Employee wellbeing, control and organizational commitment Ajay K. Jain Department of Human Behavior and Organizational Development, Management Development Institute, Gurgaon, India Sabir I. Giga School of Health Studies, University of Bradford, Bradford, UK, and Cary L. Cooper Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK Abstract Purpose – This paper aims to investigate the role of work locus of control (WLOC) as a moderator of the relationship between employee wellbeing and organizational commitment. Design/methodology/approach – The paper reports on a quantitative study of middle level executives from motor-cycle manufacturing organizations based in Northern India. The focus of the paper is to examine the predictive ability of wellbeing and the moderating effect of WLOC in predicting organizational commitment. Findings – The results suggest that wellbeing is negatively related to conditional continuance commitment, whereby employees consider the advantages associated with continued participation and costs associated with leaving, and normative commitment, whereby employees feel they have moral obligations to remain with the organization. The presence of an external WLOC has a positive impact on the relationship. Wellbeing, as represented by a hassle-free existence, predicts positive affective commitment with a particular organization, and internal WLOC as represented by effort influences the relationship negatively. Research limitations/implications – Although a cross-sectional study, its findings have implications for contemporary leadership and organizational psychology research and practice, particularly with regard to understanding of employee commitment in a progressively changing environment. Originality/value – Studies examining the role of WLOC as a moderator of the relationship between wellbeing and organizational commitment are limited particularly in the context of post-liberalization, as is the case with the manufacturing industry in India. Keywords Job satisfaction, Employees, Employee behaviour, Employee involvement, India Paper type Research paper Introduction The principal focus of stress research from a work psychology perspective has been to identify causal factors or its impact on job and organizational performance (e.g. Lu, 1999; Potter et al., 2002; Elloy and Smith, 2003). Moreover, the psychological and management literature on employee wellbeing in organizations tends to concentrate on the traditional model of health in which factors relating to strain are given prominence, with little attention paid to positive outcomes. For example, there is evidence to suggest that emotional intelligence, trust and perceived organizational support can have favorable effects on employees’ general health in organizations ( Jain and Sinha, 2005). The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/0143-7739.htm LODJ 30,3 256 Received February 2008 Revised September 2008 Accepted October 2008 Leadership & Organization Development Journal Vol. 30 No. 3, 2009 pp. 256-273 q Emerald Group Publishing Limited 0143-7739 DOI 10.1108/01437730910949535
Ajay K. JainDepartment of Human Behavior and Organizational Development,
Management Development Institute, Gurgaon, India
Sabir I. GigaSchool of Health Studies, University of Bradford, Bradford, UK, and
Cary L. CooperLancaster University, Lancaster, UK
Abstract
Purpose – This paper aims to investigate the role of work locus of control (WLOC) as a moderator ofthe relationship between employee wellbeing and organizational commitment.
Design/methodology/approach – The paper reports on a quantitative study of middle levelexecutives from motor-cycle manufacturing organizations based in Northern India. The focus of thepaper is to examine the predictive ability of wellbeing and the moderating effect of WLOC inpredicting organizational commitment.
Findings – The results suggest that wellbeing is negatively related to conditional continuancecommitment, whereby employees consider the advantages associated with continued participationand costs associated with leaving, and normative commitment, whereby employees feel theyhave moral obligations to remain with the organization. The presence of an external WLOC has apositive impact on the relationship. Wellbeing, as represented by a hassle-free existence, predictspositive affective commitment with a particular organization, and internal WLOC as represented byeffort influences the relationship negatively.
Research limitations/implications – Although a cross-sectional study, its findings haveimplications for contemporary leadership and organizational psychology research and practice,particularly with regard to understanding of employee commitment in a progressively changingenvironment.
Originality/value – Studies examining the role of WLOC as a moderator of the relationship betweenwellbeing and organizational commitment are limited particularly in the context of post-liberalization,as is the case with the manufacturing industry in India.
Keywords Job satisfaction, Employees, Employee behaviour, Employee involvement, India
Paper type Research paper
IntroductionThe principal focus of stress research from a work psychology perspective has been toidentify causal factors or its impact on job and organizational performance (e.g. Lu, 1999;Potter et al., 2002; Elloy and Smith, 2003). Moreover, the psychological and managementliterature on employee wellbeing in organizations tends to concentrate on the traditionalmodel of health in which factors relating to strain are given prominence, with littleattention paid to positive outcomes. For example, there is evidence to suggest thatemotional intelligence, trust and perceived organizational support can have favorableeffects on employees’ general health in organizations ( Jain and Sinha, 2005).
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0143-7739.htm
LODJ30,3
256
Received February 2008Revised September 2008Accepted October 2008
Nevertheless, there is a dearth of literature on studying the impact of moderatorsand mediators in reducing the impact of stressors or strain on employee performance(Jex, 1998; Cooper et al., 2001). Meanwhile perceived organizational support is assumedto be a moderator variable that is expected to reduce aversive physical, psychologicaland behavioral reactions, for example strain, to stressors through the commitment ofadditional resources such as physical and emotional support (George et al., 1993;Robblee, 1998). Some researchers have also highlighted the role of organizationalcommitment as a mediator between emotional exhaustion and organizationalcitizenship behavior (e.g. Cropanzano et al., 2003).
The focus of this paper is to identify what impact employee wellbeing will have onorganizational commitment and how work locus of control (WLOC) will moderate therelationship between wellbeing and organizational commitment. Wellbeing is selectedas a predictor variable to help us identify the extent to which it predicts organizationalcommitment positively.
Organizational commitmentThe concept of organizational commitment has been treated as a variable of interest inits own right and a variety of definitions and measures have been proposed (Mowdayet al., 1982; Meyer et al., 1998; Coyle-Shapiro et al., 2006). The concept has attractedmore attention recently from organizational scientists, perhaps due to changes takingplace in employment practices that have arisen from the international employmentmarketplace and increased alternatives for skilled employees in a global economy(Sullivan and Arthur, 2006).
