyond turnover can be generated. This model emphasises that Commented [-24]: Must be discussed critically at length

attitudes target certain foci i.e., an attitude is always directed toward something. Considering the
tenets of the attitude–behaviour model, only affective commitment can be understood as an
attitude towards a foci, which is the organisation in this case, while CC and NC are attitudes
regarding specific forms of behaviour, which affect only focal outcomes, such as staying or
leaving. Thus, according to that model while CC and NC, defined by their actions (i.e., the act of
staying or leaving an organisation), are related only to focal outcomes; only AC, defined by its
target (i.e., an organisation) is an antecedent of both focal and non-focal outcomes (Solinger et
al., 2008; Simo et al., 2014). Thus, based on a deeper analysis, Solinger and his colleagues
(2008) recommended discarding the behavioural view of commitment ( as captured in Meyer

12
and Allen’s CC and NC) in favour of treating organisational commitment as an attitude ( as
captured in Meyer and Allen’s AC) comprising of three specific elements: affect (i.e.
belongingness, identification), cognition (i.e. identification, internalisation), and action Commented [-25]: Why same element under different
componenets?
tendencies (i.e. a generalised behavioural pledge; Solinger et al.,2008; Stazyk, Pandey, &
Wright, 2011). They argued that all three facets should be incorporated in any assessment of
organisational commitment construct. They concluded that organisational commitment must be
strictly conceptualised as a one-dimensional construct reflecting the attitude of employees
towards their organisation and nothing beyond.

There is widespread unanimity among researchers that organisational commitment is an attitude

towards the organisation (e.g., Allen & Meyer, 1990; Angle & Perry, 1981; Buchanan, 1974;
Jaros, Jermier, Koehler, & Singigh, 1993; Kanter, 1968; Mowday et al., 1982; O’Reilly &
Chatman, 1986). Kanter (1968) who pioneered the attitudinal commitment theory termed this
attitudinal type of commitment as cohesion commitment. Others have referred to it as AC
(Meyer & Allen, 1984, 1991), a bond or linking (Buchanan, 1974; Mathieu & Zajac, 1990;
Mowday et al., 1982), an orientation (Sheldon, 1971), a “readiness to act” (Leik, Owens, &
Tallman, 1999), or an “unconflicted state of internal readiness” (Brickman, Janoff-Bulman, &
Rabinowitz, 1987).

Attitudinal commitment or AC represents the most reliable and strongly validated dimension of
organisational commitment (Allen & Meyer, 1996; Cohen, 2003; Meyer et al., 2002), and it has
the greatest content and face validity (Brown, 1996; Dunham, Grube, & Castaneda, 1994).
Moreover, empirical studies measuring organisational commitment indicate that AC is the most
robust among the three facets of organisational commitment to understand employee behaviour
and predict work outcomes beyond turnover. While AC has been found to be positively related to
a variety of work outcomes beyond turnover (e.g. attendance, job performance, job satisfaction,
job involvement, organisational citizenship behaviour, well-being, helping others, working extra
hours, information sharing, acceptance of change), the same relations with CC and NC have been
found to be negligible or even negative (Cooper-Hakim & Viswesvaran, 2005; Mathieu & Zajac,
1990; Meyer et al., 2002; Riketta, 2005; Rungruang & Tangchitnob, 2010). Further, AC has been
found to be most beneficial in enhancing organisational effectiveness as compared to the other

13
facets of commitment (Iverson and Buttigieg, 1999). Research also suggests that employees who
are affectively committed to their organisations are less likely to leave their organisation (Cohen,
1993; Meyer et al., 2002). This is because AC facilitates in creating a strong belief in and
acceptance of the goal and values of an organisation (Meyer et al., 2002).The attachment thus
involves a genuine wish to stay as opposed to CC and NC (Wombacher & Felfe, 2017). For all of
these reasons, AC has captured the interest of researchers more than CC and NC.

