APPLICATION OF THREE-COMPONENT ORGANIZATIONAL COMMITMENT IN NEPAL

THANESWOR GAUTAM, Lecturer Nepal Commerce Campus, Minbhavan, Baneshwor P.O. Box 2465

Author Note Correspondence concerned this paper should be addressed to Thaneswor Gautam, Nepal Commerce campus, Minbhawan, Baneswor, Kathmandu, Nepal. E-mail: thaneswor@wlink.com.np

Acknowledgement I am very much grateful to Dr. Ulrich Wagner, Dr. Rolf van Dick, Dr. Narottam Upadhyay, and Dr. Upendra Koirala for their invaluable suggestions and their careful editing of this paper.

Abstract Similar psychometric pattern of translated measure to the original one can assure the translation reliability and the proper replication of the model across the samples can be the evidence of cross-validation of the concept. Thus, two major aims of the article are a) to find translation reliability of Nepalese version organizational commitment (OC) scales and b) cross-validation of threecomponent OC concept over two similar Nepalese samples. First sample consists 450 subjects and second sample contains 103 subjects generated from similar organizations in one-year gap. Hence, psychological properties of English and Nepalese version OC scales have been investigated and multisample model fit has been tested comparing two structural equation models designed in two different samples. This study successfully attempted to prove satisfactory reliability of Nepalese version organizational commitment scale and to show the construct validity of the three-component commitment concept in Nepal.

Organizational Commitment Concept Commitment concept has followed variety of approaches differing in a) phenomenon of interest (e.g., organization, union, and career or occupation), b) focus of commitment in the certain phenomenon (e.g., organization, unit, manager, and goal), c) subjective or objective categories of commitment (e.g., attitudinal, behavioral), and d) the dimensions or components of commitment (e.g., affective, continuance, and normative commitment). Organizational commitment is understood as a commitment for the entire organization but at the same time can be understood as a function of multiplecommitment to organizational ideas (e.g., Goal, value, artifact) and agents (e.g., Organization, unit, team). Commitment research tradition has also followed in other domains, especially career and union. Thus, it can be adapted into other societal institutions such as family, political group, and cultural group, too. Occupational commitment (e.g., Ritzier & Trice, 1969) and commitment to unions (cf. Angle & Perry, 1981) have been discussed having positive as well as negative relationship to OC. Furthermore, employees can have multiple commitments to more than one social institution (e.g., family, organizations, profession); thus, the commitment to one institution might marginalize the commitment to the other (cf. Meyer & Allen, 1997). In the early years, OC research emerged in attitudinal and behavioral commitment. The root of affective oriented attitudinal organizational commitment (OC) can be traced back to the theory of Buchanan (1974) and its operationalization of Porter, Steers, Mowday, and Boulian, (1974). Buchanan defined affective commitment as a partisan, affective attachment to the goals and values of the organization, to ones role in relation to goals and values, and to the organization for its own sake, apart from its purely instrumental worth (p. 533). The continuance oriented behavioral commitment concept was initiated from Beckers (1960) side bet theory. In the behavioral approach, employees were viewed as becoming committed to a particular course of action rather than to an entity. Hrebiniak and Alutto (1972) defined behavioral commitment as A structural phenomena, which occurs as a result of individual-organizational

