Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
125138
N. Delobbe and C. Vandenberghe:
EJPA 16 (2),
Multiple
2000
Dimensions
Hogrefe & of
Huber
Commitment
Publishers
A Four-Dimensional Model of
Organizational Commitment
among Belgian Employees*
Nathalie Delobbe and Christian Vandenberghe
Universit Catholique de Louvain, Belgium
Keywords: Organizational commitment, internalization, compliance, affective and continuance commitment.
Summary: We conducted a study to examine the reliability and validity of four dimensions of organizational
commitment. Using two samples from various organizations in Belgium (Ns = 216 and 201), we investigated
internalization, compliance, and affective and continuance commitment as dimensions of employee commitment to the organization. Confirmatory factor analysis by LISREL showed that the four factors were reasonably
distinct. However, the scales are in need of further refinement because (a) internalization and affective commitment are strongly correlated with each other and display similar relationships with major criterion variables
(e. g., met expectations, job satisfaction, and intent to leave); (b) the compliance scale shows weak reliability
and needs to be expanded. The implications of these results for future research are discussed.
Over the past decade, organizational commitment (OC)
has become a topic of increasing importance in industrial/organizational psychology. Generally defined as a
psychological link between the employee and his/her organization, OC has been found to be related to major
work outcomes, namely, turnover intention and actual
turnover (Mathieu & Zajac, 1990). Indeed, employees
who are strongly committed to their organization are less
likely to leave. Moreover, the understanding of employee withdrawal has been enhanced by the emergence of
multidimensional conceptualizations of commitment.
That is, researchers have identified distinctive dimensions within the construct of OC, which is now conceived as a psychological state subsuming separate components (Meyer & Allen, 1997). In subsequent sections,
we provide definitions of commonly accepted commitment dimensions and examine how they can be integrated into overarching models of employee attachment to
organizations. Then, we propose an empirical test of
these competing models of employee commitment within a French-speaking context. Because most commitment studies have to date been conducted in North America, this study should enhance our understanding of com-
mitment processes in other cultures. Finally, we also examine how commitment dimensions relate to a set of
criterion variables.
* The original data upon which this paper is based are available at http://www.hhpub.com/journals/ejpa
EJPA 16 (2), 2000 Hogrefe & Huber Publishers
126
Empirical Evidence
A primary purpose of this study is to examine the factorial structure of a four-factor model of commitment derived from the previous discussion. More specifically,
we were interested in testing whether internalization, affective commitment (identification), continuance commitment (side-bets), and compliance represent distinctive dimensions of OC.
A main concern is whether OC splits into two primary
dimensions, attitudinal commitment (including internalization and affective commitment) vs. calculative commitment (merging continuance commitment and compliance), or whether it could be conceived as four-dimen-
Correlates of Commitment
Dimensions
In order to test further the discriminant validity of the
four commitment scales, we will examine whether the
four OC dimensions correlate differentially with some
specific variables. Based on a review of the target literature, we propose below a set of hypotheses concerning
these differential linkages.
127
Tenure
Met Expectations
128
H4: Internalization and affective commitment (identification) are positively related to met expectations.
Job Satisfaction
Job satisfaction is a strong attitudinal correlate of affective commitment. This relationship has been observed
using both the OCQ (Mathieu & Zajac, 1990; Mowday
et al., 1979) and Meyer and Allens affective commitment scale (Allen & Meyer, 1996). In contrast, continuance commitment has been found to be either uncorrelated or weakly correlated to job satisfaction (Allen &
Meyer, 1996). On the other hand, Becker (1992) reported
compliance to correlate negatively and internalization
positively, with job satisfaction. As a whole, these results
suggest that job satisfaction correlates positively with
commitment components that are emotionally oriented.
Consequently, the following hypothesis can be drawn:
H5: Job satisfaction is positively related to internalization and affective commitment (identification), and
negatively related to compliance.
