Commitment in a changing work of work

Canadian Psychology, Feb-May 1998 by Meyer, John P, Allen, Natalie J, Topolnytsky, Laryssa

Abstract

The Canadian workplace is undergoing extensive changes that have the potential to alter dramatically the psychological commitments that employees experience with regard to their work. The purpose of this article is to examine the interplay between these changes and employee commitment. We begin by outlining a well-established three-component model of commitment and identifying some of the changes taking place in the world of work. The potential impact of these changes on employee commitment is then discussed with respect to three selected themes: changes in the nature of employees' commitment to the organization, changes in the focus of employees' commitment, and the multiplicity of employer-employee relationships within organizations. Finally, we discuss the implications of the changes in commitment for both practitioners and researchers within the field of I-O psychology.

There are major changes taking place in the political, economic, and societal climate in Canada and throughout the developed world. These changes are having a tremendous impact on the world of work and how organizations do business. Among the things affected by organizational attempts to adapt to these changes is their relationship with employees. In this article, we discuss the changing nature of this relationship with specific focus on the impact on employee commitment. In light of this discussion, we offer suggestions as to how organizations might better manage their relationships with employees, and provide an agenda for future research by I-O psychologists. To begin, however, we provide a brief overview of what we currently know about the nature, development, and consequences of employee commitment.

Commitment in the Workplace

Theory and research on workplace commitment is most developed in the area of employee commitment to organizations (Morrow & McElroy, 1993). Until relatively recently, organizational commitment was viewed as a unidimensional construct, but there was little consensus on the nature of the construct (Meyer & Allen, 1991). Today, it is well recognized that employees' commitment to the organization can take different forms (e.g., Allen & Meyer, 1990; O'Reilly & Chatman, 1986). Allen and Meyer (1990), for example, identified three common themes among the uni-dimensional conceptualizations of commitment. The first, which they labelled affective commitment, is characterized by an emotional attachment to, identification with, and involvement in the organization. The second, continuance commitment, reflects a perceived cost associated with discontinuing employment. Finally, normative commitment consists of a belief that it is one's moral obligation to remain with the organization. Allen and Meyer argued that a more complete understanding of an employee's relationship with an organization is achieved by recognizing that he or she might experience all three of these forms of commitment to varying degrees.

Although there are a variety of factors that have the potential to contribute to the development of affective, continuance, and normative commitment, including individual differences, the strongest influences tend to be situational (Meyer & Allen, 1997). Affective commitment appears to be strengthened by work experiences that contribute to employees' "comfort" in the organization (e.g., good interpersonal relations; role clarity) as well as their sense of "competence" and self-worth (e.g., participation; feedback; challenge). Continuance commitment increases as a function of actions or decisions, in or outside the workplace, that make the retention of valued assets (e.g., company benefits; status in the community) contingent on their continued employment in the organization. Normative commitment is influenced by familial/cultural or organizational socialization experiences that emphasize the appropriateness of continued service, or by the receipt of benefits from the organization (e.g., investments in education or training) that create a sense of obligation to reciprocate.

Common among the three forms of commitment is the fact that they tie the individual to the organization and make leaving less likely. Beyond this, however, Meyer and Allen (1991, 1997) argued that the consequences of affective, continuance, and normative commitment can be quite different. Because of their attachment to, and sense of identity with, the organization, employees with strong affective commitment are likely to behave in a way that they view as being in the organization's best interest This also tends to be true of those with a strong normative commitment, but the effect is not as strong. Those who are tied to the organization primarily by continuance commitment, on the other hand, might be motivated to do little more than is required to maintain employment (see Allen & Meyer, 1996, for a review of supporting evidence).

An even more recent development in the commitment literature is the recognition that employees develop commitments not only to the organization, but also to various constituencies within (e.g., work, supervisor, team) or outside (e.g., union, profession, client) the organization (e.g., Becker, 1992; Reichers, 1985). This too has important implications for the understanding of organizational behaviour. Employees who are relatively uncommitted to the organization might nevertheless perform effectively because of a commitment to the work group, profession, or clients. Indeed, there is evidence to show that work behaviour can be explained more fully by taking into account employees' commitments to multiple constituencies (e.g., Becker & Billings, 1993; Cohen, 1993; Meyer, Allen, & Smith, 1993).