1 / 38

Christian Vandenberghe HEC Montréal

Organizational commitment and turnover: Clarifying the role of perceived sacrifices and employment alternatives. Christian Vandenberghe HEC Montréal. The Three-Component Model.

holleb
Télécharger la présentation

Christian Vandenberghe HEC Montréal

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. Organizational commitment and turnover: Clarifying the role of perceived sacrifices and employment alternatives Christian Vandenberghe HEC Montréal

  2. The Three-Component Model • Affective commitment (AC): « employees’ emotional attachment to, identification with, and involvement in the organization » • Normative commitment (NC): « feeling of obligation to continue employment » • Continuance commitment (CC): « refers to an awareness of the costs associated with leaving » Meyer & Allen (1991, p. 67)

  3. The Three-Component Model (cont’d) • The commonalities among the components are that (a) they characterize the employee’s relationship with the organization and (b) have implications for the decision to stay/leave the organization Meyer & Allen (1991, p. 67)

  4. The Three-Component Model (cont’d) • In an attempt to extend the model, Meyer and Herscovitch (2001) stated that • « commitment is a force that binds an individual to a course of action to one or more targets » (p. 301) • « the mind-set accompanying commitment can take varying forms including desire [AC], perceived cost [CC], or obligation [NC] to continue a course of action » (p. 308)

  5. The Three-Component Model (cont’d) • The mind-sets of desire and obligation seem to fit in nicely the conceptual domain of AC and NC, respectively • In contrast, the mind-set of perceived cost doesn’t seem to be captured appropriately by the current measure of CC: • Evidence has been reported that CC subsumes two sub-components, one reflecting « the role of available alternatives in the decision to remain on one’s job » (LA) and the other referring to the « personal sacrifice that would result from leaving the organization » (HS) (McGee & Ford, 1987, p. 639) • Only HS seems to fit the notion of perceived cost associated with commitment

  6. Development Mechanisms • AC develops as a result of experiences that reflect social exchange processes between the organization and the employee (e.g., POS and favorable job conditions) • NC develops as a result of the organization’s eliciting employees’ norm of reciprocity or of creating a feeling of debt (e.g., POS, promotion opportunities, salary efforts)

  7. Development Mechanisms (cont’d) • CC develops as a result of the investments (side-bets) made voluntarily or not in the organization • HS (cost) should be explained by passive investments (e.g., captured by proxy measures such as job tenure, salary level, and fringe benefits) and active investments (personal efforts on the job that create a cost in case of leaving: psychological empowerment)

  8. Development Mechanisms (cont’d) • LA should develop as a result of the lack of transferability of employees’ skills to other organizations • Also, because LA is perceptual, it should be influenced by personality traits that reflect a lack of confidence in one’s knowledge, skills, and abilities (e.g., high external locus of control) or that induce a pessimistic view of the future (e.g., low positive affectivity)

  9. Organizational Commitment and Turnover • Each component is supposed to reduce the likelihood of turnover but for different reasons (Meyer & Allen, 1991) • However, within CC, only HS may be seen as a form of attitudinal commitment • Although LA has been recently treated as an antecedent to HS (Powell & Meyer, 2004), it may also play a moderating role in the commitment-turnover relationship

  10. Interaction Effects on Intended and Actual Turnover • Somers (JOOP, 1995): • Test of the three-component model of organizational commitment within a sample of nurses from a large hospital in the U.S. • AC positively predicted the intention to remain (concurrent measure) and was negatively associated with voluntary turnover measured one year later; NC positively associated with intent to remain; no effect of CC • Interaction between CC and AC for intent to stay: At low levels of CC, AC was more strongly associated with intent to stay; no interaction effect for actual turnover

  11. Interaction Effects on Intended and Actual Turnover (cont’d) • Jaros (JVB, 1997): • Test of the three-component model of organizational commitment in two samples: • engineers and technicians from an aerospace firm • part-time university students (turnover intentions measured at Time 1 and Time 2 (2-month lag) • Analysis based on the three components: AC predicted (negatively) turnover intentions in the two samples, concurrently and longitudinally, no effect of NC nor of CC • Analysis based on HS/LA distinction: Results were the same except that HS was also a negative predictor of turnover intentions but only concurrently

  12. Interaction Effects on Intended and Actual Turnover (cont’d) • Jaros (JVB, 1997): • In the analysis based on the three components: Interaction between CC and NC for the University sample at Time 1 such that the highest levels of turnover intentions were displayed by those with low CC and NC (no difference among the other subgroups) • Interaction effects not tested within the HS/LA distinction

  13. Interaction Effects on Intended and Actual Turnover (cont’d) • Cheng & Stockdale (JVB, in press): • Test of the three-component model of organizational commitment in China • AC, NC, and CC negatively associated with turnover intentions • At low levels of NC, CC was more strongly (negatively) associated with turnover intentions

