EMPLOYEE COMMITMENT ANDORGANIZATIONAL POLICIES
July 2004
David A. Foote
Department of Management and Marketing
Middle Tennessee State University
P.O. Box X062
Murfreesboro, TN 37132
U.S.A.
Tel: 615.898.2022
Fax: 615.898.5308
E-mail:
Scott J. Seipel
Department of Computer Information Systems
Middle Tennessee State University
Murfreesboro, TN 37132
Nancy B. Johnson
Michelle K. Duffy
Gatton College of Business & Economics
University of Kentucky
Lexington, KY 40506-0034
Autobiographical Notes
David Foote is an assistant professor of organizational behavior and human resource management and Scott Seipel is an assistant professor of computer information systems, both in the Jennings A. Jones College of Business at Middle Tennessee State University.
Nancy Johnson is an associate professor of human resource management and Michelle Duffy is an associate professor and Gatton Endowed Research Professorof organizational behavior, both in the School of Management at the Gatton College of Business and Economics at the University of Kentucky.
Keywords: Organizational policies, Commitment, Role clarity, Attitudes, Citizenship behavior
EMPLOYEE COMMITMENT AND ORGANIZATIONAL POLICIES
Research Paper
Purpose
To propose new commitment construct – policy commitment, and to examine the influence of attitude, role clarity, and role conflict on policy commitment, as well as the influence of policy commitment on citizenship behavior.
Design/methodology/approach
Using a self-report questionnaire and a sample of 148 workers in a rural manufacturing plant,we use structural equation modeling techniques to examine the effects of attitude, role clarity, and role conflict on policy commitment, as well as the effect of policy commitment on the conscientiousness and civic virtue dimensions of citizenship behavior.
Findings
Structural equation modeling (SEM) revealed that attitudes and role clarity positively influenced policy commitment, and that policy commitment positively influenced conscientiousness and civic virtue.
Research limitations/implications
Our sample is relatively small (N = 148) and largely homogeneous, which may limit its generalizability. A number of additional research opportunities are suggested in the study, including those designed to further explore the nature of the policy commitment construct and those designed to examine its relationship with other known commitment antecedents and outcomes. Implications for practitioners and researchers are suggested.
Originality/value
Commitment in organizations has long been conceptualized as acceptance of organizational goals and dedicated effort on behalf of the organization itself. However, we believe this conceptualization of commitment may be considerably less salient in today’s highly mobile work environment. This study introduces the construct of policy commitment, a conceptualization of commitment as belief in and proactive endorsement of specific courses of action (i.e., policies) that embody the values resident within organizations.
Policy Commitment 1
Introduction
The concept of commitment in organizations has generated a great deal of interest over the past two decades. Researchers have identified organizational commitment as both an antecedent and a consequence of any number of work-related variables. A variety of studies presents organizational commitment as a consequence of personal variables, role states and work environment variables and as predictors of absenteeism, performance and turnover (Mathieu & Zajac, 1990). The large majority of these studies define organizational commitment as commitment targeted specifically toward the organization as an administrative entity, in line with Porter, Steers, Mowday and Boulian’s (1974) concept of organizational commitment as: (1) the belief in and acceptance of organizational goals and objectives, (2) the willingness to work hard on behalf of the organization, and (3) definite intentions to remain in the organization.
However, as our society becomes increasingly mobile and loyalty between employees and their organizations dissolves, and mergers and acquisitions proceed at record pace,simply keeping track of who the ‘organization’ is may present a daunting task to many employees, particularly at lower levels in the organization. In such an environment, employees may find it difficult to develop any depth of commitment to the “organization” as an abstract entity. Organizational commitment, then, may not suffice to describe employee loyalty in years to come.
