EDUCATIONAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL MEASUREMENTKACMAR ET AL.
ANTECEDENTS AND CONSEQUENCES OFORGANIZATIONAL COMMITMENT:A COMPARISON OF TWO SCALES
K. MICHELE KACMARFlorida State University
DAWN S. CARLSONBaylor University
ROBERT A. BRYMERFlorida State University
The structural properties of two measures of organizational commitment, the Organiza-tional Commitment Questionnaire and the Organizational Commitment Scale, wereexamined to establish similarities and differences in the measures. Next, the antecedentsof age, gender, marital status, leader-member exchange, and justice and the conse-quences of job satisfaction, life satisfaction, nonwork satisfaction, intent to turnover, andjob involvement were examined in relation to each scale. Results indicated that the scalesdiffered with respect to the components of commitment each measured and the strengthof the relationships each had with the antecedents and consequences. Suggestions forwhen the use of each scale might be appropriate are provided.
Organizational commitment has been defined in a number of ways. Someview commitment to the organization as the strength of involvement one haswith the organization (Brown, 1969; Hall & Schneider, 1972; Mowday,Steers, & Porter, 1979). Others suggest that commitment is shown throughcongruence between personal and organizational goals and values (Bucha-nan, 1974) or through an exchange of behavior for valued rewards (Becker,1960; Meyer & Allen, 1984). However defined, researchers who include or-
This article was greatly improved by comments provided by Wayne A. Hochwarter. A priorversion of this article was presented at the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychologymeeting in St. Louis in April 1997.
ganizational commitment in their work are essentially interested in examin-ing the psychological attachment an individual has to an organization.
The variety of perspectives regarding the most appropriate definition oforganizational commitment has led to some disagreement about how the con-struct should be measured (Brown, 1996). An assortment of scales exist thathave been designed to measure organizational commitment (e.g., Balfour &Wechsler, 1996; Cook & Wall, 1980; Meyer & Allen, 1984; Mowday et al.,1979; O’Reilly & Chatman, 1986). The limited research that compared andcontrasted the available measures (Becker, 1992; Cohen, 1996; Magazine,Williams, & Williams, 1996; Vandenberg, Self, & Seo, 1994) found a greatdeal of overlap in the items that comprise the scales. In fact, Vandenberg et al.(1994) noted that the identification component of O’Reilly and Chatman’s(1986) measure of organizational commitment contributed nothing beyondwhat the Mowday et al. (1979) scale captures. However, due to the lack ofcomparative research on the available scales, such conclusions cannot bedrawn with respect to more recently developed measures of commitment.Hence, one of the goals of the present study was to compare two measures ofcommitment: the Organizational Commitment Questionnaire (OCQ), devel-oped by Mowday et al. (1979), and Balfour and Wechsler’s (1996) Organiza-tional Commitment Scale (OCS).
Another important area of study with respect to organizational commit-ment has been the examination of its antecedents (e.g., Luthans, Baack, &Taylor, 1987) and consequences (e.g., Blau & Boal, 1989). However, themajority of previous research in this area has examined either the antecedentsor the consequences of commitment. The present study extends past researchby considering both simultaneously. Furthermore, because we employed twomeasures of organizational commitment, we were able to explore differencesin the antecedents and consequences for the two scales. Consequently, a sec-ond goal of the present study was to report any differences in the antecedentsand consequences of the two measures of organizational commitment underinvestigation.
Measuring Organizational Commitment
The OCQ
In 1979, Mowday et al. published a scale designed to measure organiza-tional commitment, which they named the OCQ. Commitment was definedby Mowday, Porter, and Steers (1982) as “the relative strength of an individu-al’s identification with and involvement in a particular organization” (p. 27).It is this definition on which the OCQ was developed. Mowday et al. (1979)characterized commitment as having three factors: “(1) a strong belief in andacceptance of the organization’s goals and values; (2) a willingness to exert
considerable effort on behalf of the organization; (3) a strong desire to main-tain membership in the organization” (p. 226). Using these components as aframework, Mowday et al. (1979) developed 15 items (e.g., “I am proud totell others that I am part of this organization”) to tap these three aspects ofcommitment. Although there are three underlying theoretical components ofthe OCQ, the authors intended the scale to be unidimensional, and a majorityof researchers using this scale have reported or used a single-factor solution(Dunham, Grube, & Castaneda, 1994; Mathieu & Zajac, 1990; Morrow,1993).
In the original development article by Mowday et al. (1979), the OCQ wasadministered to more than 200 individuals employed in a variety of jobs innine different organizations. In addition to the OCQ, 13 other scales (e.g., jobinvolvement, intent to leave, job satisfaction) were completed by at least oneof the samples. These additional scales were included as a means of assessingthe convergent, discriminant, and predictive validity of the OCQ scores.