Intent to Leave
Intent to leave and actual turnover are widely studied
consequences of commitment (Cohen, 1993; Hackett et
EJPA 16 (2), 2000 Hogrefe & Huber Publishers
Method
Samples and Procedure
The study was conducted in Belgium. Data were collected in the context of a larger survey. Demographic characteristics were substantially different for the two samples of the study because data were collected for different
research purposes. However, these contrasted characteristics allowed us to test the generalizability of findings
across the two samples. All questionnaires were mailed
directly to the respondents. Participants received the assurance that data would be handled confidentially. Completed questionnaires were sent back to the researchers
office. A remainder was sent to nonrespondents after 2
weeks.
Sample 1
The first sample included 216 employees newly hired in
25 different firms from a variety of industries. The response rate was 57%. The tenure of respondents averaged 3.39 months (median = 3.00), with a minimum of
1 month and a maximum of 6 months. The average age
of respondents was 26.15 years and 44% were female.
Of the respondents, 55% held a master degree, 38% were
undergraduates, whereas 7% held a college degree.
Sample 2
The second sample included 201 new recruits (a 44%
response rate) from four Belgian banks. They held commercial positions within their company. Their average
tenure was 17.02 months (median = 16.00), with a minimum of 2 months and a maximum of 54 months. The
average age of respondents was 26.18 years. Thirty-eight
percent of respondents were female, 51% were graduates
in applied economics, 22% were graduates in other disciplines, 14% were undergraduates in applied economics, and 13% were undergraduates in other disciplines.
129
which employees perceived a fit between the characteristics of their job and their own expectations (cf. Meyer
& Allen, 1997). Note that the met expectations measure
was collected from Sample 1 only.
Job satisfaction was assessed through four items, two
of which were borrowed from OReilly and Caldwell
(1981), the others being built for this study. Respondents
indicated, for instance, how satisfied they were with their
job and the extent to which they would prefer another,
more ideal job.
Intent to leave was captured using two items. Respondents indicated the likelihood of their working for the
organization within the next three years and how frequently they thought of quitting their job. This variable
was measured for Sample 2 only.
Demographic Data
Tenure was a continuous variable and measured in
months. Employment contract was categorized as longor short-term (from 1 to 3), depending on the time span
of the contract. Note that this variable was reported for
Sample 1 only. Level of education was an ordinal variable, with a higher score indicating a higher level of
education or more marketable skills.
Except for demographic data, a 6-point Likert scale
was used for all survey items.
Analyses
Measures
Commitment
Commitment
Affective and continuance commitment were measured
using seven and six items, respectively, resulting from a
French validation of Meyer and Allens scales (Vandenberghe, 1996). Internalization (four items) and compliance scales (four items) were translated from OReilly
and Chatmans (1986) scales.
Met expectations were measured using a four-item
scale, two of them being taken from Feldman (1976), the
others being developed specifically for this study (e. g.,
In some ways, I feel like this is not the right type of work
for me, or Im not the right type of person for this job
reverse keyed). This measure emphasizes the extent to
130
Results
Confirmatory Factor Analyses
Internal consistency coefficients, measured through
Cronbachs , for commitment dimensions are reasonably good for internalization (.80 and .80), affective
commitment (.82 and .86), and continuance commitment
(.70 and .72). In contrast, compliance displays very weak
reliabilities (.36 and .47). The latter may indicate that the
compliance scale is a poor operationalization of the construct. Note that a similar finding has been reported in
previous research (Sutton & Harrison, 1994; Vandenberg
et al., 1994).