This study draws on Lewin’s (1951) field theory in seeking to develop initial theoretical and empirical support for the concept of policy commitment, which we define as belief in and proactive endorsement of specific major organizational initiatives, or courses of action, based on perceived congruence between personal values and organizational values as they are expressed through organizational policies. The purpose of our study is to examine the influence of attitude, role clarity, and role conflict on policy commitment, as well as the influence of policy commitment on citizenship behavior, using structural equation modeling (SEM) techniques. Consistent with Rao and Miller (1971), we use employees’ commitment to the implementation of a team-based structure as a proxy for policy commitment. Our findings contribute to the research on commitment in organizations by further clarifying the relationship between the attitudes and perceived roles of employees with respect to organizational policies, and the tendency of employees to exhibit extra-role behaviors on behalf of those policies.
Literature review
Field theory
The conceptualization of policy commitment has its roots in Lewin’s (1951) field theory, in which the proximity and salience of environmental elements play a substantial role in determining individuals’ reactions to their environments. Field theory has found applications in such diverse disciplines as physics, psychology, and business (e.g., Douglas & Nekrasov, 2001; Busemeyer & Townsend, 1993; Riordan & Riordan, 1993). In sociology, field theory is described as a conceptual framework within which the psychological forces that impact social actors at any point in time can be better understood. According to Lewin (1951), an individual’s values determine which forces have a positive or negative utility, and the combination of positive and negative forces impacting on individuals yields a net utility for any prospective behavior. Moreover, behavior is affected only by those forces that are present and active for individuals at any given moment. Diamond (1992) notes that expectations of which [public] policies will succeed are dependent on understanding people’s motivations, or the positive and negative (as determined by their values) psychological forces that affect their behavior relative to those policies. Similarly, management’s expectations of which organizational policies will succeed is likely to be dependent on understanding the positive and negative psychological forces acting on their employees with regard to those policies.
Policy commitment
The concept of salience – the clarity and prominence of an object – represents an important aspect of rational choice (Diamond, 1992). We believe specific organizational policies may represent a particularly salient target for employee commitment through their structured courses of action that serve to focus and crystallize employees’ thinking and behavior. Organizational policies are specific elements of the work environment that directly impact employees’ daily work activities,their interactions with coworkers, and their employer-employee relationships. As explicit articulations of implicit credos (actual or intended), organizationalpolicies embody corporate values thatguide the decision making of managers and supervisors and shape employees’ work experiences, immediately affecting their behaviors, work relationships, compensation, and sense of security.
For example, an organization that places high value on the productivity of its employees is likely to implement policies that encourage high productivity and to closely monitor and reward employees’ work rate performance. Managers and supervisors will tailor their decision making toward maximization of productivity, and will interact with subordinates on an ongoing basis within that context. Thus, the emphasis on productivity that results from such policies shapes employees’ behavior on a daily basis, and serves as a constant reminder that the organization values productivity. At any given moment during work hours, it is likely that the effects of the productivity policy will be present and active for employees, and that the positive or negative forces they associate with that policy, based on their own values, will determine their commitment to achieving high levels of productivity.
Organizations implement a wide variety of policies to govern their internal and external business activities. The kinds of policies to which we refer in this article are major organizational initiatives that impact a majority of the organization’s work force. Examples of such policies include downsizing, relocating, restructuring, technological upgrades, zero tolerance drug and alcohol initiatives, compensation and promotion plans, on-site educational programs and daycare facilities, quality-focused initiatives, and employee participation programs.
Rao and Miller (1971: 82) note that a “variable used as a substitute for the theoretically specified variable is called a proxy variable.” For example, they suggest that “rainfall” can be used as a proxy for “weather,” since one cannot assess “weather” using any one measure. Similarly, organizational policies can encompass a wide variety of issues, as we have noted previously in describing the type of policies to which our definition of policy commitment refers. Accordingly, it is necessary to select a specific policy for measurement and use that policy as a proxy for policy commitment.