The internal reliability estimates for the OCQ scores were strong acrossall of the samples (range .82 to .93), and the factor analyses for six of thesamples “generally resulted in a single-factor solution” (Mowday et al.,1979, p. 232). With respect to the validity of the scale scores, Mowday et al.(1979) offered evidence of three types. First, they addressed convergentvalidity by showing that the OCQ scores were positively correlated withorganizational attachment, intent to remain in the organization, intrinsicmotivation, work-oriented life interest, and supervisor ratings of subordi-nates’ commitment. Evidence of discriminant validity was shown by lowercorrelations than those reported by other research between scores on theOCQ and scores for the outcome variables of job involvement, career satis-faction, and job satisfaction. Finally, predictive validity was addressed byexamining the relationship between the OCQ scores and voluntary turnover,absenteeism, and job performance.
The OCS
Although a great deal of what we know about organizational commitmentcomes from research using the OCQ, the OCQ is not without faults. Many ofthe criticisms of the OCQ are based on the underlying definition used whendeveloping the scale (Morrow, 1983; Osigweh, 1989). Using these criticismsas an impetus, Balfour and Wechsler (1996) developed a new scale, the OCS,which was designed to measure three components of organizational commit-ment: identification, exchange, and affiliation.
Balfour and Wechsler’s (1996) scale development procedures includedthree steps. First, they interviewed 19 individuals about their attachment totheir organization. Applying the repertory grid (RG) technique (Adams-Webber, 1979; Bannister & Fransella, 1971; Kelly, 1955), they were able to
elicit constructs that defined individuals’ attachment to the organization. Inthe second step, Balfour and Wechsler content analyzed the interviews andused the results to develop a cognitive map of the organizational commitmentprocess (Axelrod, 1976; Bougon, 1983; Gioia, 1986; Weick & Bougon,1986). Finally, items that measured the components of the cognitive mapswere developed and tested. The items included in the scale were a combina-tion of items from other commitment scales and new items that used theactual words of the interviewees (e.g., “I am quite proud to be able to tell peo-ple who it is I work for”).
Antecedents and Consequences ofOrganizational Commitment
Researchers have found support for relationships between organizationalcommitment and a variety of personality, demographic, and organizationalvariables (Balfour & Wechsler, 1990; Blau & Boal, 1989; Luthans et al.,1987; McFarlin & Sweeney, 1992; O’Reilly & Chatman, 1986; Settoon, Ben-nett, & Liden, 1996; Vandenberg et al., 1994; Vandenberg & Lance, 1992).Figure 1 diagrams the antecedents and consequences of organizational com-mitment examined in the present study. The sections below further describethe expected relationships.
Antecedents of Organizational Commitment
Demographics. A variety of demographic variables have been found to berelated to organizational commitment (Mathieu & Zajac, 1990). Age hasbeen a positive predictor of commitment for a variety of reasons. As workersage, alternative employment options generally decrease, making their cur-rent jobs more attractive (Mathieu & Zajac, 1990). Furthermore, older indi-viduals may have more commitment to their organizations because they havea stronger investment and greater history with the organizations than doyounger workers (Dunham et al., 1994). In general, women have reportedmore commitment to their organizations than have men (Mathieu & Zajac,1990). This finding frequently is attributed to the fact that women have toovercome more barriers than men do to gain membership in an organization(Grusky, 1966). The extra effort required to enter an organization may bereflected in higher commitment by female employees. Marital status also hasbeen found to be related to commitment, with married individuals havinggreater commitment to their organizations (Mathieu & Zajac, 1990). Thisrelationship is predicted because married individuals have greater financialburdens and family responsibilities, thereby increasing their need to remainwith the organization when compared to their single counterparts (Angle &Perry, 1983). Extant research provides empirical evidence for each of these
Leader-member exchange (LMX). Several studies have examined theimpact that the quality of the relationship between the supervisor and subor-dinate (measured using the LMX scale) has on organizational commitment.Three such studies used the same 9 items from the OCQ (Green et al., 1996;Nystrom, 1990; Settoon et al., 1996), but each used a different measure of theLMX: Green et al. (1996) used Graen, Novak, and Sommerkamp’s (1982)7-item measure; Nystrom (1990) used the 5-item version by Graen, Liden,and Hoel (1982); and Settoon et al. (1996) used the 1993 version by Lidenand Maslyn. Two other studies (Kinicki & Vecchio, 1994; Major, Kozlowski,Chao, & Gardner, 1995) used the Graen, Novak et al. (1982) 7-item versionof LMX, but each used a different form of commitment. Kinicki and Vecchio(1994) used the 15-item OCQ, whereas Major et al. (1995) used 8 items fromPorter and Smith (1970). Despite the wide range of measures used, all ofthese studies reported a statistically significant and positive relationshipbetween LMX and commitment.