Skilled workers therefore have the opportunity to move organizations in an effort todevelop their careers without feeling the need to remain with the same organization forany given period of time. At the same time, the evidence suggests that it is provingdifficult for organizations to find suitably qualified and experienced replacements foremployees who leave (Shields and Ward, 2001). Notwithstanding these developmentsin employment practices, there are aspects of the employment relationship that haveevolved due to sustained membership in a given environment over an extended period(Sels et al., 2004). In an effort to retain employees who demonstrate high levels ofperformance, organizations are willing to foster positive organizational attitudes likejob satisfaction and organizational commitment in general (Griffith et al., 2000). In arecent study, Payne and Huffman (2005) have observed the positive relationshipbetween mentoring and organizational commitment and negative relationship withturnover behavior.
It is on this count that organizational commitment gets associated with a concernfor employee retention, which has been seen as a major issue for many organizations.Therefore, it might be concluded that organizational commitment can be seen as animportant variable to consider particularly if an organization’s goal is to develop astable workforce on whose continued membership it can count.
Forms of organizational commitmentThe construct of commitment has been viewed in the main as a composite of threemain components representing affective, normative and continuance aspects ofcommitment (e.g. Meyer and Allen, 1984, 1991; Meyer et al., 1993, 1998; Coyle-Shapiroet al., 2006). Allen and Meyer (1990) define affective commitment as an employee’s
Organizationalcommitment
257
emotional attachment to, identification with and involvement in the organization.Continuance commitment is sometimes termed as calculative commitment (Mathieuand Zajac, 1990; Hackett et al., 1994) as it is based on the cost that an employeeassociates with leaving an organization. Normative commitment may be viewed as anemployee’s feelings of obligation to remain with the organization, and in contrast toaffective and continuance commitment, it focuses on the “right or moral thing to do” byconcentrating on the obligation and/or moral attachment of employees that areproduced through the socialization process binding employees to the organization’sgoals and values (Allen and Meyer, 1990; Thomas and Anderson, 1998).
Implications of organizational commitmentOrganizational commitment is related to positive outcomes in organizations such asorganizational citizenship behavior (Shore et al., 1995; Coyle-Shapiro et al., 2006), lowturnover intention (Mowday et al., 1982; Allen and Meyer, 1996) and increasedsatisfaction (Becker and Billings, 1993). For example, in a recent meta-analytic study,Riketta (2002) noted a higher correlation between attitudinal commitment andperformance through organizational citizenship behavior and in-role behavior. In brief,affective, continuance and normative commitment represent psychological states thathave implications on whether an employee remains with an organization.
Employee wellbeingThe independent variable used in this study is wellbeing. Guest and Conway (2004)define wellbeing in terms of six constructs including: a manageable workload; personalcontrol over the job; support from colleagues and supervisors; positive relationships atwork; a reasonably clear role and a sense of control of involvement in changes in theorganisation. In some cases, wellbeing is also defined in terms of strain. Strain isdefined as psychological, physical or behavioral responses to stressors (Le Fevre et al.,2003). Several stressors influence the wellbeing level in a workplace. The term stressoris used to indicate job or organizational conditions that require adaptive responsesfrom employees (Jex, 1998). If an employee’s response to a stressor is either neutral oreven positive then it is not considered as a strain (Cooper and Quick, 1999). Thenegative impact of strain upon an employee’s efficiency, effectiveness, satisfaction andperformance are well-documented. Amongst other outcomes, strain is manifested inthe form of job dissatisfaction, anxiety, depressed mood, headache, coronary heartdisease, absenteeism, poor performance and turnover (Jex, 1998; Cooper et al., 2001).The purpose of studying wellbeing in the present study is to examine its relationshipwith organizational commitment as moderated by WLOC. Here we could argue thatwellbeing might act as a positive force towards influencing the level of individualcommitment.
Wellbeing as an antecedent of commitmentCommitment is a multidimensional construct in which affective and normativecommitment are considered relatively more desirable from an organizational point ofview. In this study, we aim to identify individual level antecedents that influenceaffective and normative commitment positively and continuance commitmentnegatively. It can be assumed that an individual with a good sense of wellbeingmay be emotionally rather than cognitively attached to an organization by evaluating
LODJ30,3
258
their potential gain or loss, and that both affective and normative commitment belongto a positive affective mental state whilst continuance commitment can be linked to thecognitive domain of our personality. A person who is committed to his/herorganization for emotional and moral reasons may portray more genuine relationalfeelings compared to thinking of the employment relationship as a profit and losstransaction (Rousseau, 1995). Based on the above discussion we hypothesize that:
H1. Wellbeing will have a positive correlation with affective and normativecommitment and negative correlation with continuance commitment.
Work locus of controlEmployee behavior in organizations is more influenced by the organizational culture,structure and other standard operating procedures. However, two employees workingin similar conditions respond differently because of the differences in, amongst otherthings, their personalities. Therefore, we adopt WLOC as a moderator variable thatmight influence the relationship between wellbeing and commitment. Locus of control(LOC) is a personality variable that has received much attention from behavioralscientists (e.g. Ng et al., 2006). LOC is a dispositional variable that plays a role in copingwith stress (Spector, 1982; Cooper and Quick, 1999) although there has not been muchresearch on the potential moderating influence of this variable on the relationshipbetween strain and its possible outcomes. LOC is defined as a generalized expectancythat reinforces outcomes in life that are controlled either by one’s own action(internality) or by other forces (externality) (Spector, 1988; Ng et al., 2006)). Individualswho possess an internal LOC believe that they are able to exert control overreinforcements. Individuals who possess an external LOC believe that luck, fate, orother people control reinforcements (Rotter, 1966). Most researchers conceptualize LOCas a continuum from highly external to internal.
Locus of control as an outcome variableLOC has been found to be related to a number of important work outcomes (Ng et al.,2006). For example, Spector (1982) reviewed the theoretical and empirical literature onorganizational implications of LOC and concluded that in general an internal LOCshould be associated with more desirable employee outcomes (e.g. lower turnover,higher performance and greater job satisfaction) than external LOC. These assertionshave been generally supported by other studies (e.g. Cvetanovski and Jex, 1994;Spector and O’Connell, 1994; Fisher, 1995). However, it has been noted that there is aneed to develop domain-specific measures (Phares, 1976). Spector (1988) reported thedevelopment of a LOC measure identified as the work locus of control scale (WLCS)that is specifically concerned with the work domain.
