1 / 39

Employee Commitment in the Workplace: Examination of Change Processes

Employee Commitment in the Workplace: Examination of Change Processes. Kathleen Bentein May 2002. Organizational Commitment. A psychological state that characterizes an employee’s relationship with the organization

kathie
Download Presentation

Employee Commitment in the Workplace: Examination of Change Processes

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Employee Commitment in the Workplace:Examination of Change Processes Kathleen Bentein May 2002

  2. Organizational Commitment • A psychological state • that characterizes an employee’s relationship with the organization • which has implications for the employee’s intention to remain with the organization • Important evolution: From unidimensional to multidimensional perspectives… • The most frequently applied model: Meyer & Allen (1991; 1997)

  3. Dimensions of Organizational Commitment • Affective (AC) • Normative (NC) • Continuance (CC) Meyer & Allen (1991; 1997)

  4. Dimensions of Organizational Commitment • Affective (AC) • Normative (NC) • Continuance (CC) Meyer & Allen (1991; 1997) McGee & Ford (1987)

  5. Dimensions of Organizational Commitment • Affective (AC) • Normative (NC) • High Sacrifice (HS) • Low Alternatives (LA) Meyer & Allen (1991; 1997) McGee & Ford (1987)

  6. Dimensions of Organizational Commitment • Affective (AC) • Normative (NC) • High Sacrifice (HS) • Low Alternatives (LA) All dimensions simultaneously…

  7. Purpose of this study • No research paradigm to date has successfully modeled or operationalized a process truly representing a concomitant existence of the four Allen and Meyer dimensions across time. • It has also been assumed that change in commitment across time will result in a change in turnover intention across time, and that the change in turnover intention will be associated with actual turnover behavior. But this assumption has never truly been tested. WHY? Researchers were not able to correctly model change statistically

  8. Purpose of this study Using Latent Growth Modeling (LGM)  To build change into commitment dimensions • Concomitant existence of the four Allen and Meyer dimensions across time. • Change in commitmentchange in turnover intentionactual turnover behavior.

  9. Cov IS - CH Change - AC Initial Status - AC Affective Commit. Time 1 Affective Commit. Time 2 Affective Commit. Time 3 … … … It.63 It.13 It.62 It.61 It.12 It.11 Basic form of a Second Order Factor (SOF) Latent Growth Model (LGM)

  10. Cov IS - CH Change - AC Initial Status - AC Affective Commit. Time 1 Affective Commit. Time 2 Affective Commit. Time 3 … … … It.63 It.13 It.62 It.61 It.12 It.11 …An augmented SOF LGM Turnover Intention

  11. Affective Commit. Initial Status Change Turnover Intention Normative Commit. Turnover Behavior Initial Status Initial Status Change Change High Sacrifice Initial Status Change Low Alternatives Initial Status Change

  12. + 3 months + 3 months + 9 months Time 1 AC, NC, HS, LA + Turn. Intent. Time 2 AC, NC, HS, LA + Turn. Intent. Time 3 AC, NC, HS, LA + Turn. Intent. Time 4 Turnover Method: Procedure & Sample • Procedure: longitudinal study • Sample: 330 employees (Alumni)

  13. Method: Measures Organizational Commitment: • Affective Commitment - AC (6 items) Example: “I really feel that I belong in this organization” • Normative Commitment - NC (6 items) Example: “It would not be morally right for me to leave this organization now” • High Sacrifice - HS (3 items) Example: “I would not leave this organization because of what I would stand to loose” • Low Alternatives - LA (3 items) Example: “I have no choice but to stay with this organization”

  14. Method: Measures Organizational Commitment: 18 items (6 AC, 6 NC, 3 HS, 3 LA) Turnover Intention (TI): 2 items “ I often think about quitting this organization ” “ I intend to search for a position with another employer within the next year ”

  15. Method: Measures Organizational Commitment: 18 items (6 AC, 6 NC, 3 HS, 3 LA) Turnover Intention (TI): 2 items Turnover: Stayers were rated as 1 while Voluntary leavers were rated as 2. The percentage of turnover after Time 3 was 13%.