Distributive justice. Distributive justice refers to the perceived fairness orequity in the amount and type of rewards organizational members receive(Folger & Konovsky, 1989). If individuals feel the rewards they receive arefair, distributive justice is present. Intuitively, distributive justice should bepositively related to commitment. That is, individuals will exhibit more com-mitment to an organization they view as providing fair and equitable rewardsfor their performance than will individuals who feel cheated by their organi-zations. Although few studies have investigated this relationship, someempirical support for this positive relationship exists (McFarlin & Sweeney,1992).
980 EDUCATIONAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL MEASUREMENT
Figure 1. Antecedents and consequences of organizational commitment.
Job satisfaction. Using nine items from the OCQ and a six-facet measureof job satisfaction (i.e., manager, job in general, career progress opportuni-ties, job transfer opportunities, department, and occupation), Vandenbergand Lance (1992) examined the relationship between job satisfaction andorganizational commitment. Specifically, they tested four possible relation-ships between these constructs: job satisfaction would predict commitment,commitment would predict job satisfaction, a reciprocal relationship wouldexist between job satisfaction and organizational commitment, and therewould be no relationship between job satisfaction and organizational com-mitment. Support was found for the organizational commitment leading tojob satisfaction relationship as is predicted in the present study. Furthermore,this relationship was found to be positive. A positive relationship between jobsatisfaction and organizational commitment, using a variety of satisfactionand commitment measures, has been consistently reported in past research aswell (Balfour & Wechsler, 1990, 1991; Cook & Wall, 1980; Green et al.,1996; Major et al., 1995; McFarlin & Sweeney, 1992; Mowday et al., 1979).Given this robust finding, we predicted that other forms of satisfaction (i.e.,life and nonwork) would produce the same positive relationship with bothorganizational commitment scales used in the present study.
Intentions to turnover. Consistent with our predictions, results from previ-ous studies concerning the relationship between organizational commitmentand intentions to turnover support a negative relationship. For example, Blauand Boal (1989) using nine items from the OCQ and three intent-to-turnoveritems from Mobley (1977) reported a statistically significant negative rela-tionship. Vandenberg et al. (1994) reported a similar finding using nine itemsfrom the OCQ and a one-item intent-to-leave measure. Mowday et al. (1979)also found a negative relationship between the OCQ and intent to leave onfour different samples. However, Vandenberg et al. noted that compliancecommitment (O’Reilly & Chatman, 1986) and intent to turnover produced apositive relationship. Both the positive relationship between intent to turn-over and compliance commitment and the negative relationship for the othercommitment facets also received support from Balfour and Wechsler (1991)using O’Reilly and Chatman’s (1986) commitment measure and a one-itemintention measure. Finally, Balfour and Wechsler (1996) reported a negativecorrelation between intent to turnover and all three components of the OCS.
Job involvement. Using a six-item measure of job involvement byKanungo (1982) and nine items from the OCQ, Blau and Boal (1989)reported a positive relationship between commitment and job involvement.Similarly, a positive relationship between work involvement, overall
commitment, and three components of commitment (i.e., identification,involvement, and loyalty) was reported by Cook and Wall (1980). Mowday et al.(1979) also reported a positive correlation between job involvement and theOCQ for four different samples. These results lead us to predict a positiverelationship between job involvement and both measures of commitment.
Method
Sample
A total of 196 hospitality managers and supervisors participating in amanagement skills workshop participated in the study. Respondents wereemployed by the same parent company but were working in a variety of dif-ferent locations. The sample consisted of 86 (44%) males and 110 (56%)females. With respect to race, 55 (28%) were minorities. The average age ofthe sample was 34.42 years (range 18 to 66 years), the average organizationaltenure was 4.5 years (range 1 month to 16 years), and 106 (54%) weremarried.
Measures
Organizational commitment. Two scales were used to measure organiza-tional commitment. The first scale was the 15-item OCQ developed byMowday et al. (1979). Example items include “I talk up this organization tomy friends as a great organization to work for” and “I feel very little loyalty tothis organization” (reverse coded). The second scale used to measure organ-izational commitment was the 9-item OCS developed by Balfour andWechsler (1996). Example items include “What this organization stands foris important to me” and “I feel like ‘part of the family’ at this organization.”The respondents used a 5-point Likert-type scale to indicate their agreement(1 =strongly disagreeand 5 =strongly agree) with each of the items in thesescales. The internal consistency reliability for the OCQ scores was .87. Thesubscale scores for the OCS produced the following reliabilities: identifica-tion = .69, affiliation = .73, exchange = .74.