LOC is negatively related to anxiety with externals tending to be more anxious thaninternals (Archer, 1979). With regard to role strain and role ambiguity, internalsperceive less strain in comparison to externals (Gemmill and Heisler, 1972). Researchusing LOC as a moderator variable has tended to generate mixed and inconclusiveresults (Semmer, 1996). Since, knowledge on the impact of WLOC as a moderator ofrelationship between wellbeing and organizational commitment is limited, this studyconsiders the possibility of the existence of such a relationship and hypothesizes that:
Organizationalcommitment
259
H2. WLOC will have a significant moderating effect on the relationship betweenwellbeing and organizational commitment.
More specifically when considering different elements of LOC, it might be reasonableto propose that the moderating effect between wellbeing and commitment will bepositive for externals and negative for internals. Furthermore, as externals are lesscapable than internals of exerting control over their environment they may look formore security, satisfaction and less stress in their job. Internals, on the other hand, mayprefer looking for achievements, gains and rewards in their job.
Conceptual framework for the present studyA mediation model was considered for analysis but was ignored due to a number ofpotential limitations including a lack of evidence of a relation between the independentand dependent variables for mediation to occur, no insight into the effect ofthe supposed mediator when regressing the dependent variable on both theindependent variable and the mediator, and no relation between the mediatorand independent variable. Moreover, according to Baron and Kenny (1986) the effect ofthe independent variable over the dependent would be less when the mediator is addedto the equation. Instead, a moderation model for the relationship was adopted (Baronand Kenny, 1986). We found the moderation model to be more suitable for our studybecause of our focus on studying the relationship between wellbeing and commitmentin the presence of WLOC, rather than the relationship of wellbeing with WLOCdirectly. The conceptual scheme for this study is presented in Figure 1, suggesting thedirect effect of wellbeing on organizational commitment and the moderating effect ofWLOC on the relationship between wellbeing and organizational commitment.
This study makes the assumption that organizational commitment is an importantvariable in the context of the present work scenario post economic liberalization inIndia. To this effect it may be worthwhile to look for some of the variables that maycontribute to organizational commitment of incumbents. With these considerations inmind, measures of wellbeing, work LOC, and organizational commitment were used inthis study. The link between organizational commitment and various effectiveindicators such as turnover and absenteeism are well documented (Mowday et al., 1982;Mathieu and Zajac, 1990). Indeed, the literature suggests that individuals who haveorganizational commitment are less likely to be absent and leave organizationsvoluntarily. The underlying assumption is that wellbeing, or a superior wellbeing willlead to greater commitment, and that the specific relationship between underlyingdimensions would be moderated by WLOC.
Figure 1.The conceptual schemeof the study
Organizationalcommitment
Work locus ofcontrol
Wellbeing
LODJ30,3
260
MethodParticipants and procedureThe data for this paper were collected in 2003 as part of a larger study. The sampleconsisted of 250 male middle level executives from four scooter manufacturing plantsfrom the private sector based in various cities in Northern India. The organizationswere chosen only from North India to control cultural variances. Participants werechosen randomly within each organization from different departments and wereinitially invited to meetings to discuss the process, after which they were given thechoice to participate. As questionnaires were in the main administered during officehours and had the support of both HR and employee representatives, approximately 90percent of those invited to meetings returned completed forms.
Although the scales from the questionnaire were selected from the wider literatureand were in English, they were validated to ensure there fit within an Indian culturalcontext. Employees selected ranged from 25 to 45 years of age, were all male, had spentat least 1 year in the same organization, and the majority were married and had agraduate degree or diploma level education in engineering. The sample does notconsist of female participants due to their limited representation in these organizations.
MeasuresWe examined the three constructs in this study, namely wellbeing, WLOC andorganizational commitment. Self-report measures were used to obtain the data.Organizational commitment was measured using an adapted version of Meyer andAllen’s (1984) organizational commitment questionnaire. Wellbeing was measuredthrough the General Health Questionnaire (GHQ)-12 variant of the GHQ (Goldberg,1972) and LOC was measured through the WLOC questionnaire constructed by Spector(1988). The measures used in this study were borrowed from the wider literatureadapted for the Indian work setting by using exploratory factor analysis. All surveyitems were rated on a 5-point Likert type scale ranging from 1 (true to almost no extent)to 5 (true to a very great extent). The factor analysis results are based on principal axisfactoring and oblique rotations of the SPSS-X statistical analysis package program.The brief description of factors extracted by factor analysis according to the criterionof factor loadings equal to greater than 0.30 and Cronbach’s a reliability coefficientequal to or greater than 0.70 are as follows.
Predictor variableWellbeing was measured through the GHQ (Goldberg, 1972). The GHQ is a measurethat is acknowledged and used extensively worldwide. The GHQ-12 variant was usedfor the purpose of this study as it is reported to have good psychometric properties(Banks et al., 1980). On factor analysis, the scale had yielded two useable factors. Thefirst factor is called sense of accomplishment and Contribution (a ¼ 0.84), that ismeasured through items like “playing a useful part in things” and “feeling reasonablehappy all things considered”. The second factor is called hassle-free existence(a ¼ 0.83) that is measured by items like “lost much sleep over worry” and “thinking ofyourself as a worthless person”.
The present study reported two factors specific to an Indian work context, whichmay be explained by cultural and situational specific variations. The first factor’sstructure perhaps relates to the mental health arising out of a sense of accomplishment
Organizationalcommitment
261
and contribution, indicating a state of existence marked by active attempts on theenvironment on the respondent’s part. In other words it represents positive wellbeing.By comparison, the second factor structure indicated a state of existence on part of therespondent where the mental health may be a function of a relatively laid-back attitudeand much less of acting upon the environment. In other words it represents negativewellbeing. The factor structure clearly indicates that an absence of general illness isnot a sign of positive wellbeing.
