The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/0951-354X.htm

IJEM
23,3 Job stress and organizational
commitment among mentoring
coordinators
266
Orly Michael
Achva Academic College of Education, Shikmin, Israel and School of Education,
Bar-Ilan University, Ramat Gan, Israel
Deborah Court
School of Education, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat Gan, Israel, and
Pnina Petal
PMP Mentoring Organization, Israel

Abstract
Purpose – This research aims to examine the impact of job stress on the organizational commitment
of a random, representative sample of coordinators in the Israeli educational mentoring organization
PMP. Organizational commitment, including affective, continuance and normative commitment, refers
to worker relations in the organization, and how these relations influence the employee’s well-being,
behavior and contribution to the organization.
Design/methodology/approach – The study used three questionnaires to investigate the influence
of the stress variable and its cumulative effects to predict the coordinators’ organizational
commitment, among 131 PMP coordinators from six different PMP branches around Israel.
Findings – The findings revealed that stress hinders the coordinators’ sense of emotional
commitment. As the stress level rises, the coordinators’ sense of belonging decreases. Another finding
was that the stress in the coordinators’ job does not influence their overall continuance commitment.
Strong continuance commitment was found in two categories: role expectations that were not
compatible with the role requirements, and the second, unwillingness to leave the job in the middle of
the year. In addition, the research indicated that job stress is not related to the PMP coordinators’
normative commitment. They felt loyalty to the organization based on the faith that this work is the
right thing to do.
Originality/value – The importance of the research lies in the highlighting of stress as an essential
factor influencing work and performance in organizations, together with the mitigating influence of
organizational commitment. These results could help organizations to better understand the influence
of organizational commitment and to manage its implications more effectively. It is suggested that
further research should investigate whether those working in educational settings have greater
normative commitment than workers in other fields.
Keywords Jobs, Stress, Job satisfaction, Employee behaviour, Mentoring, Israel
Paper type Research paper

Introduction
International Journal of Educational Stress at work is a well-known phenomenon that may express itself differently, and
Management affect workers differently, in different work contexts. Studying job stress in different
Vol. 23 No. 3, 2009
pp. 266-288
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0951-354X
Orly Michael was the principal researcher in this project. Deborah Court was the principal writer.
DOI 10.1108/09513540910941766 Pnina Petal was the secondary researcher and research assistant.
contexts will contribute to deeper understanding of the phenomenon as a whole and Job stress and
how to minimize its negative effects on workers’ productivity, satisfaction and organizational
commitment to stay in their jobs. Strong normative commitment to an organization, for
instance, may override some of the negative effects of stress. The purpose of this article commitment
is to describe job stress in the context of an Israeli mentoring organization, PMP, and
the factors that contribute to stress within that organization. PMP offers mentoring to
underprivileged young people. Such a context (as opposed to, for instance, a business 267
context) may require a high level of normative commitment on the part of employees.
This among other factors will be explored and implications drawn for understanding
stress and commitment in the workplace. First, in the literature review that follows, the
notions of job stress, role conflict, role ambiguity, role overload and different kinds of
organizational commitment will be examined.