We first fitted the four-factor model of commitment in
each sample, using the 21-item covariance matrix. In
both cases, model fit was moderate: 2 (183, N = 185) =
327.25, GFI = .85, NNFI = .86, CFI = .87, RMSEA = .07
for Sample 1, and 2 (183, N = 184) = 330.71, GFI = .85,
NNFI = .88, CFI = .89, RMSEA = .07 for Sample 2. The
inspection of factor loadings revealed that two items
from the compliance scale displayed a weak loading in
at least one sample. Item COMP2 had loadings of .25 and
.03 in Sample 1 and 2 respectively, whereas the loadings
for COMP4 were .04 and .40. This might be one reason
why -coefficients were so poor for this scale. Because
these items were a source of unreliability, we deleted
them and reconducted the analyses (using a 19-item co-
Sample 1
2
df
GFI
Null model
1303.89 171 .40
One-factor
444.62 152 .77
Two-factor obliquea
375.45 151 .82
Two-factor obliqueb
437.91 151 .77
Three-factor obliquec 298.98 149 .85
Three-factor obliqued 355.52 149 .83
Four-factor oblique
275.95 146 .86
NNFI
CFI
RMSEA
Sample 2
2
df
GFI
NNFI
CFI
RMSEA
NA
.71
.78
.71
.85
.79
.87
NA
.74
.80
.75
.87
.82
.89
.19
.10
.09
.10
.07
.09
.07
1524.64
507.42
403.48
488.50
311.62
357.55
255.67
.35
.73
.80
.74
.84
.82
.87
NA
.70
.79
.72
.86
.82
.91
NA
.74
.81
.75
.88
.85
.92
.21
.11
.10
.11
.08
.09
.06
171
152
151
151
149
149
146
Notes. Sample 1: N = 191, sample 2: N = 185, based on listwise deletion of missing data. GFI = goodness-of-fit index; NNFI = nonnormed
fit index; CFI = comparative fit index; RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation; NA = not applicable. aAffective commitment
and internalization versus continuance commitment and compliance, bAffective commitment versus internalization, continuance commitment and compliance, cAffective commitment and internalization, continuance commitment, and compliance, dContinuance commitment and compliance, affective commitment, and internalization.
EJPA 16 (2), 2000 Hogrefe & Huber Publishers
131
Table 2. Factor loadings of the commitment items for the four-factor oblique model.
Item
Affective
Continuance Internalization Compliance
Commitment Commitment
S1
S2
S1
S2
S1
S2
S1
S2
.80
.81
.70
.35
.58
.87
.80
.77
.69
.64
.63
.65
.55
.47
Continuance Commitment
CC1. I feel that I have enough options to consider leaving this
organization (R).
CC2. One of the few consequences of leaving this organization would
be the scarcity of available alternatives.
CC3. I am afraid of what might happen if I quit my job without having
another one lined up.
CC4. One of the major reasons I continue to work for this organization
is that leaving would require considerable personal sacrifice
another organization may not match the overall benefits I have here.
CC5. Right now, staying with my organization is a matter of necessity
as much as desire.
CC6. It would be very hard for me to leave my organization right now,
even if I wanted to.
Internalization
INT1. My attachment to this organization is primarily based on the
similarity of my values and those represented by the organization.
INT2. The reason I prefer this organization to others is because of what it
stands for, its values.
INT3. Since joining this organization, my personal values and those of the
organization have become more similar.
INT4. If the values of this organization were different, I would not be as
attached to this organization.
.50
.73
.49
.70
.64
.52
.44
.55
.44
.43
.63
.43
.72
.86
.74
.75
.71
.68
.68
.59
Compliance
COMP1. Unless Im rewarded for it in some way, I see no reason to expend
extra effort on behalf of this organization.
COMP3. My private views about this organization are different than those
I express publicly.
.54
.67
.65
.61
Notes. S1: sample1, S2: sample2. Factor loadings are based on completely standardized solution results.
EJPA 16 (2), 2000 Hogrefe & Huber Publishers
132
of this size are generally considered to be important (Widaman, 1985). Although, for the four-factor model, the
GFI and NNFI values in Sample 1 and that of the GFI in
Sample 2 are below the .90 benchmark, the corresponding CFI values are either very close or above the .90
level. Moreover, the RMSEA for the four-factor model
yields acceptable values in both Sample 1 (.07) and Sample 2 (.06). Finally, the 2/df ratio for this model is also
good in both Sample 1 (1.89) and Sample 2 (1.75).