  16. All items were anchored with a 5-point Likert-type scale 1 = strongly disagree 5 = strongly agree to Method: Measures Organizational Commitment: 18 items (6 AC, 6 NC, 3 HS, 3 LA) Turnover Intention (TI): 2 items Turnover:stayers were rated as 1 /voluntary leavers rated as 2

  17. Method: Data Analysis • Measurement invariance • Latent Growth Modeling (LGM) analyses • Univariate SOF LGM analyses The form of the growth trajectory for each variable • Multivariate SOF LGM model The relationships between the initial status and change variables across the four dimensions

  18. Turnover Intention Turnover Behavior Initial Status Change Affective Commit. Initial Status Change Normative Commit. Initial Status Change High Sacrifice Initial Status Change Low Alternatives Initial Status Change

  19. Method: Data Analysis • Measurement invariance • Latent Growth Modeling (LGM) analyses • Univariate SOF LGM analyses The form of the growth trajectory for each variable • Multivariate SOF LGM model The relationships between the initial status and change variables across the four dimensions • Augmented multivariate SOF LGM model The relationships between commitment dimensions and outcomes

  20. Turnover Intention Turnover Behavior Initial Status Change Affective Commit. Initial Status Change Normative Commit. Initial Status Change High Sacrifice Initial Status Change Low Alternatives Initial Status Change

  21. Method: Data Analysis • Measurement invariance • Latent Growth Modeling (LGM) analyses • Univariate SOF LGM analyses The form of the growth trajectory for each variable • Multivariate SOF LGM model The relationships between the initial status and change variables across the four dimensions • Augmented multivariate SOF LGM model The relationships between commitment dimensions and outcomes

  22. Growth Parameters Estimates The optimal form of change for each construct that must be carried into the remaining analyses: • AC: a linear decreasing trajectory (Cov IS-CH = -.04**) • NC: a linear decreasing trajectory (Cov IS-CH = -.09*) • HS: a flat trajectory • LA: a flat trajectory • TI: a linear increasing trajectory (Cov IS-CH = -.01 NS)

  23. Affective Commit. Initial Status Change Turnover Intention Normative Commit. Turnover Behavior Initial Status Initial Status Change Change High Sacrifice Initial Status Change Low Alternatives Initial Status Change

  24. Affective Commit. Initial Status Change Turnover Intention Normative Commit. Turnover Behavior Initial Status Initial Status Change Change Low Alternatives Initial Status Change High Sacrifice Initial Status

  25. Affective Commit. Initial Status Change Turnover Intention Normative Commit. Turnover Behavior Initial Status Initial Status Change Change High Sacrifice Initial Status Low Alternatives Initial Status

  26. Affective Commit. Initial Status Change Turnover Behavior Normative Commit. Initial Status Turnover Intention Change Initial Status High Sacrifice Change Initial Status Low Alternatives Initial Status

  27. Affective Commit. Turnover Intention Initial Status Turnover Behavior Initial Status Change Change Normative Commit. Initial Status Change High Sacrifice Initial Status Low Alternatives Initial Status Examination of the Interplay among the Commitment Dimensions across Time

  28. Affective Commit. Initial Status Parameter 1 2 3 4 5 Change 1. Initial S - AC Normative Commit. 2. Change - AC -.32** Initial Status 3. Initial S - NC .46*** -.36*** Change 4. Change - NC -.27** .67*** -.37** High Sacrifice 5. Initial S - HS .25*** .16 .13* .06 Initial Status 6. Initial S - LA -.28*** .17 -.12* .06 .39*** Low Alternatives Initial Status Examination of the Interplay among the Commitment Dimensions across Time

  29. Affective Commit. Initial Status Parameter 1 2 3 4 5 Change 1. Initial S - AC Normative Commit. 2. Change - AC -.32** Initial Status 3. Initial S - NC .46*** -.36*** Change 4. Change - NC -.27** .67*** -.37** High Sacrifice 5. Initial S - HS .25*** .16 .13* .06 Initial Status 6. Initial S - LA -.28*** .17 -.12* .06 .39*** Low Alternatives Initial Status Examination of the Interplay among the Commitment Dimensions across Time