The attractiveness of AC to researchers is evident in recent Organisational Commitment studies

conducted in different countries of the world that have solely focused on AC and have not
considered CC and NC at all in their studies. Albrecht & Andreetta (2011) studied the influence
of empowering leadership, empowerment and engagement on AC in community health service
workers in Australia. Craig, Allen, Reid, Riemenschneider, Armstrong (2013) studied the impact
of career mentoring and psychosocial mentoring on AC in a south-central state of the USA.
Marescaux, De Winne& Sels (2013) studied the relationship between perceived favourability of
HR practice outcomes and AC among Belgian employees. De Baerdemaeker, & Bruggeman
(2015) studied the impact of participative strategic planning (PSP) on managers’ creation of
budgetary slack through the mediating role of AC and autonomous motivation in a cross-section
of West-European organisations. Redman & Snape (2016) examined the pattern and
consequences of AC to organisation and union amongst union members in UK. García-Cruz,
Real & Roldán (2017) examined how managers’ perception of employees’ AC determine their
trust as a managerial attitude towards organisational learning capability (OLC) in Spain. Kooij,
D & Boon (2017) examined when and how perceptions of high performance work practices
(HPWP) among employees of a Dutch university affect their AC level. Wong & Wong (2017)
studied the effects of AC on turnover intention in China

In Indian context too, a good number of recent studies have exclusively focused on AC and have
not taken into account CC and NC. Pradhan & Pradhan (2015) examined the relationship
between transformational leadership and the followers’ AC in India. Jain (2016) investigated the
relationship of altruistic and egoistic motives with person and organisation oriented citizenship
behaviours as mediated by AC in a study conducted in India. Jauhari, Singh & Kumar (2017)
examined the mediating role of AC in the Indian context in the relationship between
transformational leadership (TFL) and proactive customer service behaviour (PCSB). Naim &

14
Lenka (2017) explored knowledge sharing to evoke AC of Gen Y employees through
competency development in India. Nazir & Islam (2017) examined the relationships between
perceived organisational support, employee engagement, employee performance and AC in the
Indian higher education context. This implies that researchers are now focusing more on the AC
component of the TCM rather than on TCM as a whole.

In the light of empirical evidence and considering the tenets of the attitude-behaviour model, it
may be reasonably concluded that organisational commitment must be strictly measured as an
attitude towards the organisation covering affective, cognitive and action tendency facets of the
attitude construct and that attitudinal or affective commitment may reasonably be considered the
core essence of the organisational commitment construct (Solinger et al., 2008; Mercurio, 2015). Commented [-26]: There is no critical analysis explaining why
you choose to use employee commitment instead of the terms
already accepted by researchers

2.4. Developing an Employee Commitment Construct

As discussed in the previous section, a literature review of recent organisation commitment

studies has clearly revealed that many researchers have exclusively focused on attitudinal or
affective commitment in conceptualising and measuring organisation commitment. However, it
is noteworthy that the existing instruments that measure organisational commitment as an
attitude (e.g. Allen and Meyer’s ACS, the Identification/Internalization Typology by O’Reilly &
Chatman, 1986) focus predominantly on emotional attachment to (i.e. affective component) and
identification with the organisation (i.e. affective and cognitive components). The notion of
action (i.e. behavioural component) is conspicuously absent. Solinger et al. (2008) remarked that
it was a limitation that should be overcome if one wanted to measure organisational commitment
as an attitude. They also noted that the only exception was the OCQ by Mowday et al. (1982).
However, this instrument explicitly mentioned a strong desire to remain employed and, thus,
received the critique of producing inflated relationships with turnover (Bozeman & Perrewe,
2001; O’Reilly & Chatman, 1986; Reichers, 1985). To overcome this limitation of the existing
scales of affective commitment , the authors’ proposed that future research may expand or refine Commented [-27]: Not convincing

the existing instruments of attitudinal or affective commitment by giving due attention to the
affective, cognitive and behavioural components of the attitude construct. This would improve
the construct validity of these instruments in comparison to instruments measuring other

15
constructs. They further suggested that their proposition may be investigated empirically by
means of standard methods for assessing construct validity, including factor analysis, structural
equations modelling, and multitrait–multimethod analysis. However, even after so many years
since the authors made such a suggestion, there is still a need to empirically investigate the
authors’ proposition. It has been observed that much work is needed to develop the cognition and
action tendency dimensions of the commitment attitude (Stazyk, Pandey, & Wright, 2011). Simo
et al. (2014) have also recommended that future research should be devoted to develop a new
general model of organisational commitment, together with measuring instruments that allow a
consistent quantification of the constructs.