Table 2 provides the factor loadings for the four-factor
model within the two samples. A close inspection of
these loadings reveals that most of them are significant
and above .40. An exception is the affective commitment
item 4, which has a loading of .35 in Sample 1 (cf. Table
2). It is worth noting that the compliance items also have
good loadings. In fact, the average variance that the compliance construct explains in its indicators averages 36%
in Sample 1 and 41% in Sample 2, which is acceptable
compared to the proportions of variance accounted for
by internalization (51% and 53%), affective commitment (42% and 50%), and continuance commitment
(28% and 33%) in their own indicators.
Table 3 displays the intercorrelations (estimated by
LISREL) among the four commitment factors across the
two samples. Although all correlations are significantly
different from unity (cf. Anderson & Gerbing, 1988),
some of these are quite high. Indeed, internalization and
affective commitment are correlated between .86 and .89
whereas compliance is also strongly related (though negatively) to affective commitment (.74 and .76). These
findings suggest that affective commitment and internalTable 3. Factor intercorrelations for the four-factor modela.
Factor
1. Affective Commitment
2. Continuance Commitment
3. Internalization
4. Compliance
.01
.89
.74
.04
.13
.10
.86
.22
.57
.76
.09
.48
ization partly tap the same content domain and that compliance, as it is operationalized, partly reflects the reverse
of affective commitment. Further examination of the discriminant validity of these scales is provided below
through the inspection of their relationships with criterion
variables.
Sample 1
Tenure Edu- Contract
cation
Met expectations
Satisfaction
Sample 2
Tenure Education
Satisfaction
Intent
to leave
Affective commitment
Continuance commitment
Internalization
Compliance
.06
.23**
.07
.02
.66***
.11
.52***
.45***
.63***
.15*
.47***
.37***
.09
.11
.11
.07
.70***
.00
.48***
.58***
.66***
.11
.48***
.53***
.27*** .00
.13
.27***
.14*
.01
.14*
.10
.03
.48***
.11
.02
Note. Sample 1: N = 216, Sample 2: N = 201. Contract ranges from 1 = long-term contract to 3 = short-term contract; education ranges
from 1 to 3 in Sample 1, and from 1 to 4 in Sample 2, a higher score indicating more marketable skills. * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001.
EJPA 16 (2), 2000 Hogrefe & Huber Publishers
Discussion
This study examined the validity of four dimensions of
OC within a French-speaking context. Its contribution
lies in the simultaneous consideration of four widely
studied dimensions of commitment within a single design. The strength of our study also resides in the validation of a model that has originally been investigated in
English-speaking countries. Thus, it provides preliminary evidence for the cross-cultural validity of OC (Randall, 1993). Further, we examined how the four commitment dimensions related to important criterion measures.
133
134
References
Allen, N.J., & Meyer, J.P. (1990). The measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance and normative commitment to
the organization. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 63,
118.
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, 252
276.
Anderson, J.C., & Gerbing, D.W. (1988). Structural equation
modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step
approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 411423.
Becker, H.S. (1960). Notes on the concept of commitment. American Journal of Sociology, 66, 3242.
Becker, T.E. (1992). Foci and bases of commitment: Are they
135
136
in a Belgian context: Evidence for the three-dimensional model. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 45, 371386.
Wanous, J.P., Poland, T.D., Premack, S.L., & Davis, K.S. (1992).
The effects of met expectations on newcomer attitudes and
behaviors: Areview and meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 288297.
Widaman, K.F. (1985). Hierarchically nested covariance structure
models for multitrait-multimethod data. Applied Psychological
Measurement, 9, 126.
Whitener, E.M., & Walz, P.M. (1993). Exchange theory determinants of affective and continuance commitment and turnover.
Journal of Vocational Behavior, 42, 265281.
Nathalie Delobbe
Universit catholique de Louvain
Psychology Department
Place cardinal Mercier 10
B-1348 Louvain-la-Neuve
Belgium
Fax +32 10 473774
E-mail delobbe@ergo.ucl.ac.be
137
138