  30. Affective Commit. Initial Status Parameter 1 2 3 4 5 Change 1. Initial S - AC Normative Commit. 2. Change - AC -.32** Initial Status 3. Initial S - NC .46*** -.36*** Change 4. Change - NC -.27** .67*** -.37** High Sacrifice 5. Initial S - HS .25*** .16 .13* .06 Initial Status 6. Initial S - LA -.28*** .17 -.12* .06 .39*** Low Alternatives Initial Status Examination of the Interplay among the Commitment Dimensions across Time

  31. Affective Commit. Change patterns of AC and NC strongly interrelated Initial Status Parameter 1 2 3 4 5 Change 1. Initial S - AC Normative Commit. 2. Change - AC -.32** Initial Status 3. Initial S - NC .46*** -.36*** Change 4. Change - NC -.27** .67*** -.37** High Sacrifice 5. Initial S - HS .25*** .16 .13* .06 Initial Status 6. Initial S - LA -.28*** .17 -.12* .06 .39*** Low Alternatives Initial Status Examination of the Interplay among the Commitment Dimensions across Time

  32. Affective Commit. Initial Status Parameter 1 2 3 4 5 Change 1. Initial S - AC Normative Commit. 2. Change - AC -.32** Initial Status 3. Initial S - NC .46*** -.36*** Change 4. Change - NC -.27** .67*** -.37** High Sacrifice 5. Initial S - HS .25*** .16 .13* .06 Initial Status 6. Initial S - LA -.28*** .17 -.12* .06 .39*** Low Alternatives Initial Status Examination of the Interplay among the Commitment Dimensions across Time

  33. Affective Commit. Change in AC and NC independent of HS and LA Initial Status Parameter 1 2 3 4 5 Change 1. Initial S - AC Normative Commit. 2. Change - AC -.32** Initial Status 3. Initial S - NC .46*** -.36*** Change 4. Change - NC -.27** .67*** -.37** High Sacrifice 5. Initial S - HS .25*** .16 .13* .06 Initial Status 6. Initial S - LA -.28*** .17 -.12* .06 .39*** Low Alternatives Initial Status Examination of the Interplay among the Commitment Dimensions across Time

  34. Affective Commit. Turnover Intention Initial Status Turnover Behavior Initial Status Change Change Normative Commit. Initial Status Change High Sacrifice Initial Status Low Alternatives Initial Status Examination of the Structural Effects of Growth Parameters on Outcomes

  35. Affective Commit. The primary drivers for the increase in TI were the declines in AC and NC Turnover Intention Initial Status Turnover Behavior Initial Status Change Change Normative Commit. Initial Status Change High Sacrifice IS - AC CH - AC IS - NC CH -NC IS - HS IS - LA IS - TI CH - TI Initial Status Initial S - TI -.42*** -.16** -.31*** .10* Low Alternatives Change - TI .09 -.74** -.12 -.43* -.22* -.05 Initial Status Turnover .30*** .42***

  36. Affective Commit. Change in TI strongly associated with turnover Turnover Intention Initial Status Turnover Behavior Initial Status Change Change Normative Commit. Initial Status Change High Sacrifice IS - AC CH - AC IS - NC CH -NC IS - HS IS - LA IS - TI CH - TI Initial Status Initial S - TI -.42*** -.16** -.31*** .10* Low Alternatives Change - TI .09 -.74** -.12 -.43* -.22* -.05 Initial Status Turnover .30*** .42***

  37. Conclusion • Successfully isolating change -> a more accurate picture • as to how the dimensions are simultaneously processed by individuals • Change only on AC and NC, HS and LA more stable. • Change in AC and NC strongly interrelated. At the core of both AC and NC is sets of attributes that are more personnal in nature and very sensitive and responsive to organizational events. • Change in AC and NC independent of HS and LA. This might advocate against a rationalization process.

  38. Conclusion • Successfully isolating change -> a more accurate picture • as to how the dimensions are simultaneously processed by individuals • as to how shifts in the processing impact important employee behaviors - IS-TI and CH-TI dissociated from one another - positive association between IS and CH for AC and NC - primary drivers for CH-TI = CH-AC and CH-NC - CH-TI = strong predictor of turnover behavior  Reducing turnover must be a sustained effort over time.

  39. Conclusion The present study… • advances our knowledge of the commitment dimensions • represents a contribution to the comprehension of the LGM methodology

More Related