At this juncture, it is also pertinent to observe that most of the popular models and measures of
organisational commitment have been developed in western countries and hence cannot be fully
valid in developing countries like India (Hofstede, 1980). This is because India is very different Commented [-28]: Hofstede said nothing about commitment in
his 1980 book. In fact I have this book
from western nations culturally, socially and economically. To a large extent, the socio-
economic values and actions of Indians can be attributed to their long cultural history. Further,
these cultural characteristics are deeply ingrained in the individual mindsets and markedly
influence their cognitions and affect in their personal, social, and professional environment (Rao
& Abraham, 2003). India’s socio-cultural ethos has gone a long way in establishing unique
cultural norms and legacies. Given that organisations function within the domains of social
norms and values, they are governed by certain managerial philosophies and practices which are
characteristic of social cultures like India.

Further, most of the studies pertaining to organisational commitment have been conducted in
western nations (Jena et al., 2017). Only a few studies examine organisational commitment in
India, even fewer in the context of the IT sector of India (Messner, 2017). But again most of the
studies that have been conducted in the IT sector of India have adopted the existing popular
models of organisational commitment that have been developed in the western context and are
not completely valid in the Indian context. Again, considering that the popular models of
organisational commitment are conceptually inconsistent and lack empirical support, adopting
them in organisational commitment studies especially in the Indian context seems inappropriate. Commented [-29]: It appears without any preamble and
inconsistent with section heading

16
Thus, a need has been felt to develop a conceptual, cognitive construct of Employee
Commitment that is not contaminated by other constructs such as turnover. The employee
commitment construct would be strictly based on the affective or attitudinal conceptualisation of
organisational commitment and would cover all three facets of the attitude construct (i.e.
affection, cognition and action tendencies). The construct would be developed keeping the Indian
context in mind so that it depicts the unique socio-cultural values and ethos of India. A need has
also been felt to develop suitable measurement instrument that would attempt to capture the
underlying essence of the employee commitment construct. The construct and the instrument
would be validated in the in the context of the Indian IT sector considering the fact that
negligible organisational commitment studies have been conducted in this sector in India. Commented [-30]: Commitment works on Indian scenario have
not been covered

In describing affective or attitudinal commitment, Meyer & Allen (1984, 1991) identified three
dimensions that characterise the affective bond that an employee has with his organisation. The
dimensions are:

(a) Emotional attachment with the organisation such that an employee enjoys and takes pride in
organisational membership

(b) Identification with the organisation such that an employee has a strong belief in and
acceptance of the organisation’s goals and values and

(c) Involvement in the organisation such that an employee desires continued membership in the
organisation and is willing to exert considerable effort on behalf of the organisation.

Meyer and Allen (1984, 1991, 1997), thus, identified emotional attachment with the
organisation, identification with the organisation, and involvement with the organisation as the
core essence of attitudinal or affective commitment.

With respect to emotional attachment with the organisation, Jaros et al (1993) observed that it
refers to the degree to which an individual is psychologically attached to an employing
organisation through feeling such as loyalty, affection, worth, belongingness, pleasure and so on.
Emotional Attachment would, thus, be the first variable of the Employee Commitment construct
and the sub-variables would be loyalty, pride in organisational membership, affection & warmth,

17
belongingness, fondness, pleasure and care for the organisation. This dimension reflects the
affective component of the attitude construct.