transactions and alterations in side bets or investment over time(p 556). Salancik (1977) has defined commitment in terms of a binding of individuals to their behavioral acts. He argued that highly explicit, irrevocable, done by ones own volition, and public act will result in strong commitment of the individual. Researchers conceptualized attitudinal and behavioral approach into single multidimensional commitment concept. They pursued attitude and behaviors compatible of each others. Mowday, Porter, and Steers (1982) hypothesized that committed behaviors can lead to commitment attitude. Reichers (1985) explained a cyclical relationship between commitment attitude and commitment behavior. He argued that the attitude could lead to the behavior, which would, in turn, reinforce commitment attitude. Obligation or moral responsibility based normative commitment concept came later into the existence after Wiener and Gechmans (1977) writing on Commitment: A Behavioral Approach to a Job Involvement and Marsch and Mannaris (1977) writing on Organizational Commitment and Turnover. Wiener (1982) defined normative commitment as the totality of internalized normative pressures to act in a way, which meets organizational goals and interests, (p 421). Organizational commitment research followed into diverse approaches in the early years, which was empirically synthesized by Meyer and Allen (1991) into affective, continuance, and normative components of a multidimensional OC concept. Other researchers also viewed commitment as a multidimensional construct that is discussed in the following section. Nature of Organizational Commitment Nature of commitment has been conceptualized into trichotomies in OC research, e.g., affective, continuance, and moral, (e.g., Jaros, Jermier, Koehler, & Sincich, 1993), affective, continuance, and normative (Meyer & Allen, 1991), and compliance, identification, and internalization (OReilly & Chatman, 1986). Other forms of attachments have also been conceptualized into trichotomies of organizational attachment. Etzioni (1975) conceptualized organizational involvement as moral, calculative, and alienative. Ashforth and Mael (1989) specified cognitive, affective, and evaluative identification in organization. And,

Virtranen, 2000 specified commitment into obligation, utilities, and emotions as the components of organizational culture. Even though, the critical assessment of each aspect is required before pursuing one concept as the central theme of research design, limitation of the present study does not allow for the detail discussion. Thus, interested readers are referred to go through previous reviews (e.g., Beyer, Hannah, & Milton, 2000; Mathieu & Zajac, 1990; Meyer and Allen 1997; OReilly & Chatman, 1986; Virtanen, 2000). Three-component Organizational Commitment Organizational commitment is the attitude of an employee towards his or her organization. It is a psychological state that categorizes the employee' s relationship with the organization, and has implications for the decision to continue membership in organization (Meyer & Allen, 1997).
Affective commitment refers to the employees emotional attachment to, identification with, and involvement in the organization. Employees with strong affective commitment continue employment with the organization because they want to do so. Continuance commitment refers to an awareness of the cost associated with leaving the organization. Employees whose primary link to the organization is based on continuance commitment remain because they need to do so. Finally, normative commitment reflects a feeling of obligation to continue employment. Employees with a high level of normative commitment feel that they ought to remain with the organization (Meyer & Allen, 1991, p.67).

These three components of OC reflect distinct psychological states. Therefore, antecedents and outcomes of each component of OC construct might be different. Antecedents of OC Affective commitment (AC) develops on the basis of work experience such as job challenge, degree of autonomy, and a variety of skills which employees find rewarding or fulfilling. These jobs characteristics have been found to be strongly and positively associated to affective commitment but less related to normative and continuance commitment in a study of Dunham, Grube, and Castaneda (1994) among employees from a wide variety of organizations.

Other factors are communication fairness (Konovsky & Cropanzano, 1991), and participation in decision-making (Kim & Mauborgne, 1993), which are both positively related to affective commitment. Based on the above findings, favorable team climate and organizational culture can be responsible factors in development of affective commitment. Continuance commitment (CC) develops as a result of any action or events that increase costs of leaving the organization (Meyer & Allen, 1997). Age and tenure, therefore, can be predictors of continuance commitment (e.g., Ferris & Aranya, 1983). It means that continuance commitment develops among older employees who have longer organizational tenure, although the results are somewhat mixed in this domain and should be interpreted with caution. Based on Becker' (1960) side bet theory, many other factors have been investigated s as antecedents of continuance commitment such as employees'number of dependent family members. Normative commitment (NC) develops on the basis of a collection of pressures that individuals feel during their early socialization from family and society (Wiener, 1982). Some of the organizational actions can make a person indebted toward the organization, which can build normative commitment (Gouldner, 1960). Consequences of OC Each component of commitment has its own behavioral consequences to the individual employee or the organization. Mostly, outcomes for affective commitment is seen positively for all parties involved, continuance commitment negatively, and normative commitment in between these two. The mostly studied consequence of commitment is employee retention. It has been found that each form of commitment is negatively correlated with employees' search intention, turnover intention and actual turnover (Allen & Meyer, 1996) although correlations are strongest in case of affective commitment (cf. Mathieu & Zajac, 1990).