Stress and job stress

The term “stress” originated in the field of physics and was transferred into
psychology. Basically, the idea is that human beings tend to resist external forces
acting upon them, just as do physical materials and bodies (Hobfull, 1989). Today the
concept of stress is widespread but controversial, and is defined in several different
ways (Keinan, 1997):
.
Stress as stimulation – stress is an extremely powerful (and at times unusual)
stimulation which combines characteristics of loss and threat.
.
Stress as reaction – stress is a reaction to a particular event.
.
Stress as relation – this definition combines both previous definitions. The term
stress refers to the interaction between the person and the environment. In
reviewing studies pertaining to job stresses Kahn and Byosiere (1992) see as
recurring themes role conflict, role ambiguity and work overload. Such factors
have negative implications for workers, both psychologically and physically.
Role conflict concerns incompatible role expectations. Such conflict is related to
conceptual differences between workers and different supervisors regarding the
content or importance of required job tasks. This creates conflict: the commitment to a
number of superiors versus the individual’s values pertaining to the organization’s
requirements (Kahn and Byosiere, 1992). Some researchers have suggested that in
order to prevent role conflict, organizations should function according to the classic
organizational theory principle of unity of command, that is, that the employee should
be supervised by a single superior and work according to a single plan. According to
Weisner (2003) and Rizzo et al. (1970), an organization which cares for its employees
must spare them the “cross-fire” of two or more superiors who have incompatible work
instructions and expectations.
Role ambiguity expresses the ambivalence that is to be expected when role
expectations are not clear due to lack of information about the role and the work it
entails. The employee does not know where to direct his or her efforts, and moreover,
whether his or her superiors will deem the results of the role performance a “success”
or a “failure” (Beehr and Bhagat, 1985; Rizzo et al., 1970). Thus another aspect of role
ambiguity is the employee’s inability to predict the results of his or her actions. This
gives the worker a sense of lack of control, which has been identified as a strong
contributor to stress (Karasek, 1979). An organization’s size and complexity may also
IJEM give the employee a sense of not comprehending the essence of the job. Advanced
technology and rapid organizational growth further add to organizational complexity,
23,3 so that employees find it hard to be familiar with and have expertise in all the technical
topics relevant to their roles. Classical organizational theory maintains that each role
should have a particular array of tasks and areas of responsibility (Weisner, 2003).
Clear definition of role requirements gives superiors license to expect employees to be
268 responsible for performing their roles. But if employees are not aware of the role
requirements and what is expected of them, they will hesitate to make decisions and
will work by trial and error aiming to meet their superiors’ expectations (Rizzo et al.,
1970).
Role overload is defined as incompatibility between the role requirements and the
amount of time and resources available to comply with these requirements (Rizzo et al.,
1970). Other researchers emphasize only the time dimension as the main basis for role
overload (Newton and Keenan, 1987). In the past, role overload was considered part of
role conflict. Problems of time, resources and capability were all contained under the
various definitions of role conflict, compromising between the time put into the job, its
quantity and quality (Conley and Woosley, 2000; Kahn and Byosiere, 1992). Today, role
overload is understood to be distinct from role conflict.
Role overload is related to number of sick days, feelings of anxiety, frustration,
depression, decrease in self-confidence, job burnout, attention and concentration
problems and work accidents (Glisson et al., 2006; Kahn and Byosiere, 1992). Role
overload poses a threat to the employee in performing his or her role and also increases
withdrawal behavior patterns from the employing organization – early retirement,
striking, leaving, absenteeism and more (Pelletier, 1992; Rahim, 1992; Jamal, 1990).
Karasek’s (1979) classic Job-Demands-Control model posits that workers whose jobs
have high demands (related to role overload) but give them little control suffer most
from stress-related problems. However, testing of this model has yielded inconsistent
results (Rodriguez et al, 2001), and it has become clear that additional, contextual
factors must be examined for a clearer picture of these relationships to emerge. One
way of expanding this picture is to look at the relationship between role conflict, role
overload, and organizational commitment.