Moderator variableThe present study used Spector’s (1988) 16-item WLOC scale that yielded a four factorstructure. These were: luck (a ¼ 0.86), effort (a ¼ 0.87), significant others (a ¼ 0.76)and performance orientation (a ¼ 0.80). Out of these, the first and the third representan external WLOC, whereas the second and fourth represent an internal WLOC. UnlikeSpector’s (1988) original scale, the present work has yielded two sub-scales for eachdimension of internal WLOC and external WLOC. The factor structure of luck includesitems such as “Making money is primarily a matter of luck” and “Promotions are amatter of good fortune”. The factor structure of effort includes items such as “A job iswhat you make of it” and “People are capable of doing their jobs well if they make aneffort”. The factor structure of significant others consists of the following items: “Tomake a lot of money you have to know the right people” and “To get a good job youneed to have family members or friends in high place”. The performance orientationfactor structure includes items like “Promotions are given to employees who performwell on the job”. This scale had only two items.
Criterion variableOrganizational commitment was measured through a 20-item organizationalcommitment questionnaire based on the work of Meyer and Allen (1984). Thequestionnaire yielded four usable factors upon factor analysis that were namely: Senseof Attachment (a ¼ 0.92), conditional continuance commitment (a ¼ 0.84), normativecommitment (a ¼ 0.73) and organizational attraction (a ¼ 0.81).
Unlike Meyer and Allen’s (1984) original scale, the present work has yielded oneextra sub-scale. Out of these four sub-scales, the first and the fourth factors may betaken as representative of affective commitment. A sense of attachment is measured byitems like “I do not feel emotionally attached to the organization” and organizationalattraction is measured by items like “the organization has a great deal of personalmeaning for me”. Conditional continuance commitment is measured by items like “I feelI have too few options to consider leaving the organization”. Normative commitmentwas measured by items like “things were better in days, when people stayed with oneorganization for most of their career”.
The factor analysis has yielded slightly different factor structure for all threemeasures from the original structure. The reason for using exploratory factor analysiswas to test the relative relevance of these scales in the changing work culture of Indianorganizations before using them for regression analysis. Our results provide supportfor the original scales and their importance as measurement tools. The reason forhaving two types of affective commitment in relation to the Indian context may be dueto the cultural values of an Indian in terms of their emotional commitment and also asense of indebtedness towards one’s working organization.
LODJ30,3
262
ResultsThe conceptual scheme (refer to Figure 1) of the present study includes three variables,namely wellbeing, WLOC and organizational commitment. The means, standarddeviations, reliability coefficients and correlations of all the variables are presented inTable I.
It was conjectured that wellbeing will have positive correlation with affective andnormative commitment, negative relationship with conditional continuancecommitment and that the relationship would be moderated by WLOC. The resultsare consistent with our H1. Wellbeing was found to be positively linked with affective(sense of attachment and organizational attraction) and negatively linked withconditional continuance commitment. It should be noted that the GHQ measure ofwellbeing had yield two factors, where as the measures of commitment and WLOC hadyielded four factors each during factor analysis.
Moderated regressionThe results pertaining to Table I show that wellbeing is negatively correlated withWLOC and conditional continuance commitment. However, wellbeing is positivelyrelated to affective commitment (SA & OA) and normative commitment. The tableclearly highlights the need for performing moderating regression analysis of WLOC onthe relationship with wellbeing and organizational commitment. Furthermore, a testwas conducted to identify the relationship between wellbeing and commitment and themoderating effect of WLOC, as well as the overall moderating impact of WLOC on therelationship of wellbeing and organizational commitment using all the dimensions.
The results of the overall moderated regression analysis were found to besignificant (F(3,246) ¼ 7.50, p # 0.01). The relationship between the three variables ishighlighted in Figure 2.
Figure 2 emphasizes the negative impact of wellbeing and WLOC on commitment,however the moderated impact was found to be positively significant suggesting thatwellbeing and WLOC as independent variables do not sufficiently enhance levels ofcommitment. Moreover, they work together and play a critical role in makingemployees more committed to their present work organization.
We utilized moderator regression analysis as the principal method for analyzing thedata (Stone and Hollenbeck, 1984; Aiken and West, 1991). On Step 1, one out of twowellbeing dimensions was entered, on Step 2, one out of four WLOC dimensions wasentered and on Step 3, one dimension of wellbeing as well as one dimension of WLOCand the interaction term (product of wellbeing dimensions and WLOC dimensions)were added to the regression equation. The procedure was repeated for all four-factorsof organizational commitment as well as the combined commitment scale. As a result, atotal of 40 tables (2 £ 4 £ 5) with the interaction term were generated. Results of amoderated multiple regression analysis (MMRA) are presented in Table II.
As is evident from Table II, wellbeing has a positive correlation with organizationalcommitment whereas WLOC has a negative correlation. The moderating regressioncould have generated 40 MMRA tables among different dimensions. However, 11interaction terms turned out to be significant. Overall the results of moderatedregression from Table II demonstrate the significant positive moderating impact ofWLOC between the relationship of wellbeing and organizational commitment(F(3,246) ¼ 7.50, p # 0.01). WLOC and wellbeing explained 6.4 percent of the variance in
commitment. However, both independent variables had a significant negative impacton commitment and explained less than 2 percent of the variance in commitment. Thefact that the moderating impact was found to be positive suggests the importance ofWLOC as a significant moderator. However, as suggested by the data presented inTable II, the “sense of attachment” dimension of organizational commitment has notrevealed a significant relationship with all of the predictor variables.
Specifically, the results pertaining to Table II highlight the relationship between thewellbeing factor “sense of accomplishment and contribution” and the organizationalcommitment factor “conditional continuance commitment” which were moderated bythe WLOC factor “luck”. The overall regression was significant (F(3,246) ¼ 3.51,p # 0.05). A “sense of accomplishment and contribution” was a negative predictor of“conditional continuance commitment” and an external WLOC moderated thisrelationship positively.
The relationship between the GHQ factor “sense of accomplishment andcontribution” and the organizational commitment factor “conditional continuancecommitment” was also moderated by the WLOC factor “significant others”. Theoverall regression was significant (F(3,246) ¼ 6.93, p # 0.01). In this case, a “sense ofaccomplishment and contribution” was a negative predictor of “conditionalcontinuance commitment” and an external WLOC moderated this relationshippositively.