Cross Cultural Applicability of Organizational Commitment Many empirical studies attempted to uncover the construct validity, predictive validity, and cross-cultural applicability of organizational commitment construct. Since Meyer and Allen (1991) presented their three-component model of OC synthesizing diverse approaches into a single multidimensional concept, few studies have been conducted to highlight its global applicability. The dearth of empirical evidence has been still experienced (cf. Gautam, et al. 2001; Lee, Allen, Meyer, & Rhee, 2001; Wasti, 1999) Most of the commitment studies have been conducted in North-America, few in developed Asian and European countries, and a negligible number in the rest of the world. Recently, Meyer, Stanley, Herscovitch, and Topolnytsky (2001) conducted a meta-analysis to investigate the antecedents, correlates, and consequences of the three-component commitment concept. Findings showed that the three components were related but distinguishable. Affective and continuance commitment were found related to their antecedent and outcome factors as theoretically assumed (e.g., Meyer & Allen, 1997). Furthermore, comparisons of studies conducted within and outside NorthAmerica revealed considerable similarity. Nevertheless, the available evidence is too small to state the global validity of the OC scales and more systematic research concerning cultural differences is warranted. Many empirical studies attempted to uncover the construct validity, predictive validity, and cross-cultural applicability of this construct. Since Meyer and Allen (1991) presented their three-component model of OC synthesizing diverse approaches into a single multidimensional concept, few studies have been conducted to highlight its global applicability. The dearth of empirical evidence has been still experienced (cf. Gautam, van Dick, & Wagner, 2001; Lee, Allen, Meyer, & Rhee, 2001; Wasti, 1999), thus, the present study has been designed to minimize the existing gap pursuing a field study in the context of a south Asian Hindu Kingdom, Nepal. Primary objective of this study is to investigate the psychometric properties of the three-component organizational commitment questionnaire (Meyer, Allen, & Smith, 1993) through cross-validation across two Nepalese samples. It

would provide an opportunity to investigate the stability of scale-items and internal structure of OC in a developing country that has a quite different culture from the western world (cf. Gautam et al., 2001). The secondary objective is to investigate the measurement reliability of the translated Nepalese version compared to the original English version of the OC scales. Each organizational commitment component ties employees with their organization but the nature of the "psychological-bonding" is different. Affective commitment (AC) ties people grounded on attachment, involvement, and identification; continuance commitment (CC) because of employees' awareness of the costs of leaving organization; and normative commitment (NC) because of employees' obligatory feelings towards coworkers or management (Meyer & Allen, 1997). Each component might have different antecedent factors and different outcomes for employees' behavior, which have been reviewed in earlier studies (e.g., Gautam et al., 2001). Most of the commitment studies have been conducted in North America, few in developed Asian and European countries, and a negligible number in the rest of the world. Recently, Meyer, Stanley, Herscovitch, and Topolnytsky (2001) conducted a meta-analysis to investigate the antecedents, correlates, and consequences of the three-component commitment concept. Findings showed that the three components are related but distinguishable. Affective and continuance commitment were found related with antecedent and outcome factors as theoretically assumed (e.g., Meyer & Allen, 1997). Furthermore, comparisons of studies conducted within and outside North America revealed considerable similarity. Nevertheless, the available evidence is too small to state the global validity of the OC scales and more systematic research concerning cultural differences is warranted. Aim of the article is to find the applicability of three-component OC concept in Nepal. Thus, an attempt is made to cross-validate three-component OC concept over two similar Nepalese samples (NA=450 & NB=103) generated from similar organizations in one-year gap. Psychological properties of English and Nepalese version OC scales have been investigated and multi-sample model fit has been investigated by comparing two structural equation models designed in two different samples.