Demographics. Respondents provided us with their current age, selectedeither male (coded 0) or female (coded 1) to indicate their gender, andchecked one of four marital options provided (single, married, divorced, orwidowed). The single, divorced, and widowed were recoded into one cate-gory (coded 1) and married was a second category (coded 2).
LMX. The seven-item measure of exchange commitment was used(Graen, Novak et al., 1982). A sample item from this scale is “My immediate
supervisor understands my problems and needs.” The items in this scale wereresponded to on a 5-point Likert-type scale with the anchors ofstrongly dis-agreefor 1 andstrongly agreefor 5. The Cronbach alpha coefficient forscores on this scale was .92.
Justice. Perceptions of organizational justice were measured with a six-item scale by Price and Mueller (1986). The alpha reliability coefficient forscores on these items was .94. A sample item was “To what extent are youfairly rewarded considering the responsibilities you have?” The 5-point scalehadvery fairlyas the anchor for 1 andnot at all fairly as the anchor for 5.
Job satisfaction. Job satisfaction was measured with five items from Cam-mann, Fichman, Jenkins, and Klesh (1979). This is a global job satisfactionscale as can be seen by examining a sample item from the scale: “In general, Iam satisfied with my job.” The anchors on the 5-point response scale werestrongly disagreefor 1 andstrongly agreefor 5. The internal consistency reli-ability estimate for scores on these five items was .87.
Life satisfaction. Diener, Emmons, Larsen, and Griffin’s (1985) five-itemscale was used to measure life satisfaction. A sample item is “The conditionsof my life are excellent.” Respondents indicated their agreement with each ofthe five items using a response format withstrongly agreethe anchor for 5andstrongly disagreethe anchor for 1. The coefficient alpha for the scoresobtained for this scale was .86.
Nonwork satisfaction. Eight items from Romzek (1989) were included totap nonwork satisfaction. Scores on this scale produced an internal consis-tency reliability estimate of .70. Respondents used a 5-point scale (1 =strongly disagreeand 5 =strongly agree) to indicate their level of agreementwith the eight items. A sample item from this scale is “I am satisfied with mynon-working activities, hobbies, and so on.”
Intent to turnover. The degree to which the respondents were consideringleaving the organization was measured with Mobley, Horner, and Hollings-worth’s (1978) seven-item intent-to-turnover scale. A sample item from thisscale is “I will probably look for a new job in the near future.” The Cronbachalpha coefficient for scores on this scale was .86. The response format forthese items was a 5-point Likert-type scale anchored withstrongly disagreeat the low end andstrongly agreeat the high end.
Job involvement. Three items (e.g., “I live, eat, and breathe my job”)developed by Lodahl and Kejner (1965) were used to measure job involve-ment. Respondents indicated, on a 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree)
scale, their agreement with each item. Scores on the three items produced aninternal consistency reliability estimate of .73.
Results
Correlations
The means, standard deviations, and correlations among the variablesexamined in the present study are provided in Table 1. As expected, the twocommitment scales were highly correlated (rs ranged from .77 to .56). Alsoof interest is a similarity in the pattern and intensity of the correlationsbetween the two commitment scales and the remaining variables.
Structural Analysis of the Scales
Before the antecedents and consequences of organizational commitmentcould be examined, the structural components of the two scales were estab-lished. To accomplish this, each scale was analyzed separately via confirma-tory factor analysis (CFA) using LISREL 8 (Jöreskog & Sörbom, 1993). Theresults for these analyses follow.
OCQ. A single-factor model, shown in Figure 2, was estimated usingLISREL 8 to determine whether the OCQ was unidimensional as intended byits developers (Mowday et al., 1979). The fit statistics (Jöreskog & Sörbom,1993) for this model are presented in Table 2. For comparison purposes, atwo-factor model (i.e., value commitment and commitment to stay) reportedby Angle and Perry (1981) also was estimated. The value commitment factorincluded Items 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, 12, 13, and 14. The commitment-to-stayfactor included Items 3, 7, 9, 11, and 15. The fit statistics for the comparisonmodel also can be found in Table 2. To directly compare the one-factor modelto the two-factor model, a chi-square difference test was conducted. Results(χ2
diff(1) = 114.02,p < .05) indicated that the unidimensional model was thebetter of the two. Further examination of the unidimensional model indicatedthat the path coefficients for two items, 3 and 7, fell below the .40 cutoff(Ford, MacCallum, & Tait, 1986). These items were removed, and the modelwas reestimated producing completely standardized path coefficients for allremaining items of .40 or higher (see Figure 2). This modification alsoincreased the fit statistics for five of the seven statistics reported in Table 2.