The relationship between the GHQ factor “hassle-free existence” and theorganizational commitment factor “conditional continuance commitment” wasmoderated by the WLOC factor “luck”. The overall regression was significant(F(3,246) ¼ 5.74 p # 0.01). A hassle-free existence was a significant negative predictor of“conditional continuance commitment” and an external WLOC moderated thisrelationship in a significant positive way.
The relationship between the GHQ factor “hassle-free existence” and theorganizational commitment factor “conditional continuance commitment” wasmoderated by the WLOC factor “significant others”. The overall regression wassignificant (F(3,246) ¼ 7.49, p # 0.01). A “hassle-free existence” was a significant
Figure 2.Work locus of controlas a moderator of therelationship between
wellbeing andorganizational
commitment
Work locus ofcontrol
Organizationalcommitment
Wellbeing
Note: *p < 0.01
b = –1.21*Adj. R2 = 0.02
b = 1.98*Adj. R2 = 0.07 b = –2.01*
Adj. R2 = 0.02
Organizationalcommitment
265
Sen
seof
atta
chm
ent
Con
dit
ion
alco
nti
nu
ance
com
mit
men
tN
orm
ativ
eco
mm
itm
ent
Org
aniz
atio
nal
attr
acti
onO
rgan
izat
ion
alco
mm
itm
ent
Pre
dic
tor£
mod
erat
orv
aria
ble
sA
dj.R
2b
Ad
j.R
2b
Ad
j.R
2b
Ad
j.R
2b
Ad
j.R
2b
Wel
lbei
ng
£W
orklocus
ofco
ntr
ol0.
028
20.
240.
064
2.09
**
0.02
21.
32*
0.09
80.
260.
064
1.70
**
Sen
seof
acco
mp
lish
men
tan
dco
ntr
ibu
tion
£lu
ck0.
005
20.
610.
034
0.98
*0.
036
1.17
*0.
095
0.12
0.03
40.
69S
ense
ofac
com
pli
shm
ent
and
con
trib
uti
on£
per
form
ance
orie
nta
tion
0.01
62
0.41
0.01
70.
670.
029
0.57
0.09
42
0.19
0.07
40.
29S
ense
ofac
com
pli
shm
ent
con
trib
uti
on£
sig
nifi
can
tot
her
s0.
006
20.
320.
047
1.13
*0.
034
20.
030.
091
0.48
0.04
30.
74S
ense
ofac
com
pli
shm
ent
con
trib
uti
on£
effo
rt0.
019
20.
292
0.00
60.
460.
018
0.34
0.11
82
0.03
0.05
30.
23H
assl
e-fr
eeex
iste
nce
£lu
ck0.
030
0.20
0.06
11.
2*
*0.
013
1.05
*0.
042
0.02
0.02
61.
12*
*
Has
sle-
free
exis
ten
ce£
per
form
ance
orie
nta
tion
0.04
62
0.24
0.04
20.
88*
0.00
42
0.01
0.07
72
0.92
*0.
062
0.03
0H
assl
e-fr
eeex
iste
nce
£si
gn
ifica
nt
oth
ers
0.03
22
0.13
0.05
10.
83*
0.00
80.
290.
033
0.19
0.01
30.
65H
assl
e-fr
eeex
iste
nce
£ef
fort
0.04
42
0.12
0.01
40.
262
0.01
10.
150.
092
20.
150.
039
0.08
Notes:*p,
0.05
;*
* p,
0.01
;cri
teri
onv
aria
ble
:org
aniz
atio
nal
com
mit
men
t;p
red
icto
rv
aria
ble
:wel
lbei
ng
(GH
Q-1
2);m
oder
ator
var
iab
le:w
orklocus
ofC
ontr
ol;b
corr
esp
ond
sto
the
val
ues
wh
enm
oder
ator
var
iab
lew
asen
tere
dto
the
equ
atio
n
Table II.Moderated multipleregression analysis
LODJ30,3
266
negative predictor of “conditional continuance commitment” and an external WLOCmoderated this relationship in a positive way.
The overall impact of wellbeing and WLOC on the “conditional continuancecommitment” was also found to be positive (F(3,246) ¼ 6.68, p # 0.01). Wellbeing andWLOC was found to be the negative predictors of “conditional continuancecommitment” but WLOC had moderated this relationship in a positive manner.
The relationship between the GHQ factor “sense of accomplishment andcontribution” and the organizational commitment factor “normative commitment”was moderated by WLOC factor “luck”. The overall regression was significant(F(3,246) ¼ 4.13, p # 0.01). A “sense of accomplishment and contribution” wasa significant negative predictor of normative commitment and an external WLOCmoderated this relationship in a positive way.
The relationship between the GHQ factor “hassle-free existence” and theorganizational commitment factor “normative commitment” was moderated by theWLOC factor “luck”. The overall regression was significant (F(3,246) ¼ 2.07, p # 0.10).A “hassle-free existence” was a significant negative predictor of normativecommitment and an external WLOC moderated this relationship in a positive way.
The overall impact of wellbeing and WLOC on the normative commitment was alsofound to be positive (F(3,246) ¼ 2.86, p # 0.05). Wellbeing and WLOC was found to bethe negative predictors of normative commitment but WLOC moderated thisrelationship in a positive manner.
The relationship between the GHQ factor “hassle-free existence” and theorganizational commitment factor “organizational attraction” was moderated by theWLOC factor “performance orientation”. The overall regression was significant(F(3,246) ¼ 7.96, p # 0.01). A “hassle-free existence” was a significant positive predictorof “organizational attraction” and that an internal WLOC moderated this relationshipin a negative way.
The relationship between the GHQ factor “hassle-free existence” and the overallorganizational commitment was moderated by WLOC factor “luck”. The overallregression was significant (F(3,246) ¼ 3.17, p # 0.05). A hassle-free existence was asignificant negative predictor of overall organizational commitment and an externalWLOC moderated this relationship in a positive way.