Method Participants Participants were selected from head office and city branches of five Nepalese organizations Standard Chartered Bank, Nepal Bangladesh Bank, Nepal Arab Bank, Nepal Telecommunication, and Nepal Television for questionnaire survey. Out of five organizations, first three are private sector banking companies and rests two are state owned communication and media companies. These organizations were selected by convenience to make a large and heterogeneous sample. The survey instruments were randomly administered to the participants by human resources departments of each organization. Out of 500 questionnaires administered, only 450 valid questionnaires were returned to the researchers. Thus, the overall response rate was 90% in the questionnaire survey. In total respondents, 79% were male, arithmetic mean age of participants was 33.6 (SD=6.29), 70% were married, 82.6% had graduate level education, 38% were at supervisory levels (officers & department heads), 62% at subordinate level, and their mean professional experience was 9.47 years (SD=5.97). Instruments Questionnaire designed by Meyer, Allen, & Smith (1993) consisting of six items in each commitment component (affective, continuance, and normative) was adopted to assess three-component OC. Data were generated in six point Likert type scale anchored by Totally Disagree= 1 to Totally Agree= 6. Translated Nepalese version questionnaire set was administered to the participants but an original English version questionnaire set was also used in a small sub-sample (n=78). Supplementary part attached at the end of the questionnaire was designed to gather demographic information about the respondents.

Results Comparison of Nepalese Version OC Scales with Original English Version OC Scales Exploratory PC Factor analyses were made in two respective sub-samples that consists of: a) data generated from a joint-venture bank (n1=78) using English version OC scales and b) data generated from the four other Nepalese organizations (n2=365) using a Nepalese version. Factor loadings of these two sub-samples are presented in Table 1. Insert: table 1 Results showed considerable similarity of factor loadings in both sub-samples. An exploratory PC factor analysis extracted three substantial factors in both cases with around 57% of cumulative variance explained by the three factors. All items loaded substantially on the expected factors. Item one, sixteen and eighteen have loaded in two factors affective commitment (AC) and normative commitment (NC) with higher loading in the respective factor and lower in the alternative one. Cronbach' Alphas of English version were .81, .82, .82, and of the Nepalese s version by .83, .87, and .75 for affective commitment, continuance commitment (CC), and Normative commitment components of OC scales, respectively. In general, the homogeneity in psychometric patterns of both versions revealed that the Nepalese version OC scales are almost free from translation biases and reliable enough to capture the three-component commitment concept. Cross Validation of OC Scales Confirmatory factor analysis: In the beginning, maximum likelihood

confirmatory factor analyses were conducted assuming three different models one-factor (unidimensional), three-factor orthogonal, and three-factor correlated in sample A (NA=450). Fit indices were found best in three-factor correlated model (Chi square=694.85, P=0.00, DF=132; CFI=0.85, RMSEA=0.10) over other alternative models (see: Table 2). The incremental