With respect to identification with the organisational goals and values, two variables have been
identified, namely, conditional affiliation to organisation, as well as belief in organisational
goals & compatibility with individual goals. It has been observed that sometimes an employee
desires to affiliate or attach with the organisation but without accepting the organisation’s values
as his own and/or without accepting the organisational policies. His affiliation or attachment with
the organisation is, thus, conditional. This is reflective of the second variable of our employee
commitment construct which has been termed as conditional affiliation to organisation. Two
sub-variables have been identified for this dimension, namely, affiliation without value
acceptance and affiliation without policy acceptance. Affiliation without value acceptance refers
to the degree to which an employee desires to identify or attach with the organisation but without
accepting the organisation’s values as his own. Affiliation without policy acceptance refers to the
degree to which an employee desires to identify or attach with the organisation but without
accepting the organisation’s policies. Belief in organisational goals & compatibility with
Individual Goals is the third variable of the employee commitment construct. Belief in
Organisational Goals refers to the degree to which an employee has a strong belief in and
acceptance of organisation’s goals. It has been identified as a sub-variable of the third variable of
the employee commitment construct. Compatibility with Individual Goals refers to the degree to
which there is harmony between an employee’s personal goals and the organisational goals such
that attainment of organisational goals paves the way towards attainment of the individual goals
of employees. It is also a sub-variable of the third variable of the employee commitment
construct. The second and third variables of the employee commitment construct reflect the
affective and cognitive aspects of the attitude construct.

Finally, with respect to involvement in the organisation, it has been observed that an employee
may involve himself in the organisation in three ways. In the first way, an employee may desire
to involve himself in the organisation by willingly discharging his organisational duties. In the
second way, an employee may desire to involve himself in the organisation by willingly
discharging extraordinary duties for the organisation. Finally, an employee may desire to involve
himself in the organisation by his willingness to do anything and everything for his organisation.

18
These three ways of involving oneself with the organisation form the sub-variables of the final
variable of the employee commitment construct which has been termed as Behavioural
Readiness for Organisational Purpose. This dimension reflects the action tendencies of the
attitude construct. The employee commitment construct has been depicted in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Employee Commitment Construct

Employee Commitment

19
 Emotional Conditional Belief in Behavioural
Affiliation to Organisational Readiness for
Attachment Organisation Goals and Organisational
compatibility with Purpose
Loyalty Individual Goals

Affiliation
without value Belief in Willingness to
acceptance Organisational discharge
Pride in Goals organisational
organisational duties
membership
Affiliation Compatibility
without policy with Individuall Willingness to
acceptance Goals discharge
extraordinary
Fondness
Very unfortunate duties.
spelling mistake

Pleasure Willingness to do
anything for the
organisation

Affection and
Warmth

Belongingness

Care

2.4. Chapter Summary

This chapter provides an overview of the meaning, significance, origin and evolution of
organisational commitment. It discusses the different eras that marked the evolution of
organisational commitment and the popular models that were developed in each of these eras.

20
The chapter then acquaints the reader with the fact that most of these models have failed to
qualify as a general commitment model as they are fundamentally models for predicting
turnover. The chapter also draws the attention of the reader to the fact that most of the popular
models of organisational commitment are not conceptually and empirically viable. Further, they
are not fully valid and relevant in the Indian context as they have a western outlook and have
mostly been operationalised in western countries which are culturally, socially and economically
different from developing countries such as India. The chapter then throws light on the research
work of Solinger et al. (2008) who recommended that the attitude–behaviour model by Eagly
and Chaiken (1993) may be adopted as a generic commitment model based on which a range of
models that can predict various organisational behaviours beyond turnover can be generated.
Considering the tenets of the attitude–behaviour model as well in the light of empirical evidence,
the chapter then focuses on the recommendation by Solinger and his colleagues (2008) to treat
organisational commitment as an attitude towards the organisation comprising of three specific
elements ( namely, affect , cognition and action tendencies ) and nothing beyond. However, it is
observed in the chapter that even after so many years since the authors made such a
recommendation, there is still a need to empirically investigate the authors’ proposition. It is
also observed in the chapter that several other researchers have emphasized the fact that that
much work is needed to develop the cognition and action tendency dimensions of the
organisational commitment attitude as well as to devote future research towards developing a
new general model of organisational commitment, together with measuring instruments that
allow a consistent quantification of the constructs. Considering this research gap, the foundation
is set in this chapter to develop a comprehensive, cognitive employee commitment construct that
would strictly be based on the affective or attitudinal perspective of organisational commitment
and would cover all three facets of the attitude construct, namely, affect , cognition and action
tendencies. A need has also been felt in this chapter to develop a suitable measurement
instrument that would capture the underlying essence of the employee commitment construct.
The chapter states that the employee commitment construct along with the measurement
instrument would be validated in the context of the indian IT sector.

21