Finally, perhaps the most important result of this study was that WLOC hada positive moderated impact on the relationship between wellbeing and organizationalcommitment, although wellbeing and WLOC were found to be the significant negativepredictors of organizational commitment and WLOC moderated this relationship ina positive way (see Figure 2). The overall regression was significant (F(3,246) ¼ 6.63,p # 0.10).
DiscussionThe overall results are consistent with the H1. Wellbeing was found to be positivelyrelated with affective and normative commitment and negatively related withcontinuance commitment. The results of moderated multiple regression analysis wereconsistent with our H2. WLOC moderated the relationship between wellbeing andorganizational commitment in a significant manner. Additionally, an external WLOCmoderated the relationship between wellbeing and continuance and normative
Organizationalcommitment
267
commitment positively. An internal WLOC moderated the relationship betweenwellbeing and affective commitment negatively.
The results in Table I suggest that wellbeing has a positive relationship withaffective and normative commitment. The reason behind this could be that healthyemployee’s may still believe in the norms of social responsibility, long-termrelationships and loyalty which, even with the homogenization of cultures throughglobalization are not diminished. Healthy people view things through a positive frameof mind that may incline them to be affectively committed. Specifically our results havealso demonstrated that wellbeing is a negative predictor of conditional continuancecommitment. As suggested within the literature conditional continuance commitmentrepresents a state of affairs where one is “committed” to continuing in an organizationnot simply because one is affectively inclined to remain but because the disadvantagesof leaving would far outweigh the benefits for the individual to take such a step. Hence,this factor of commitment represents a “condition based” form of commitment. Theseresults make sense in so much as a better wellbeing is likely to reduce this type ofcommitment, suggesting that a person with superior wellbeing is not likely to remainin an organization simply due to attached gains with it. Moreover, the results clearlyindicate that from an organizational commitment viewpoint it is important toemphasize an external WLOC for healthy people.
Individuals with an external WLOC have got continuance and normativecommitment to their organization. The moderating effect of luck and significantother as components of an external WLOC makes the relationship between wellbeingand conditional continuance commitment positive. This also make sense when weconsider that an external WLOC, as represented in a belief in luck and significantothers, is likely to reduce the inner strength generated by wellbeing, and hence mightadd to feelings of compulsion regarding the need to continue in the organization. Theresults suggest that factors of wellbeing, namely sense of accomplishment andcontribution and hassle-free existence, are desirable constructs to look for particularlyin incumbents as they reduce “condition based” elements of commitment. However,external WLOC comprising dimensions of luck and significant others as well as theorganizational commitment factor conditional continuance commitment may bedesirable constructs from a practical point of view in retaining valued employees.
The result shows that wellbeing as an independent variable is likely to reducecontinuance and normative commitment. This suggests that employees are unlikely toremain in an organization solely because of fulfillment needs and social compulsions toremain there. An individual with high levels of wellbeing may judge the situation andopportunities in the environment adequately and may feel capable of working with anyorganization. Moreover, wellbeing may not be a causal factor in making employeesattached to their organization. However, the moderating effect of luck, a component ofan external WLOC, makes the relationship between wellbeing and continuance andnormative commitment positive, suggesting that externals are in a way less capable ofcontrolling the external environment and are easily influenced by social demands. Tosome extent, this also make sense in that the externals who believe in luck will losetheir inner strength generated by a sense of accomplishment and contribution andhassle-free existence, and perhaps may contribute to a feeling of obligation andresponsibility to an organization.
LODJ30,3
268
A hassle-free existence has proved to be a positive predictor of organizationalattraction in this study. This finding is worth noting in the sense that hassle-freeexistence will increase affective commitment, the type of commitment related toan internal desire to remain with an organization. This suggests that wellbeinginfluences our affective processes in a positive manner. The moderating effect ofperformance orientation, a component of WLOC influences the relationship betweenwellbeing and organizational attraction negatively, indicating that internals exert greatercontrol over their environment and have direct and a more powerful effect on theorganization. This may be due to the possibility that internals who believe in deliveringperformance have an inner strength and hence less feeling of affective commitment to theorganization. This result is of particular interest because it relates to the only significantresult from the present study with respect to the affective component of commitment,organizational attraction. In this case, the GHQ factor hassle-free existence turned out tobe a significant positive predictor of organizational attraction. Rousseau (1995) hasargued that employees, who are highly committed to their employing organization andprofession, should react as negatively to stressors as those who are less committed,arguing that employees who are highly committed to their employing organization havea higher level of trust and are more loyal. As a result, they are more likely to cope withstressors in a way that does not adversely affect performance. This suggests thatwellbeing and affective commitment are positively related.
We hypothesized that organizational attraction would contribute to the retention ofemployees. Thus, it is important to note that hassle-free existence is something thatmight contribute to enhance organizational attraction. From an interventionperspective, it may be said that management could attempt to developorganizational structures and processes that make the existence of role incumbentshassle-free. Looking at the factor structure of the hassle-free existence component ofthe GHQ it should not be impossible for an organization to contribute by way of strainreduction efforts. Furthermore, it also appears from previous studies (e.g. Spector,1988) that whilst it is suggested that the internality of WLOC is supposed to be a goodthing, it may that too much of it may have an adverse impact. The findings hint at aneed to exercise caution and not to blindly support the desirability of having a workforce with internal WLOC. Internal WLOC, at least as represented in the factorstructure of the performance orientation factor, may not contribute to employeeretention, though it may have other positive organizational outcomes. Hence, so far asemployee retention is concerned within a given organization, keeping tabs on roleincumbents with a high internal WLOC may not be a good idea. Meanwhile externalWLOC can be a desirable concept to retain healthy employees for needs based andnormative reasons. We would suggest that at the very least employees with an externalWLOC may stay for a relatively longer period in the same company.