10

change in the correlated model over the orthogonal model was found significant (2=271.11, P<0.001, DF=3). Nevertheless, model fit was still poor because of the relatively high Chi-square/DF ratio (5.26) and lower CFI (0.85) compared to the normal standard (0.90). The observed weakness in OC model fit points out some inherent methodological or theoretical problems in the application of the OC measure in Nepalese samples. The two most possible reasons might be either the common error variance in the intra-scale items due to very similar item formulation or the very high overlap between affective and normative components. These two issues should be identified to discuss on the applicability of the OC concept in Nepal. Lagrange Multiplier Test (LM Test) was conducted in the first sample to find the possible common error variance in intra-scale items. The LM test detected some common error overlap among NC items. Besides, such error variance was also experienced in between Items 4 & 6 of the AC scale and Items 7 & 8 of the CC scale. The correlation for the detected errors between intra-scale items were included in the three-factor correlated model to get new fit indices. It significantly increased (2=229.46, P<0.001, DF=7) the overall model fit in sample A (NA=450). The same model was replicated in another sample B (NB=103), which also showed significant increment in model fit (2=35, P<0.001, DF=7). Furthermore, a two factor correlated model was designed in sample-A assuming moderately correlated affective and normative commitment into a single factor to resolve the issue of distinctiveness of the AC and NC scales. The poor fit (Chi-square=916.56, P=0.00, CFI=0.79, RMSEA=0.11) confirmed that the AC and NC components represent different factors in the present data structure. Fit indices for unidimensional, orthogonal, correlated, and modified correlated models produced by using EQS version 5.7b in both data sets are presented in table 2. Insert: Table 2

11

The Chi-square and RMSEA dropped and CFI improved significantly in the modified three factor correlated model. The fit indices of both samples also seem very close to each other. The OC scale showed the three-correlated factor structure in both Nepalese samples. However, some differences observed in the psychometric patterns of the two models have to be discussed. Results of confirmatory factor analyses of the modified three factor correlated model for both samples (NA=450, NB=103,) are reported in Figure 1 to give a comparative overview. The factor loadings, correlations, and error patterns present some clues about the item stability of OC scales over the two different Nepalese samples. Insert: Figure 1 Most of the parameter values factor loadings, R2, and standard errors show very similar patterns in both samples. Nevertheless, some differences were also observed in both samples, especially in the correlations between factors and correlations between standard errors. Sample A is around five times greater than sample B in terms of valid cases, thus, it is very hard to compare all the parameters in absolute terms. In general, the CC scale was found strong, AC satisfactory, and NC relatively weak in stability of psychometric patterns over the two different Nepalese samples. However, some issues appeared in the OC models that have to be discussed before multi-sample analysis. Item six was found highly loaded in sample-A but weakly loaded in sample-B. Item 13 and item 17 showed higher factor loadings than the other items in sample-B but the same items loaded relatively lower than the other items in sample-A. The correlations among the three factors showed almost similar patterns in sample-B, which showed moderate correlations between AC and NC and weak correlations between CC and AC in sample-A. The correlations of standard errors between Items 4 & 6, and Items 16 & 18 were found different in the two samples. Multi Sample Analysis: The modified three component correlated OC model was tested in a multi-sample analysis using EQS version 5.7b. First, each

12

parameter variables, factors and errors were defined as equal in the model to explore differences between the two model fits generated from the two samples. LM test pointed few significant differences between the samples especially due to correlations between AC and NC, factor loadings of item 13, and common error variances between Items 4 & 6 and Items 16 & 18. Thereafter, the aspects of the observed differences in LM test between two models were defined as constrains in the EQS. Results showed satisfactory overall model fit in the multiple sample analysis (Chi square=688.53, DF=254, CFI=0.90) in the two Nepalese samples. The low Chi-square/DF ratio (2.71) and CFI at the general standard (0.90) seem satisfactory to argue the stability of OC model across the Nepalese samples. Discussion The main purpose of this chapter has been specified as to cross validate the OC scales across two Nepalese samples. In the beginning, the existence of translation biases has been investigated. The analysis was based on the subsamples (n1=78, data generated by English version OC scales, and n2=372, data generated by Nepalese version OC scales) of sample A (N=450). Results revealed similar psychometric properties, thus, the Nepalese versions were found almost free from translation biases. In the next step, confirmatory factor analyses were calculated assuming unidimensional, three-factorial orthogonal, and three-factorial correlated, and modified three-factor correlated models. Results confirmed the modified three factor correlated model best over the alternative models in both samples. Good model fit and consistency in results of both samples proved the threecomponent OC structure to be stable in Nepalese context. Some differences of in the models between the two samples were tested using multi-sample analysis. The observed differences in some paths and correlations were defined as constrains. The model fit was satisfactory which proved that the differences observed in two samples were not determinants in model fit, i.e., three-component OC was found stable across the Nepalese samples irrespective to the minor differences observed. Moreover, the CC scale was found comparatively more stable whereas normative commitment