OCS. The model estimated for the OCS (see Figure 3) had nine items lead-ing to three different subcomponents of commitment as intended by the scaledevelopers. The completely standardized path coefficients, shown in Figure 3,were all greater than .40. Some of the model fit statistics (see Table 2) were
acceptable, but none was as strong as the fit statistics for the OCQ models.For comparison purposes, we estimated a unidimensional model with all nineOCS items constituting one factor, consistent with the factor structure of theOCQ. However, the fit statistics for this model (see Table 2) were substan-tially worse than the original model. A chi-square difference test (χ2
diff(3) =39.31,p< .05) further confirmed that the three-factor model was the better ofthe two models. Therefore, the best fitting model was determined to be theone intended by the developers of the scale, three items leading to each of thethree subcomponents of organizational commitment.
986 EDUCATIONAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL MEASUREMENT
Figure 2. LISREL 8 model for Organizational Commitment Questionnaire (OCQ).
Combined scales. To explore the similarities and differences in the itemsthat make up both commitment scales, the two scales were estimated in oneCFA (Dunham et al., 1994). The model estimated included four factors, onewith the 13 retained OCQ items related to a general OCQ factor and threeOCS factors each being predicted by their respective 3 items. All of the com-pletely standardized path coefficients were greater than .40, and the modifi-cation indices indicated that only 1 item (OCQ 8) “cross loaded” (on theexchange commitment subcomponent of the OCS). More than half of the fitstatistics for this model, shown in Table 2, were acceptable.
Antecedents and Consequences ofOrganizational Commitment
In the next step, the antecedents and consequences of the OCQ and OCSwere explored. To do this, the model in Figure 1 was estimated using LISREL 8.To compare the two scales, both commitment measures were included in themodel estimated.
The completely standardized path coefficients for the model are providedin Table 3. As can be seen, not all of the antecedents worked the same for thefour commitment components. For example, gender and age were not goodpredictors of any of the forms of organizational commitment (all coefficients <.15). Marital status yielded higher path coefficients, although links were stillweak at best. Even though all of the paths for LMX and justice with all fourcommitment components were statistically significant, large to moderate,
and in the direction predicted, the strength of the paths differed, especially forjustice. The exchange component of the OCS had a stronger path coefficientwith justice than did the other forms of commitment.
When examining the relationships between the outcome variables and thecommitment components, more differences arose. The expected positive linkbetween commitment and job satisfaction was found only for the OCQ.Although job satisfaction was appreciably linked to the OCQ, life satisfac-tion was not. Instead, exchange commitment was found to be a better predic-tor of life satisfaction. Two of the subcomponents of OCS, identification andexchange, positively predicted nonwork satisfaction. The link betweenexchange commitment and intent to turnover was weak and not statisticallysignificant, but the paths between OCQ and identification commitment andintent to turnover were statistically significant and in the predicted direction.Surprisingly, affiliation commitment positively predicted intent to turnover.Finally, job involvement was found to be related appreciably to all four com-mitment measures. However, the links between identification and exchangecommitment and job involvement were negative, opposite of that predicted.
988 EDUCATIONAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL MEASUREMENT
Figure 3. LISREL 8 model for Organizational Commitment Scale (OCS).
Given that all of the data used in the present study were collected via self-report surveys, the threat of common method variance is present in our study.To examine the extent to which common method variance was an issue in thecurrent research, a Harmon one-factor test was conducted using LISREL 8 ashas been done in previous research (McFarlin & Sweeney, 1992; Sanchez &Brock, 1996). Specifically, we estimated a model in which all the items forthe variables of interest were related to a single global (method) factor. If thismodel fit the data well, strong evidence of common method variance wouldbe present. Results suggested that one global factor for all the items producedpoor overall fit (goodness-of-fit index = .39, comparative fit index = .42).These findings suggest that a method factor is not predominate in this study,reducing the threat of common method variance.
Discussion
The present study had two goals. First, the factor structure of two differentorganizational commitment scales was examined independently and thencombined. These tests were performed to determine the degree of overlapand uniqueness of the two scales. Results indicated very little overlapbetween the two scales. Only one item from the OCQ (i.e., Item 8) crossloaded on the exchange component of the OCS. This would suggest that theBalfour and Wechsler (1996) scale measured components of organizationalcommitment not captured by the OCQ. Next, antecedents and consequencesof commitment were examined for both scales to determine if the two measures
of organizational commitment predicted and were predicted by different con-structs. Not all of the path loadings were in the predicted direction, and not allof the antecedents and consequences examined worked the same for the fourcommitment components. These findings are discussed in more detail below.