  14. Interaction Effects on Intended and Actual Turnover (cont’d) • Snape & Redman (JAP, 2003): • Test of a three-component model of occupational commitment among British HRM professionals • AC and CC negatively associated with turnover cognitions, no main effect of NC • At low levels of CC, NC was negatively associated with turnover cognitions

  15. Summary of this research • CC involved in all interaction effects found in the prediction of intented turnover • No interaction found in the prediction of actual turnover (Somers, 1995) • No study has investigated the moderating role of CC subcomponents in the prediction of actual turnover

  16. Shortcomings of past research • Methodological weaknesses in the measurement of CC • Lack of conceptual unity within the CC domain

  17. Measurement Problems • Measures of HS and LA have sometimes been weakly reliable (e.g., .57-.59 in Somers, 1995) • Number of items has not been constant (e.g., 3 items in McGee & Ford, 1987, but 4 items in Meyer, Allen, & Gellatly, 1990) • Ambiguity of the core meaning captured by the items • Disagreement among researchers concerning factor composition • Some items contaminated by content pertaining to the other dimensions (e.g., desire, « I wanted to », etc.)

  18. Measurement Problems (Cont’d)

  19. Revised Measure of CC(Meyer, Barak, & Vandenberghe, 1996) 1. I would not leave this organization because of what I would stand to lose HS 2. For me personally, the costs of leaving this organization would be far greater than the benefitsHS 3. I continue to work for this organization because I don't believe another organization could offer me the benefits I have here HS 4. I have no choice but to stay with this organization LA 5. I stay with this organization because I can't see where else I could work LA 6. I feel that I have too few options to consider leaving this organization LA

  20. Lack of Conceptual Unity • The notion of perceived sacrifice • is attitudinal in nature because it represents a link between oneself and the organization • turns the attention of employees towards the benefits received within the organization rather than toward the (lack of) opportunities in the external environment • can be due to passive as well as active investments into the organization • The notion of perceived lack of employment alternatives • turns the attention of employees only towards the external environment • due to its perceptual nature, may be exacerbated by some personality traits • The different reasons represent the mindsets of desire (AC), perceived obligation (NC), and perceived cost (CC) (Meyer & Herscovitch, 2001)

  21. Prediction of Turnover • AC is thought to remain a strong negative predictor of turnover • NC less likely to be related to turnover when AC is controlled for • HS shoud reduce the likelihood of turnover (due to sacrifices associated with leaving)

  22. Prediction of Turnover (cont’d) • LA: • may create a feeling of entrapment which may interfere with the influence of the other components • when combined with a perceived obligation to stay, this feeling may create an unbearable debt for employees, resulting in a sense of panic, which actually could further the decision to actively search for a new job • consequently: NC may actually increase the likelihood of turnover under conditions of high LA

  23. Samples and Procedure • Sample 1: 199 University Alumni with antecedents to commitment measured at Time 1 and commitment measured 6 months later. • Sample 2: 147 employees from 3 private companies (antecedents and commitment measured at one point in time) • Sample 3: 277 Industrial Engineering Alumni with commitment measured at Time 1 and turnover data collected 1 year later • Sample 4: 442 University Alumni with commitment measured at Time 1 and turnover data collected 6 months later

  24. Measures • Antecedents (Sample 1): job tenure, POS (8 items; a=.90), promotion opportunities (2 items; a=.89), salary efforts (4 items, a=.76), salary level (2 items; a=.64), skill transferability (3 items; a=.90), external locus of control (8 items; a=.86), positive affectivity (10 items; a=.79) • Antecedents (Sample 2): self-competence (5 items; a=.91), self-determination (5 items; a=.89), sens of impact (5 items; a=.92), self-meaning (5 items; a=.95) • Commitment (Samples 1-4): AC (6 items; a=.72-.84), NC (6 items; a=.92), HS (3 items; a=.75-.82), LA (3 items; a=.77-.79) • Turnover (Samples 3-4): 1=Stay; 2=Leave(1 year, Sample 3; 6 mo., Sample 4)

  25. CFA Results for Commitment Models Sample 1 c2(df) NNFI CFI RMSEA Three factors 462.62 (132) .80 .83 .11 Four factors 277.58 (129) .91 .92 .07 Sample 2 Three factors 355.98 (132) .78 .81 .11 Four factors 226.65 (129) .90 .92 .07 Sample 3 Three factors 435.94 (132) .85 .87 .10 Four factors 240.54 (129) .94 .95 .06 Sample 4 Three factors 598.27 (132) .83 .85 .10 Four factors 308.60 (129) .93 .94 .06