13

was less stable among three components of Meyer, Allen, and Smiths'(1993) OC scales. The reason behind some differences observed in model fit in two samples has to be discussed. Some overlap between AC and NC has been experienced because of the high correlation between the factors. Exploratory PC factor analysis showed some double loadings, albeit relatively lower loadings than in the respective factor, which indicates that same items have some content ambiguity in the Nepalese context. Item 1 ("I am happy to spend rest of my career in this organization") might be close to satisfaction than to commitment in Nepalese context. The possible reason behind instability of the NC items might be content ambiguity of the items or a different cognitive meaning of normative commitment in Nepalese context. For example, item fifteen was found relatively unstable. The possible reason for this instability could be that the statement e.g., "I would feel guilty if I left organization now" might led contradictory responses in both way around: for the subjects who are willingly remaining and for those who are obligatorily staying in the organization. Some equivocal words (i.e., "loyalty" of item 16 and "owe" of item 18) used in the normative commitment items are unclear about the meaning in sense of rational or irrational commitment (cf. Virtanen, 2000). Thus, it would be better to capture the NC construct by restructuring items in future research. Nevertheless, some possible reasons behind the observed differences in the model fits of the two samples might be just because of the differences in sample size, too. In general, overall loadings of the NC scale were observed very clear, albeit some instability observed. Cronbach' alpha was found satisfactory (sample A s = .81, sample B = .71), thus, the data generated from the NC scale seems appropriate enough for the further analysis. Nevertheless, the ambiguity of some statements should be resolved through item reformulation in future research to precisely capture the OC concept. This investigation successfully attempted to prove OC scales almost free from the translation biases, reliable to assess OC, and satisfactory in item stability and internal structure. Nevertheless, open-ended measures seem better to uncover the semantic meaning of commitment to find content validity of OC in Nepal.

14

References Allen, N. J., & Meyer, J. P. (1996). Affective, continuance, and normative commitment to the organization: An examination of construct validity. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 49(3) 252-276. Angle, H. L., & Perry, J. L. (1981). An empirical assessment of organizational commitment and organizational effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 27, 1-14. Ashforth, B. E. & Mael, F. (1989). Social Identity Theory and the organization. Academy of Management Journal, 14, 20-39. Becker, H. S. (1960). Notes on the Concept of Commitment. American Journal of Sociology, 66, 32-42. Beyer, J. M, Hannah, D. R., & Milton, L. P. (2000). Ties that bind: Culture and attachment in organizations. sss: dddd. Buchanan B. (1974). Building Organizational Commitment: The Socialization of Managers in Work Organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 19, 533-546. Dunham, R. B., Grube, J. A., & Castaneda, M. B. (1994). Organizational commitment: The utility of an integrative definition. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79(3) 370-380. Etzioni, A. (1961; revised 1975). A Comparative Analysis of Complex Organizations. New York: Free Press. Ferris, K. R., & Aranya, N. (1983). A comparison of two organizational commitment scales. Personnel Psychology, 36(1) 87-98. Gautam, T., van Dick, R., & Wagner, U. (2001). Organizational commitment in Nepalese setting. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 4, 239-248. Gouldner, A. W. (1960). The Norm of Reciprocity. American Sociological Review, 25, 165-167. Hrebiniak, L. G., & Alutto, J. A. (1972). Personal and role-related factors in the development of organizational commitment. Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 17(4) 555-573. Jaros, S. J., Jermier, J. M., Koehler, J. W., & Sincich, T. (1993). Effects of continuance, affective, and moral commitment on the withdrawal process: An evaluation of eight structural equation models. Academy of Management Journal, 36(5) 951-995. Kim, W. C., & Mauborgne, R. A. (1993). Procedural justice, attitudes, and subsidiary top management compliance with multinationals' corporate strategic decisions. Academy of Management Journal, 36(3) 502-526. Konovsky, M. A., & Cropanzano, R. (1991). Perceived fairness of employee drug testing as a predictor of employee attitudes and job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76(5) 698-707. Lee, K., Allen, N. J., Meyer, J. P., & Rhee, K. Y. (2001). The three-component commitment model or organizational commitment: An application to South Korea. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 50, 596-614.