Antecedents
Although the relationships were weak, there were four paths in the modelthat were statistically significant for the demographic variables: maritalstatus with OCQ, identification, exchange commitment, and affiliation com-mitment with age. Gender was not found to be significantly related to anyform of commitment, which is consistent with some past research findings(Blau & Boal, 1989) and inconsistent with others (Mathieu & Zajac, 1990;McFarlin & Sweeney, 1992). Contrary to prediction and past research, agewas negatively related to affiliation commitment (Dunham et al., 1994;Mathieu & Zajac, 1990). That is, as individuals got older they were less likelyto have affiliation commitment. Marital status was positively related to OCQ,identification, and exchange commitment as expected. This is consistentwith past research suggesting that married individuals exhibit greater com-mitment due to financial burdens and family responsibilities (Angle & Perry,1983; Mathieu & Zajac, 1990). Thus, the affiliation component of organiza-tional commitment is most salient for younger, single workers.
The exchange quality of the relationship between the supervisors and sub-ordinates in our sample (i.e., LMX) did directly affect the subordinates’ feel-ings of commitment to the organization. Specifically, the better the relation-ship, the more committed the employees. LMX appears to be equally relatedto all forms of commitment, indicating that supervisors can make a big differ-ence in the commitment level of their employees. As was found for LMX,distributive justice was a consistent predictor of commitment as well. Thisdemonstrates that organizations that provide equitable and fair rewards fortheir employees can increase the level of commitment shown by theiremployees.
Consequences
Job involvement was the only outcome variable that had a noteworthy linkwith all four commitment components. As expected, job involvement waspositively related to OCQ and affiliation commitment. Contrary to predic-tions, job involvement was negatively related to identification and exchangecommitment. This finding suggests that people who are highly involved intheir jobs exhibit lower levels of identification and exchange commitment.One possible explanation is that individuals who are highly involved in theirjobs identify more closely with their professions than with the organizations
that employ them. Similarly, individuals highly involved in their jobs viewexchange commitment as less relevant as they are receiving positive feed-back from the work itself.
When examining the relationships between commitment and intent toturnover, we found the OCQ and the identification subscale performed simi-larly but differently from affiliation. There were negative relationshipsbetween intent to turnover and the OCQ and identification but a weak posi-tive relationship between intent to turnover and affiliation commitment. Thisfinding for the OCQ was not surprising. Past researchers have reported astrong correlation between the OCQ and intention-to-turnover scales(Blau & Boal, 1989; Vandenberg et al., 1994). Some even have argued thatfindings that include both commitment and intent to turnover may be con-founded by the scales’ apparent overlap (Bozeman & Kacmar, 1996; Stone-Romero, 1994). One suggestion that can be made based on the current find-ings is that when intentions to turnover and commitment are both importantconstructs in a study, some measure of commitment other than the OCQ orthe identification subscale should be used, as they are highly correlated withintent to turnover. Instead, the exchange subcomponent of the OCS could beused because it was found to be unrelated to intent to turnover.
Although not specifically mentioned in past research, it appears that thesame suggestion made for intention to turnover could be made for job satis-faction. In the present study, the paths between job satisfaction and the OCQwere positive and statistically significant, whereas the links for affiliation,exchange, and identification commitment with job satisfaction were not.Hence, future researchers interested in examining commitment and job satis-faction in the same study might be well advised to steer clear of the OCQ.
The relationships between nonwork satisfaction and exchange and identi-fication commitment were strong and positive, whereas the paths betweenaffiliation and OCQ with nonwork satisfaction were negligible. These resultssuggest that individuals who have happy lives outside of work do not needstrong relationships at work. Life satisfaction was positively related toexchange commitment but negligibly related to the other forms of commit-ment. Thus, in a global sense, the element of exchange is the most importantform of commitment in determining overall life satisfaction. These findingsare intriguing and informative given that past research efforts have notincluded these forms of satisfaction in their studies of commitment.
References
Adams-Webber, J. R. (1979).Personal construct theory: Concepts and applications. London:John Wiley.
Angle, H. L., & Perry, J. L. (1981). An empirical assessment of organizational commitment andorganizational effectiveness.Administrative Science Quarterly, 26, 1-14.
Angle, H. L., & Perry, J. L. (1983). Organizational commitment: Individual and organizationalinfluences.Work and Occupations, 10, 123-146.