Employees’ commitment to the implementation of a team-based structure in an organization with a deeply entrenched and traditional hierarchical structure serves as an excellent proxy for the type of corporate policy to which we refer. Hierarchical, or more mechanistic structures embody certain values such as authority, rigidly defined roles and risk-avoidance (Oldham & Hackman, 1981), whereas team-based, or more organic structures embody values such as cooperation, flexibility, responsibility and innovation (Magjuka & Baldwin, 1991). According to field theory, people approach objects with positive utility and avoid objects with negative utility (Diamond, 1992) and,as previously noted, the positive or negative utility of objects is determined by individuals’ own values (Lewin, 1951). Practically speaking, then, those employees whose own value set more closely agrees with the values incarnate in the concept of a team-based structure will find it easier to internalize the new initiative, and will exhibit a more willing acceptance of the new structure and more proactively support its implementation. The remaining employees are likely to either tolerate the initiative or gravitate to another employer who embraces a more hierarchical organizational structure congruent with their value set.
Research model and hypotheses
Figure 1 shows the research model for this study, in which attitude and role clarity are expected to positively influence policy commitment, and role conflict is expected to negatively influence policy commitment. Furthermore, policy commitment is expected to positively influence citizenship behavior. The expected relationships depicted in the figure are set forth in the following section.
------
Take in Figure 1
------
Attitude
Campbell (1963) argued that attitudes are learned as a result of experiences with a particular target, and Fishbein (1967) noted that attitudes derive from one’s beliefs about attitude objects. Script theory (Abelson, 1976, 1981) informs us that individuals’ experiences with attitude objects generate reactive scripts, or schemas, such that individuals form generalized tendencies toward future encounters with the same object. Attitude has been defined as a psychological tendency to evaluate a particular target either favorably or disfavorably (Eagly & Chaiken, 1993). The evaluations one makes then become a part of the ‘psychological past’ that constitutes an important force acting upon that person in the present moment of time (Lewin, 1951). Thus, an employee’s prior experiences with a given policy play an important role in the employee’s present beliefs about the value and efficacy of that policy. If those past experiences were positive, it is reasonable to expect that the employee’s attitude toward that policy will be positive in the future. In this case, employees whose attitude toward self-directed teams is positive should experience higher levels of commitment to the introduction of the team concept in their organization.
Consequently,
H1: Attitude toward self-directed work teamswill be positively related to commitment
to implementation of a team concept.
Role Clarity
Numerous studies indicate role states as antecedents to organizational commitment (Mathieu & Zajac, 1990). Role clarity refers to the extent to which employees possess a precise understanding of their fit and function within a given context. Employees who clearly understand their organizational roleshave been found to experience less anxiety and higher levels of commitment (Allen et al., 2001). Similarly, employees who clearly understand their roles, or functions, with respect to organizational policies, should exhibit higher levels of commitment toward those policies. This is consistent with field theory as well, in that theclarity of expectations employees hold concerning a specific policy affects the level of uncertainty with which they view that policy, and ultimately, their behavior with respect to that policy (Lewin, 1951). Specifically, we expect that employees who clearly understand their roles to be more supportive of and committed to the implementation of a team concept. Therefore,
H2: Role clarity will be positively related to commitment to implementation of a team
concept.
Role Conflict
Role conflict isa negative role state in which two or more expectations are placed on an employee such that meeting one expectation necessarily prevents the employee from meeting the other (Rizzo, House, & Lirtzman, 1970). Role conflict has previously been shown to be positively related to job dissatisfaction and psychological strain (Schaubroeck, Cotton, & Jennings, 1989), and less satisfying work experiences suggest lower levels of commitment (Allen & Meyer, 1990). Further, role conflict increases the degree of uncertainty with which employees view a given policy, negatively affecting their behavior relative to that policy, again consistent with field theory (Lewin, 1951). Thus, employees who experience role conflict should exhibit lower levels of commitment. In this study, we expect employees who experience conflicting requirements associated with their roles to be less committed tothe implementation of a team concept. Thus,
H3: Role conflict will be negatively related tocommitment to implementation of a team
concept.