15

Marsh, R. M., & Mannari, H. (1977). Organizational commitment and turnover: A prediction study. Administrative Science Quarterly, 22(1) 57-75. Mathieu, J. E., & Zajac, D. M. (1990). A review and meta-analysis of the antecedents, correlates, and consequences of organizational commitment. Psychological Bulletin, 108(2) 171-194. Meyer J. P. & Allen, N. J. (1991). A three-component conceptualization of organizational commitment. Human Resource Management Review, 1, 61-89. Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1997). Commitment in the workplace: Theory, research, and application. Thousand Oaks, CA, USA: Sage Publications. Meyer, J. P., Allen, N. J., & Smith, C. A. (1993). Commitment to organizations and occupations: Extension and test of a three-component conceptualization. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(4) 538-551. Meyer, J. P., Stanley, D. J., Herscovitch, L., & Topolnytsky, L. (2001 in press). Affective, continuance, and normative commitment to the organization: A meta-analysis of antecedents, correlates and consequences. Journal of Vocational Behavior. Mowday, R. T., Porter, L. W., & Steers, R. (1982). Organizational Linkages: The Psychology of Commitment, Absenteesm, and Turnover. San Diego CA: Academic Press. OReilly, C. A. & Chatman, J. (1986). Organizational commitment and psychological attachment: The effect of compliance, identification, and internalization on pro-social behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 492-499. Porter, L. W., Steers, R. M., Mowday, R. T. & Boulian, P. V. (1974). Organizational commitment, job satisfaction, and turnover among psychiatric technicians. Journal of Applied Psychology, 59, 603-609. Reichers, A. E. (1985). A review and reconceptualization of organizational commitment. Academy of Management Review, 10, 465-476. Ritztzer G., & Trice, H. M. (1969). An Empirical Study of Howard Becker' s Side-bet Theory. Social Forces, 47, 475-479. Salancik, G. (1977). Commitment and the control of organizational behavior and belief. Chicago: St. Clair. Virtanen T. (2000). Commitment and the study of organizational climate and culture. In N. M. Ashkanasy, C. P. M. Widerom, and M. F. Peterson (eds), Hand Book of Organizational Culture and Climate. Thousand Oaks: Sage Pub. Wasti, S. A. (1999 August). A Cultural analysis of organizational commitment and turnover intentions in a collectivist society. Chicago, IL: Wiener, Y. (1982). Commitment in Organizations: A Normative View. Academy of Management Review, 7, 418-428. Wiener, Y., & Gechman, A. S. (1977). Commitment: A behavioural Apporach to Job Involvement. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 10, 47-52.

16

Table 1: Exploratory PC factor loadings of sub-samples followed by English and Nepalese version three component OC scales Scales Affective Commitment Scale
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

n1= 78

n2=372

I would be very happy to spend rest of my career in this organization. I really feel as if this organization' problems are my own. s I do not feel like "part of my family" at my organization (R). I do not feel "emotionally attached to this organization (R). This organization has great deal of personal meaning for me. I do not feel strong sense of belonging to my organization (R). It would be very hard for me to leave...if wanted to leave my organization. Too much of my life would be disrupted if I leave my organization. Right now, staying in my org. is a matter of necessity as much as desire.