Axelrod, R. (1976).Structure of decision: The cognitive maps of political elites. Princeton, NJ:Princeton University Press.
Balfour, D. L., & Wechsler, B. (1990). Organizational commitment: A reconceptualization andempirical test of public-private difference.Review of Public Personnel Administration, 10,23-40.
Balfour, D. L., & Wechsler, B. (1991). Commitment, performance, and productivity in public or-ganizations.Public Productivity & Management Review, 14, 355-367.
Balfour, D. L., & Wechsler, B. (1996). Organizational commitment: Antecedents and outcomesin public organizations.Public Productivity and Management Review, 29, 256-277.
Bannister, D., & Fransella, F. (1971).Inquiring man: The theory of personal constructs. Balti-more: Penguin.
Becker, H. S. (1960). Notes on the concept of commitment.American Journal of Sociology, 66,32-40.
Becker, T. E. (1992). Foci and bases of commitment: Are they distinctions worth making?Acad-emy of Management Journal, 35, 232-244.
Blau, G., & Boal, K. (1989). Using job involvement and organizational commitment interac-tively to predict turnover.Journal of Management, 15, 115-127.
Bougon, M. G. (1983). Uncovering cognitive maps: The self-Q technique. In G. Morgan (Ed.),Beyond method(pp. 173-188). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Bozeman, D. P., & Kacmar, K. M. (1996, April).The effect of item contamination on the OCQ-turnover intention relationship. Paper presented at the 11th annual conference of the Societyfor Industrial and Organizational Psychology, San Diego, CA.
Brown, M. (1969). Identification and some conditions of organizational involvement.Adminis-trative Science Quarterly, 14, 346-355.
Brown, R. B. (1996). Organizational commitment: Clarifying the concept and simplifying theexisting construct typology.Journal of Vocational Behavior, 49, 230-251.
Buchanan, B. (1974). Building organizational commitment: The socialization of managers inwork organizations.Administrative Science Quarterly, 19, 533-546.
Cammann, C., Fichman, M., Jenkins, D., & Klesh, J. (1979).The Michigan Organizational As-sessment Questionnaire. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan.
Cohen, A. (1996). On the discriminant validity of the Meyer and Allen measure of organiza-tional commitment: How does it fit with the work commitment construct?Educational andPsychological Measurement, 56, 494-503.
Cook, J., & Wall, T. (1980). New work attitude measures of trust, organizational commitmentand personal need nonfulfillment.Journal of Occupational Psychology, 53, 39-52.
Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The satisfaction with life scale.Journal of Personality Assessment, 49, 71-75.
Dunham, R. B., Grube, J. A., & Castaneda, M. B. (1994). Organizational commitment: The util-ity of an integrative definition.Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 370-380.
Folger, R., & Konovsky, M. A. (1989). Effects of procedural and distributive justice on reactionsto pay raise decisions.Academy of Management Journal, 32, 115-130.
Ford, J. C., MacCallum, R. C., & Tait, M. (1986). The application of exploratory factor analysisin applied psychology: A critical review and analysis.Personnel Psychology,39, 291-314.
Gioia, D. A. (1986). Symbols, scripts, and sensemaking: Creating meaning in the organizationalexperience. In H. P. Sims, D. A. Gioia, and Associates (Eds.),The thinking organization: Dy-namics of organizational and social cognition(pp. 49-74). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Graen, G. B., Liden, R. C., & Hoel, W. (1982). Role of leadership in the employee withdrawalprocess.Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 868-872.
Graen, G. B., Novak, M., & Sommerkamp, P. (1982). The effects of leader-member exchangeand job design on productivity and satisfaction: Testing a dual attachment model.Organiza-tional Behavior and Human Performance, 30, 109-131.
Green, S. G., Anderson, S. E., & Shivers, S. L. (1996). Demographics and organizational influ-ences on leader-member exchange and related work attitudes.Organizational Behavior andHuman Decision Processes, 66, 203-214.
Grusky, D. (1966). Career mobility and organizational commitment.Administrative ScienceQuarterly, 10, 488-503.
Hall, D. T., & Schneider, B. (1972). Correlates of organizational identification as a function ofcareer patterns and organizational types.Administrative Science Quarterly, 15, 176-189.
Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. (1993).LISREL 8: User’s reference guide. Chicago: ScientificSoftware International.
Kanungo, R. (1982). Measurement of job and work involvement.Journal of Applied Psychol-ogy, 67, 341-349.