Organizational commitment
Organizational commitment refers to the employee’s attachment to the employing
organization – namely, the commitment to the entire organization as the employee
perceives it (Morrow, 1993) and the organization’s support for the employee
(Zaitman-Speiser, 2005; Whitener, 2001). According to Buchanan (1974) organization
commitment is the emotional connection to a particular organization, which is
characterized by three major parameters in the individual’s attitudes towards the
organization:
(1) Identification – internalization of the organization’s goals and values.
(2) Involvement – activity that the employee performs as part of his or her role.
(3) Loyalty – a sense of belonging to the employing organization.
Popper (1984) stresses that organizational commitment reflects the individual’s unique
relationship with the organization, and that this relationship is significant in
explaining the individual’s behavior in the organization. The term rises out of a variety
of behaviors characteristic of work, as different researchers present them (Allen and Job stress and
Meyer, 1996; Gellatly, 1995; Bycio et al., 1995; Bashaw and Grant, 1994; Meyer et al., organizational
1993; Mathieu and Zajac, 1990). For instance, leaving (or propensity to leave) expresses
a negative emotional reaction towards various aspects of the job and the role commitment
(Kondratuk et al., 2005; Meyer and Allen, 1997; Mathieu and Zajac, 1990). Negative
correlations were also found for absenteeism (Gellatly, 1995; Allen et al, 1993) and
positive correlations for attendance (Mathieu and Zajac, 1990). 269
Organizational commitment is characterized by willingness to maintain
membership in the organization, identification with the organization’s values and
goals and willingness to invest effort in order to support the organization’s goals. The
behavioral approach to organizational commitment (Angle and Lawson, 1993; Meyer
and Allen, 1984) holds that the employee is committed to a certain mode of action in the
organization as a whole, but is not necessarily committed to any particular entity in the
organization. According to this approach, the employee might reach a psychological
state of commitment solely as a result of engaging in binding behaviors. That is,
behavior which in fact turns the termination of the organizational commitment into a
loan with a substantial price (such as accumulation of a retirement fund, seniority, etc.).
If commitment does develop, it is considered to be a result of the commitment to action.
Such a development might take place in order to spare the employee cognitive
dissonance and to preserve a positive self-perception of controllability (Weisner, 2003).
According to the attitudinal approach, commitment is perceived to be a stance or a
psychological state. Employees can examine their relations with the organization on
the one hand, and on the other hand examine the degree to which their own goals meet
the organization’s goals. Our research relates to the attitudinal approach.