  26. CFA Results for Commitment Models (AC) S1 S2 S3 S4 1. I really feel that I belong in this company .81 .73 .84 .83 2. This organization has a great deal of personal meaning for me .89 .86 .78 .77 3. I am proud to belong to this company .75 .73 .70 .79 4. I do not feel emotionally attached to this organization (R) .58 .32 .62 .34 5. I do not feel like part of the family at my organization (R) .52 .26 .58 .46 6. I really feel as if this organization's problems are my own .60 .47 .55 .54

  27. CFA Results for Commitment Models (NC) S1 S2 S3 S4 7. It would not be morally right for me to leave this company now .89 .85 .89 .87 8. It would not be right to leave my current organization now, even if it were to my advantage .87 .90 .83 .82 9. I think I would be guilty if I left my current organization now .82 .84 .83 .76 10. I would violate a trust if I left my current organization now .76 .75 .78 .86 11. If I got another offer for a better job elsewhere, I would not feel it was right to leave my organization .83 .73 .88 .71 12. I would not leave my organization right now, because I have a sense of obligation to certain people who work there .69 .75 .66 .90

  28. CFA Results for Commitment Models (HS) S1 S2 S3 S4 13. I would not leave this organization because of what I would stand to lose .88 .89 .87 .84 14. For me personally, the costs of leaving this organization would be far greater than the benefits .83 .79 .63 .72 15. I continue to work for this organization because I don't believe another organization could offer me the benefits I have here .61 .52 .63  .66

  29. CFA Results for Commitment Models (LA) S1 S2 S3 S4 16. I have no choice but to stay with this organization .72 .59 .73 .78 17. I stay with this organization because I can't see where else I could work .84 .86 .82 .87 18. I feel that I have too few options to consider leaving this organization .71 .74 .66 .73

  30. Correlations among Commitment Latent Variables 1 2 3 4 1. AC (.72-.84) 2. NC .38 – .56 (.92) 3. HS .24 – .47 .13 – .37 (.75-.82) 4. LA -.18 – -.30 -.07 – -.21 .10 – .34 (.77-.79)

  31. Correlations between hypothesized antecedents and commitment components AC NC HS LA Job tenure .10 .09 .19** .07 POS .40*** .36*** .09 -.25*** Promotion opportunities .21** .24*** .12 -.17* Salary efforts .22** .24*** .20** -.03 Salary level .13 .07 .19** -.01 Skill transferability -.00 -.09 -.06 -.29*** External locus of control -.19** -.10 .06 .41*** Positive affectivity .09 .01 -.12 -.31*** *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001

  32. Correlations betweenAntecedents and Commitment (Sample 2) AC NC HS LA Self-competence .15 .05 -.07 -.16* Self-determination .32*** .33*** .16* -.28*** Sense of impact .31*** .37*** .23** -.16 Self-meaning .52*** .39*** .29*** -.16 *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001

  33. Regresssion of CommitmentAntecedents on HS (Sample 2) b Step 1: D R2 = .11*** AC .18 NC .20* Step 2: D R2 = .06* Self-competence -.19* Self-determination -.03 Sense of impact .12 Self-meaning .21* *p < .05; ***p < .001

  34. Commitment and Turnover:Logistic Regression Results (Sample 3) BWald Exp (B) Step 1: Demographics Step 2: AC -.81 9.06** .45 NC -.04 .03 .96 HS -.78 11.43*** .46 LA -.22 .53 .80 Step 3: AC x LA -.66 3.65 .52 NC x LA .68 4.67* 1.97 HS x LA -.17 .36 .85 *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001

  35. Commitment and Turnover:Subgroup Analysis for Sample 3 BWald Exp (B) Low LA Subgroup AC -.48 2.81 .62 NC -.44 3.20 .64 HS -.50 3.47 .61 High LA Subgroup AC -1.43 7.49** .24 NC .77 4.18* 2.16 HS -1.20 8.96** .30 *p < .05; **p < .01

  36. Commitment and Turnover:Logistic Regression Results (Sample 4) BWald Exp (B) Step 1: Demographics Step 2: AC .32 1.68 1.37 NC -.09 .20 .92 HS -.62 7.75** .54 LA .04 .03 1.04 Step 3: AC x LA .03 .01 1.03 NC x LA .45 4.95* 1.56 HS x LA -.03 .02 .97 *p < .05; **p < .01

  37. Commitment and Turnover:Subgroup Analysis for Sample 4 BWald Exp (B) Low LA Subgroup AC .32 1.08 1.37 NC -.45 3.22 .64 HS -.74 6.90** .48 High LA Subgroup AC .03 .01 1.03 NC .58 4.70* 1.79 HS -.52 2.30 .59 *p < .05; **p < .01

  38. Conclusions • HS and LA are worth distinguishing within the three-component model • AC and HS reduce the likelihood of turnover, NC has no effect (nor LA) • However, at high levels of LA, NC actually increases turnover

More Related