Citizenship behavior
As we have noted, individuals’ values determine which forces have positive or negative utility for them, and the combination of positive and negative forces impacting on individuals yields a net utility for any prospective behavior (Lewin, 1951). Internalization, as a form of psychological attachment, results from perceived congruence between personal values and organizational values (Kelman, 1958). O’Reilly and Chatman (1986) found a strong correlation between internalization and prosocial organizational behaviors involving the expenditure of personal (i.e., extra-role) time and effort. Organ (1988) defined organizational citizenship behavior as discretionary organizational behavior not explicitly recognized by the formal reward system, and behavior that isprosocial (i.e., it promotes the effective functioning of the organization).
Organizational citizenship behavior is generally considered to consist of five dimensions: altruism, courtesy, sportsmanship, conscientiousness, and civic virtue (Organ, 1988). According to Organ (1988), altruism and courtesy are helping behaviors directed toward a specific person, andsportsmanship is complaining behavior (or the lack thereof) directed toward supervisors. However, conscientiousness involves behaviors that go “above and beyond” the requirements of both formal and informal rules, and “civic virtue implies a sense of involvement in what policies are adopted” (Organ, 1988: 12). Consequently, because our study focuses on commitment to organizational policies, our interest lies in the conscientiousness and civic virtue dimensions of citizenship behavior. We expect that members who exhibit extra effort (i.e., discretionary heightened performance) aimed at the success of organizational policies resulting from commitment based on internalization will engage in extra-role behaviors that support the tenets of those policies. In this study, employees’ level of commitment to implementation of the team concept should be positively related to conscientiousness and civic virtue citizenship behaviors. Thus,
H4a: Commitment to implementation of a team concept will be positively related to
conscientiousness.
H4b: Commitment to implementation of a team concept will be positively related to
civic virtue.
Factor structure of policy commitment
The structure of commitment constructs varies somewhat within the literature. Angle and Perry (1981) found support for a two-dimensional model of commitment that included affective (commitment based on desire) and continuance (commitment based on lack of acceptable alternatives) components. Meyer, Allen, and Smith (1993) asserted a three-component conceptualization of commitment for both organizational commitment and their proposed occupational commitment construct. The three dimensions were affective commitment, continuance commitment, and normative commitment (commitment based on obligations). Blau (2003) extended Meyer et al.’s conceptualization of commitment to four dimensions by separating the continuance dimension into two components: accumulated costs and limited alternatives.
The notion that individuals tend to translate the forces acting upon them at any given time into affective terms is an important element of field theory (Diamond, 1992). Because congruence between employees’ personal value sets and the values embedded in organizational policies is central to our definition of policy commitment, and because individuals’ values determine which forces have a positive or negative affectivity (Lewin, 1951), we expect policy commitment to be unidimensional and affective in nature.
Research methodology
Sampling and data collection
The study population for this research consisted of production workers and lower-level supervisors at a rural, Midwestern U.S. industrial plant. The company had been operating more than 30 years, and was a unionized plant with a strongly embedded hierarchical structure. Participation in the study was optional and no identifying information was obtained, thus assuring anonymity to participants. Questionnaires were distributed to respondents and completed on site in the presence of the lead researcher, then returned directly to him. Of the 248 employees at the plant, 154 participated and 148 surveys were usable, for a response rate of 59.7 percent.
Measures
Demographic data included age, sex, race, and education level. Composite reliabilities for the study constructs were calculated as (square of the summation of the factor loadings) / {(square of the summation of the factor loadings) + (summation of the corresponding error terms)}. This measure of the internal consistency of the constructs allows for differing factor loadings (Bagozzi & Yi, 1988). Bagozzi and Yi (1988) suggest a minimum of 0.60 for the composite reliability. Attitude was measured with two items (“How do you feel about your prior work experience with self-directed work teams?” and “How did you feel about self-directed work teams before you became involved with them at your current employer?”). The composite reliability for this measure was .83.