Types of commitment
The previous section dealt with organizational commitment as commitment that binds
the employee to the employing organization, where each employee may experience
commitment of a different type and degree. Meyer and Allen (1991) defined three types
of commitment as part of organizational commitment – affective commitment,
continuance commitment and normative commitment
Affective commitment is related to the employee’s sense of belonging, attachment
and loyalty to the organization (Mueller et al., 1992) Employees who are committed
tend to remain in the organization, (Meyer et al., 1990). These researchers claim that
affective commitment can develop out of positive experiences and encounters within
the organization, experiences that communicate to employees that the organization
supports and treats them fairly. Moreover, employees can develop a sense of personal
capability and self worth when the organization knows how to value their contribution
and so reinforces their affective commitment. In addition, affective commitment can
also develop from psychologically rewarding experiences. That is, an employee
develops affective commitment only to the extent that the organization lets him or her
feel at ease, be it by satisfying needs, meeting expectations or enabling the attainment
of the employee’s goals (Meyer and Allen, 1997; Wallace, 1997). Weisner (2003), who
examined affective commitment in the context of satisfaction at work, stresses and
perceivable organizational support, found that both satisfaction at work and
perceivable organizational support mediated all the relations found between stresses
and affective commitment, except for perceivable stress. Wasti (2005) found that when
IJEM examining the effects of and the relations between the three kinds of commitment,
23,3 affective commitment is the most strongly related to positive work outcomes,
especially when combined with low levels of continuance commitment.
Continuance commitment refers to the propensity to remain in the organization,
which increases due to the perceived cost of leaving (Zaitman-Speiser, 2005; Meyer and
Allen, 1991, 1984; Mottaz, 1988). The perceived cost acts as a restraint on leaving, and
270 results from two main reasons:
(1) Accumulation of side bets. This refers to all those things that bear significance
to the employee in the workplace, such as wages, time, investment and so forth.
These side bets might be lost if the employee leaves the organization. Therefore,
the commitment to the organization increases when the employee is better
rewarded or when preserving these rewards requires the continuation of
employment in the organization.
(2) Lack of employment alternatives, which increases the perceived cost of leaving the
company. Employees prefer to remain in their employing organizations when
they are aware that if they leave, there is a chance that they will not find a new
position.
Continuance commitment develops out of the perceived cost (benefit against loss), and
requires that the employee be aware of these benefits and losses. Therefore different
workers who encounter identical situations may experience different levels of
continuance commitment (Meyer and Allen, 1997; Mottaz, 1989). Hence continuance
commitment is a neutral emotional reaction and is influenced by the consequences of
the decision whether to continue in the organization or leave it. In addition, employees
often feel committed to the organization purely on account of a personal-utilitarian
interest (Mottaz, 1989). Weisner (2003) found that continuance commitment is not the
commitment desirable for an organization, and stresses that while employees who
perceive the cost of leaving the organization as heavy prefer to stay, their contribution
to the organization is not as positive.
Normative commitment leads employees to stay in the organization due to a sense
of loyalty or duty, and because they feel that this is the right thing to do (Meyer and
Allen, 1997). Normative commitment develops out of internal pressures that result
from norms that encourage extended commitment to the organization. Individuals
derive these norms from socialization processes in the family and surrounding culture,
which include experiences that stress loyalty towards a particular organization. The
individual undergoes a process of internalization of norms and expectations, in which
he or she learns and later is aware of the expectations of the family, culture and
organization that leads to internalization of loyalty to the place of work and
commitment to act in a manner that fits the organization’s goals and interests
(Weisner, 2003; Dunham et al., 1994). In addition, normative commitment develops
based on a psychological contract between the organization and the employee, based
on both sides’ belief regarding their mutual obligations (Rousseau, 1995). Normative
commitment can also develop following the organization’s investment in the employee
though training or tuition funding (Meyer and Allen, 1991).
Based on the above, it appears that these three components of organizational
commitment are conceptually distinct, as they describe different psychological
orientations towards the organization and may develop from different experiences of
the individual in the organization and towards it (Meyer and Allen, 1991). The three Job stress and
components of organizational commitment differ in their organizational outcomes. organizational
Meyer and Allen (1997) found a strong relation between leaving and performance and
affective commitment, but a weak relation with regard to normative commitment, and commitment
practically no relation in the case of continuance commitment. Meyer et al.’s (2002)
meta-analysis of 155 studies using one of these three commitment scales found strong
correlations between each of the scales and job satisfaction and job involvement. All 271
three were negatively correlated with job leaving. Perceived organizational support
was most strongly correlated with affective commitment.
Meyer and Allen’s (1991) three components of organizational commitment provide a
valid operationalization of the term “organizational commitment”, although there are
various disputes about it, particularly regarding the dimensionality of continuance
commitment. According to Dunham et al. (1994), continuance commitment can be
divided into two dimensions: one which measures the cost of leaving the organization
and which is based on lack of alternatives, and another which concerns the
commitment brought about by personal sacrifice that is related to leaving. Despite the
various disputes, Meyer and Allen’s concept of organizational commitment as having
three components, affective, normative and continuance commitment, has received
extensive empirical support (Meyer et al., 1993). Weisner (2003) notes that there is great
significance to the various consequences of each of the three dimensions, since not
every commitment is desirable to the organization. She further adds that continuance
commitment may have negative implications, whereas positive implications may be
found in the affective and normative commitments, even if only in the short run.