LimitationsOnly those variables that could be conceived as belonging to the level of the individualrather than the organization or system were included in the study. The merit of thisapproach lies in the fact that individual measures are taken as a matter of routine inmost organizations during various phases such as recruitment and reviews and thatindividual level variables remain under greater control of individuals themselves. Theresults by and large demonstrate how the dynamics of commitment might be
Organizationalcommitment
269
understood in a meaningful way in terms of wellbeing and WLOC of the individual inan organization. However, the results also reveal that the predictive reliability of someof our main variables, particularly wellbeing and WLOC on commitment, was ratherlow. Furthermore, the fact that the affective component of commitment could not befully utilized in this study suggests that there may be a need to go beyond individuallevel variables, and to use multi-level analysis. It goes without saying that affectivecommitment is an important variable and more research with varying designs,approaches and samples is recommended. For instance, there is a possibility that if thegeneral quantum of organizational citizenship behavior were high in an organization, aperson would be less likely to feel alienated or to feel like moving employment.
It should be noted that the respondents of this study came from manufacturingorganizations in India. The problem of employee retention may not be particularlyserious in such industries in the region compared with the Information Technology andCall Center sectors. Consequently, it may be worthwhile for future research to considersamples from industries where turnover is more common in order to makecomparisons. In addition, adopting variables that may be useful for training purposesand interventions could be more conducive from an applied perspective. Indeed, thecontext of the study is an important variable when researching the impact of wellbeing.The Indian manufacturing sector is going through a period of rapid organizationalchange through restructuring and downsizing to compete with global challenges(Chadha et al., 1998). The impact of the process of liberalization and globalization onemployee wellbeing, and consequently their commitment towards organizations, mightbe the subject of further empirical research.
ConclusionsIt is evident from this study that wellbeing predicts conditional continuance andnormative commitment negatively but it becomes a positive predictor when externalWLOC, as represented by luck and significant other, moderates the relationshipbetween the two variables positively. This suggests that individuals who are workingunder conditions where there is wellbeing with externality might have “Continuance”and “Normative” commitment. In addition to this, wellbeing predicts affectivecommitment positively, although an internal WLOC as represented by effortmoderates the relationship between the two variables negatively. This suggests that aninternal WLOC may not be a very admirable concept from a retention perspective.
The emphasis of the present work is on employee retention of which commitment isa component. Commitment has been further broken down into three elements, namelyconditional continuance commitment, normative commitment and organizationalattraction. Although affective commitment seems to be a more desirable concept, froma practical perspective however, any type of commitment may add to employeeretention. This may be normative commitment as a result of role enforcement orcontinuance commitment due to anticipated increased costs associated with leaving.The results indicate the importance of a hassle-free existence for contributing to theaffective component of commitment. It also appears that wellbeing and an externalWLOC diminish conditional continuance and normative commitment in terms of theirmain effects. However, when externality interacts with a positive wellbeing strongly,the relationship becomes positive in terms of both conditional continuance andnormative commitment. This indicates that if either Normative or conditional
LODJ30,3
270
continuance commitment is an issue with an organization, it may do better to focusupon such role incumbents who may have a higher externality of WLOC. Anindividual with an external WLOC may be more sensitive to social demands.Therefore, it may be more convenient on the part of the organization and managementto have the workforce continue in the organization by designing processes and systemsconducive to continuance and normative commitment. Moreover, the provision of awork environment that increases perceptions of a hassle-free existence may also berecommended for encouraging employee retention.
References
Aiken, L.S. and West, S.G. (1991), Multiple Regressions: Testing and Interpreting Interactions,Sage, Newbury Park, CA.
Allen, N.J. and Meyer, J.P. (1990), “The measurement and antecedent of affective, continuance,and normative commitment to organization”, Journal of Occupational Psychology, Vol. 63No. 1, pp. 1-18.
Allen, N.J. and Meyer, J.P. (1996), “Affective, continuance, and normative commitment to theorganization: an examination of construct validity”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 49No. 3, pp. 252-76.
Archer, R.P. (1979), “Relationship between locus of control and anxiety”, Journal of PersonalityAssessment, Vol. 43 No. 6, pp. 617-26.
Banks, M.H., Clegg, C.W., Jackson, P.R., Kemp, N.J., Stafford, E.M. and Wall, T.D. (1980), “The useof general health questionnaire as an indicator of mental health in occupational studies”,Journal of Occupational Psychology, Vol. 53 No. 3, pp. 187-94.
Baron, R.M. and Kenny, D.A. (1986), “The moderator-mediator variable distinction in socialpsychological research: conceptual, strategic and statistical considerations”, Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, Vol. 51 No. 6, pp. 1173-82.
Becker, T.E. and Billings, R.S. (1993), “Profiles of commitment: an empirical test”, Journal ofOrganizational Behavior, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 177-90.
Chadha, R., Pohit, S., Deardorff, A.V. and Stern, R.M. (1998), The Impact of Trade and DomesticPolicy Reforms in India: A CGE Modeling Approach, University of Michigan Press,Ann Arbor, MI.
Cooper, C.L. and Quick, J.C. (1999), Fast Facts – Stress and Strain, Health Press Limited, Oxford.
Cooper, C.L., Dewe, P.J. and O’Driscoll, M.P. (2001), Organizational Stress: A Review and Critiqueof Theory, Research and Application, Sage, Newbury Park, CA.
Coyle-Shapiro, J.A-M., Morrow, C.P. and Kessler, I. (2006), “Serving two organizations: exploringthe employment relationship of contracted employees”, Human Resource Management,Vol. 45 No. 4, pp. 561-83.
Cropanzano, R., Rupp, D.E. and Byrne, Z.S. (2003), “The relationship of emotional exhaustion towork attitudes, job performance, and organizational citizenship behaviors”, Journal ofApplied Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 1, pp. 160-9.
Cvetanovski, J. and Jex, S.M. (1994), “Locus of control of unemployed people and its relationshipto psychological and physical wellbeing”, Work and Stress, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 60-7.
Elloy, D.F. and Smith, C.R. (2003), “Patterns of stress, work-family conflict, role conflict, roleambiguity and overload among dual-career, and single career couples: an Australianstudy”, Cross-Cultural Management, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 55-66.
Organizationalcommitment
271
Fisher, T.G. (1995), “Self-efficacy and locus of control: proposed moderators of the effects ofparticipative decision making”, unpublished Master’s thesis, Central Michigan University,Mount Pleasant, MI.