Continuance Commitment Scale

.36 .54 .78 .90 .72 .76 .60 .75 .72 .73 .75 .68 .79 .84 .78 .38 .74 .46

.62 .83 .58 .84 .50 .82 .73 .81 .82 .72 .73 .65 .65 .71 .71 .40 .46 .48

10. I believe that I have too few options to consider leaving this organization. 11. One of the few negative consequences of leaving...scarcity of...alternative. 12. One of the major reasons I continue...is that leaving require...sacrifice... 13. I do not feel any obligation to remain with my current employer (R). 14. Even if it were to my advantage, I do not feel it would be right to leave... 15. I would feel guilty if I left my organization now. 16. This organization deserves my loyalty. 17. I would not leave my org. right now because...sense of obligation... 18. I owe a great deal of my organization.

Normative Commitment Scale

Note: n1 = Data generated by using English version, n2 = Data generated by using Nepalese version (R)= Reversibly scored

Table 2: Model fit indices of three-component OC scales across two Nepalese samples Models 1. One-factor model 2. Three-factor orthogonal 3. Three-factor correlated 4. Three-factor correlated, modified Sample A (N=450)
DF CFI

Chi-sq.

RMSEA

Chi-sq.

Sample B (N=103)
DF

CFI RMSEA

1741.46 965.96 694.85 465.39

135 135 132 125

0.57 0.77 0.85 0.91

0.16 0.12 0.10 0.08

341.76 257.27 222.80 187.80

135 135 132 125

0.62 0.78 0.83 0.89

0.13 0.10 0.10 0.08

17

Figure 1: Three-component Organizational Commitment Model in Two Nepalese Samples Sample A (N=450, valid cases 448)
AC_01
.68* .73* Aff. Comm. .65* .78* .65* .74* .73 .68 .76 .62 .76 .68 .86 .76 .71 .64 .57 .67 .80 .77 .72 .85 .78 .75 R2 =.47 R2 =.54 R2 =.42 R2 =.61 R2 =.42 R2 =.54 R2 =.26 .46* R2 =.42 R2 =.49 R2 =.60 R2 =.67 R2 =.55 .34* R2 =.37 R2 =.41 R2 =.48 R =.28 R2 =.39 R2 =.44
2

Sample B (N=103, valid cases 87)

AC_01
.32* .44* .95 .90 .82 .76 .74 .90 .70 .67 .66 .65 .54 .70 .66 .92 .92 .81 .70 .92 R2 =.11 R2 =.20 R2 =.32 R2 =.43 R2 =.46 R2 =.19 R2 =.51 .57* R2 =.55 R2 =.57 R2 =.58 R2 =.71 R2 =.51 R2 =.57 R2 =.15 R2 =.15 R =.35 R2 =.51 R2 =.15
2

AC_02 AC_03 AC_04 AC_05 AC_06

AC_02 AC_03 AC_04 AC_05 AC_06

Aff. Comm. .33*

.57* .65* .68* .44*

-.14

.23* .51* .65* .78* Con. Comm. .70* .77* .82* .74*

CC_07 CC_08 CC_09 CC_10 CC_11 CC_12

.49* .71* .74* .41* Con. Comm. .75* .76* .84* .72*

CC_07 CC_08 CC_09 CC_10 CC_11 CC_12 NC_13

.46*

NC_13
.61* .64* Nor. Comm. .70* .53* .62* .67*

NC_14 NC_15 NC_16 NC_17 NC_18

.28* .33* -.01 -.13* .26* Nor. Comm.

.75* .38* .39* .59* .71* .39*

NC_14 NC_15 NC_16 NC_17 NC_18

.59* .19 .12 -.21 -.07

Chi-square=465.39, P=0.00, DF=125; CFI=0.91, RMSEA=0.08

Chi-square=187.80, P=0.00, DF=125; CFI=0.89, RMSEA=0.01

18