Job stress, organizational commitment and demographic characteristics

Findings about the relationship of demographic characteristics to workers’ levels of job
stress and organizational commitment have been mixed and inconclusive. For
instance, Balay (2007) found that as teachers age they are more likely to experience
commitment based on internalization of organizational values and identification with
those values. Balay found that male teachers were more likely to experience
commitment based on compliance and avoidance of conflict than were female teachers.
Rozenblatt (2001) fund no simple correlation between age, education or nationality and
organizational commitment and burnout. Rather, these factors were mediated by
participants’ skill level and skill flexibility. Rodriguez-Calcagno and Brewer (2005)
found that amongst Hispanic professionals females experience higher levels of job
stress than do males. Brewer and McMahon (2003) found that while there was a large
amount of variance in levels of job stress among industrial education teacher
educators, this variance was not explained by demographic characteristics. Like
Rodriguez-Calcagno and Brewer (2005), Brewer and McMahon found that perceived
organizational support was the greatest determining factor of stress and commitment
levels. Mirsalmi and Roffe (1991) also found that characteristics of the organizational
environment itself were more important than demographic factors in predicting levels
of stress and commitment among HIV counselors. While there is no clear picture of the
role of demographic characteristics in levels of stress and commitment, they are,
nevertheless, usually included in such analyses, and we have chosen to include them as
well. In any specific organizational context under study, new connections may come to
light.
IJEM The mentoring organization PMP
23,3 The Perach Mentoring Project (PMP) is a social-educational project which assists
elementary school and junior high school children (Michael, 2008) in poor
socio-economic neighborhoods. PMP was established in 1974 and is now considered
to be one of the world’s biggest mentoring projects (Goodlad and Hirst, 1989). The
stated aim of this educational project is to promote the educational and cultural
272 advancement of intellectually, emotionally or socially under-achieving children (PMP,
2003; Wolfing, 1999; Fresko and Kobelski, 1998; Fresko and Carmeli, 1990; PMP, 1984).
The project is run by the Weizmann Institute of Science and has eight branches located
in five universities. In each of the branches there is a group of coordinators (all students
working part-time), who manage about 50 student mentors each (Fresko and Kobelski,
1998; PMP, 1984). PMP is headed by a public council composed of representatives of
the Ministry of Education and Culture, the Committee for Higher Education, The
Jewish Agency for Israel and the Student Union, who are elected by the Minister of
Education and Culture (PMP, 1984).
PMP operates various kinds of mentoring (PMP, 2003; Fresko and Kobelski, 1998;
Eisenberg et al., 1980):
.
Individual mentoring – meetings of the mentor (student) and the mentee which
are devoted to school-related activities as well as various other activities.
.
Group mentoring – mentoring of several children or a whole class, in a variety of
areas such as art, nature, chemistry, law, health and more.
PMP wishes to engage university students, who are generally of high intellectual level
and personal ability, in this voluntary work for the community, in order to raise their
awareness of the needs of the weaker socio-economic classes, and to reduce social gaps
(PMP, 2003).
The PMP mentors (the students) commit themselves to four weekly hours of
mentoring (two weekly meetings of two hours each) with the children during the course
of one academic year. In return, the students receive a scholarship that covers part of
their tuition (Wolfing, 1999; Fresko and Kobelski, 1998; PMP, 1984). The meetings with
the mentee are usually held at the child’s home, in order to allow the mentor a closer
acquaintance with the child’s environment and family background. In addition, the
mentor can organize meetings in the library, the community center or the local club, to
introduce the mentee to the community facilities and services in his or her area
(Wolfing, 1999). The mentors’ work is monitored by a coordinator (see the coordinator
population section), who meets with the mentors once a month. The
mentor-coordinator meetings are intended to aid in resolving social or professional
problems that the mentor encounters, as well as to provide information and guidance
(PMP, 1984).
The PMP children (the mentees) are mostly from poor socio-economic
neighborhoods and from large families (Wolfing, 1999). The PMP mentees study in
elementary and junior high schools. Location of suitable children and following up on
their progress is done by school staff – counselors, principals and other contact people,
among them psychologists and social workers (Wolfing, 1999). The children are chosen
for the project due to environmental deficiencies (social, economic, cultural and/or
educational) of varying degrees, which are reflected in low academic achievement, lack
of motivation to study and low self-esteem (PMP, 1984).
 In sum, the goal of PMP mentoring is broader than assisting pupils with scholastic Job stress and
problems; it also stresses enrichment and introduces the child to social and community organizational
activities and resources (PMP, 1984).
commitment
PMP coordinators
The coordinators working in PMP are students in institutes of higher learning, and are
a fairly homogeneous population (PMP, 1984). Prior to their admission to the job, the 273
candidate students go through a process that tests their level of normative
commitment. The coordinators are employed part-time and do no more than ten
months of work, and are subordinate to the local PMP branch in the academic institute
in which the branch operates (PMP, 2003, 1984).
The PMP coordinator has many varied tasks that are manifested in the
coordinator’s relationship with his or her group of mentees, who number about 50
students (Beeri and Zimmerman, 2002; Fresko and Kobelski, 1998):
(1) Interviewing mentees – the coordinator interviews the students who register
fot PMP and puts together his or her group.
(2) Interviewing children – the coordinator interviews the pupils and determines
who satisfies the criteria for receiving mentoring.
(3) Follow up and guidance – each mentor meets once a month with the
coordinator for a discussion of the mentoring, difficulties, accomplishments,
goals and support (Beeri and Zimmerman, 2002; Wolfing, 1999).
(4) Organizing seminars – organizing group activities for the mentors (sometimes
along with the mentees) which concern various mentoring issues (Fresko and
Kobelski, 1998).
(5) Organizing a scholarship report for the mentors.