Gemmill, G.R. and Heisler, W.J. (1972), “Fatalism as a factor in managerial job satisfaction, jobstrain, and mobility”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 25, pp. 241-50.
George, J.M., Reed, T.F., Ballard, K.A., Colin, J. and Fielding, J. (1993), “Contact with AIDSpatients as a source of work-related distress: effects of organizational social support”,Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 157-71.
Goldberg, D. (1972), The Detection of Psychiatric Illness by Questionnaire, Oxford UniversityPress, London.
Griffith, R.W., Hom, P.W. and Gaertner, S. (2000), “A meta-analysis of antecedents and correlatesof employee turnover: update, moderator tests, and research implications for the nextmillennium”, Journal of Management, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 463-88.
Guest, D. and Conway, N. (2004), Employee WellBeing and the Psychological Contract: A ResearchReport, CIPD, London.
Hackett, R.D., Bycio, P. and Hausdorf, P.A. (1994), “Further assessments of Meyer and Allen’s(1991) three component model of organizational commitment”, Journal of AppliedPsychology, Vol. 79 No. 1, pp. 15-23.
Jain, A.K. and Sinha, A.K. (2005), “General health in organizations: relative relevance ofemotional intelligence, trust and organizational support”, International Journal of StressManagement, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 257-73.
Jex, S.M. (1998), Stress and Job Performance: Theory, Research, and Application, Sage, NewburyPark, CA.
Le Fevre, M., Matheny, J. and Kolt, G.S. (2003), “Eustress, distress, and interpretation inoccupational stress”, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 18 No. 7, pp. 726-44.
Lu, L. (1999), “Work motivation, job stress and employees’ wellbeing”, Journal of AppliedManagement Studies, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 61-72.
Mathieu, J.E. and Zajac, D.M. (1990), “A review and meta-analysis of antecedents, correlates, andconsequences of organizational commitment”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 108 No. 2,pp. 171-94.
Meyer, J.P. and Allen, N.J. (1984), “Testing the ‘Side Bet Theory’ of organizational commitment:some methodological considerations”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 69 No. 3,pp. 372-8.
Meyer, J.P. and Allen, N.J. (1991), “A three component conceptualization of organizationalcommitment”, Human Resources Management Review, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 61-89.
Meyer, J.P., Allen, N.J. and Smith, C.A. (1993), “Commitment to organizations and occupations:extension and test of a three components conceptualization”, Journal of Applied Psychology,Vol. 78 No. 4, pp. 538-51.
Meyer, J.P., Irving, P.G. and Allen, N.J. (1998), “Examination of the combined effects of workvalues and early work experiences on organizational commitment”, Journal ofOrganizational Behavior, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 29-52.
Mowday, R., Porter, L. and Steers, R. (1982), Employee-organization Linkages: The Psychology ofCommitment, Absenteeism, and Turnover, Academic Press, New York, NY.
Ng, T.W.H., Sorensen, K.L. and Eby, L.T. (2006), “Locus of control at work: a meta-analysis”,Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 27 No. 8, pp. 1057-87.
LODJ30,3
272
Payne, S.C. and Huffman, A.H. (2005), “A longitudinal examination of the influence of mentoringon organizational commitment and turnover”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 48No. 1, pp. 158-68.
Phares, E.J. (1976), Locus of Control in Personality, General Learning Press, Morristown, NJ.
Potter, P.T., Smith, B.W., Strobel, K.R. and Zautra, A.J. (2002), “Interpersonal-workplace stressorsand wellbeing”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 87 No. 4, pp. 789-96.
Riketta, M. (2002), “Attitudinal organizational commitment and job performance:a meta-analysis”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 257-66.
Robblee, M. (1998), “Confronting the threat of organizational downsizing: coping and health”,unpublished Master’s thesis, Carleton University, Ottawa.
Rotter, J.B. (1966), “Generalized expectations for internal versus external control ofreinforcement”, Psychological Monograph, Vol. 80 No. 1, Whole No. 609, pp. 1-28.
Rousseau, D.M. (1995), Psychological Contracts in Organizations, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Sels, L., Janssens, M. and Van Den Brande, I. (2004), “Assessing the nature of psychologicalcontracts: a validation of six dimensions”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 25 No. 4,pp. 461-88.
Semmer, N. (1996), “Individual differences, work stress, and health”, in Schabracq, M.,Winnubst, J. and Cooper, C. (Eds), Handbook of Work and Health Psychology, Wiley, NewYork, NY, pp. 51-86.
Shields, M.A. and Ward, M. (2001), “Improving nurse retention in the national health service inEngland: the impact of job satisfaction on intentions to quit”, Journal of Health Economics,Vol. 20 No. 5, pp. 677-701.
Shore, L.M., Barksdale, K. and Shore, T.H. (1995), “Managerial perceptions of employeecommitment to the organization”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 38 No. 6,pp. 1593-615.
Spector, P.E. (1982), “Behavior in organizations as a function of employees’ locus of control”,Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 91 No. 3, pp. 482-97.
Spector, P.E. (1988), “Development of work locus of control”, Journal of Occupational Psychology,Vol. 61 No. 4, pp. 335-40.
Spector, P.E. and O’Connell, B.J. (1994), “The contribution of individual dispositions to thesubsequent perceptions of job stressors and job strains”, Journal of Occupational& Organizational Psychology, Vol. 67, pp. 1-11.
Stone, E.F. and Hollenbeck, J.R. (1984), “Some issues associated with the use of moderatedregression”, Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, Vol. 34, pp. 195-213.
Sullivan, S.E. and Arthur, M.B. (2006), “The evolution of the boundaryless career concept:examining physical and psychological mobility”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 69No. 1, pp. 19-29.
Thomas, D.C. and Anderson, N. (1998), “Changes in newcomers’ psychological contracts duringorganizational socialization: a study of recruits entering the British army”, Journal ofOrganizational Behavior, Vol. 19 No. S1, pp. 745-67.
Corresponding authorAjay K. Jain can be contacted at: [email protected]
Organizationalcommitment
273
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected] visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