Kelly, G. A. (1955).The psychology of personal constructs. New York: Norton.Kinicki, A. J., & Vecchio, R. P. (1994). Influences on the quality of supervisor-subordinate rela-
tions: The role of time-pressure, organizational commitment, and locus of control.Journalof Organizational Behavior, 15, 75-82.
Liden, R. C., & Maslyn, J. M. (1993, August).Scale development for a multidimensional mea-sure of leader-member exchange. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Academy ofManagement, Atlanta, GA.
Lodahl, T. M., & Kejner, M. (1965). The definition and measurement of job involvement.Jour-nal of Applied Psychology, 4, 24-33.
Luthans, F., Baack, D., & Taylor, L. (1987). Organizational commitment: Analysis of antece-dents.Human Relations, 40, 219-236.
Magazine, S. L., Williams, L. J., & Williams, M. L. (1996). A confirmatory factor analysis ex-amination of reverse coding effects in Meyer and Allen’s affective and continuance commit-ment scales.Educational and Psychological Measurement, 56(2), 241-250.
Major, D. A., Kozlowski, S.W.J., Chao, G. T., & Gardner, P. D. (1995). A longitudinal investiga-tion of newcomer expectations, early socialization outcomes, and moderating effects of roledevelopment factors.Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 418-431.
Mathieu, J. E., & Zajac, D. M. (1990). A review and meta-analysis of the antecedents, correlates,and consequences of organizational commitment.Psychological Bulletin, 108, 171-194.
McFarlin, D. B., & Sweeney, P. D. (1992). Distributive and procedural justice as predictors ofsatisfaction with personal and organizational outcomes.Academy of Management Journal,35, 626-637.
Meyer, J., & Allen, N. (1984). Testing the “side-bet theory” of organizational commitment:Some methodological considerations.Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 372-378.
Mobley, W. (1977). Intermediate linkages in the relationship between job satisfaction and em-ployee turnover.Journal of Applied Psychology, 62, 237-240.
Mobley, W., Horner, S. O., & Hollingsworth, A. T. (1978). An evaluation of the precursors ofhospital employee turnover.Journal of Applied Psychology, 63, 408-414.
Morrow, P. (1983). Concept redundancy in organizational research: The case of work commit-ment.Academy of Management Review, 8, 486-500.
Morrow, P. (1993).The theory and measurement of work commitment. Greenwich, CT: JAI.Mowday, R., Porter, L., & Steers, R. (1982).Organizational linkages: The psychology of com-
mitment, absenteeism, and turnover. New York: Academic Press.Mowday, R., Steers, R., & Porter, L. (1979). The measurement of organizational commitment.
Journal of Vocational Behavior, 14, 224-247.Nystrom, P. C. (1990). Vertical exchanges and organizational commitments of American busi-
ness managers.Group & Organizational Studies, 15, 296-312.O’Reilly, C., & Chatman, J. (1986). Organizational commitment and psychological attachment:
The effects of compliance, identification, and internalization on prosocial behavior.Journalof Applied Psychology, 71, 492-499.
Osigweh, C.A.B. (1989). Concept fallibility in organizational science.Academy of ManagementReview, 14, 579-594.
Porter, L. W., & Smith, F. J. (1970).The etiology of organizational commitment. Unpublishedmanuscript, University of California, Irvine.
Price, J. L., & Mueller, C. W. (1986).Handbook of organizational measurement. Marshfield,MA: Pitman.
Romzek, B. S. (1989). Personal consequences of employee commitment.Academy of Manage-ment Journal, 32, 649-661.
Sanchez, J. I., & Brock, P. (1996). Outcomes of perceived discrimination among Hispanic em-ployees: Is diversity management a luxury or necessity?Academy of Management Journal,39, 704-719.
Settoon, R. P., Bennett, N., & Liden, R. C. (1996). Social exchange in organizations: Perceivedorganizational support, leader-member exchange, and employee reciprocity.Journal of Ap-plied Psychology, 81, 219-227.
Stone-Romero, E. (1994). Construct validity issues in organizational behavior research. In J.Green-berg (Ed.),Organizational behavior: The state of the science(pp. 155-179). Hillsdale, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum.
Vandenberg, R. J., & Lance, C. E. (1992). Satisfaction and organizational commitment.Journalof Management, 18, 153-167.
Vandenberg, R. J., Self, R. M., & Seo, J. H. (1994). A critical examination of the internalization,identification, and compliance commitment measures.Journal of Management,20, 123-140.
Weick, K. E., & Bougon, M. G. (1986). Organizations as cognitive maps: Charting ways to suc-cess and failure. In H. P. Sims, D. A. Gioia, and Associates (Eds.),The thinking organization:Dynamics of organizational and social cognition(pp. 102-135). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