In addition to the coordinators’ work with their groups of mentors and mentees, they
receive guidance and follow up on their work from the staff of the branch to which they
belong, through workshops and individual meetings with the team leader and
sometimes with the branch counselor. Several examples of the coordinator’s duties, as
listed in the brochure The Complete Guide of the Perplexed for the PMP Coordinator
(PMP, 2003), are consultation, receiving guidance, participation in the branch staff
meetings, participation in seminars, and participation in the guidance groups guided
by the counselor.
The PMP coordinator’s work is broad and varied. This study examined the impact
of stress on coordinators’ work and how it influences their organizational commitment.

Research question
Will a relationship be found between coordinators’ job stress and their organizational
commitment to PMP? The central research hypothesis is that a relation between job
stress and organizational commitment will be found. Specifically:
(1) A negative relation will be found between job stress and affective commitment.
(2) A negative relation will be found between job stress and continuance
commitment.
(3) No relation will be found between job stress and normative commitment.
IJEM The research hypotheses focus on “job stress” (in general), and not the specific
23,3 influence of each of the stress types, conflict, ambiguity and overload.

Method
Research design
In the processing of the data we examined the separate findings for each of the stress
274 types – conflict, ambiguity and overload – to enhance the validity of the findings. The
findings were processed in a statistical analysis and distributions, averages and
Pearson correlations were calculated.

Research population
A total of 131 PMP coordinators (27 males and 104 females) participated in this
research. These coordinators were a random, representative sample of all the PMP
coordinators who worked in 2006 in six PMP branches around Israel. These branches
were chosen to represent the different geographic areas of the country. Between 16 and
28 coordinators from each branch participated. The coordinators’ age ranged from 20
to 29 (M ¼ 24:84, SD ¼ 1:74).
Table I displays the sample distribution according to gender, education level,
marital status, seniority as PMP coordinator and position percentage.
Table I shows that the education level of most participants was BA (89.3 percent).
Most coordinators were unmarried (75.6 percent) and in their first year on the job (71.0

Demographic variables % n

Gender
Male 20.6 27
Female 79.4 104
Education
Preparatory course 2.3 3
BA 89.3 117
MA 8.4 11
Marital status
Single 75.6 99
Married 21.4 28
Lives with spouse 3.1 4
Seniority as PMP coordinator
First year 71.0 93
Two years or more 29.0 38
Position percentage
50 92.4 121
Full time 5.3 7
Table I. Other 2.3 3
Sample distribution
according to gender, Project type
education level, marital Individual tutoring 77.1 101
status, seniority as PMP Adolescents 12.2 16
coordinator and position Regional 3.8 5
percentage Group 6.9 9
percent). The position percentage of most of the coordinators in the research was 50 Job stress and
percent (92.4 percent), and the number of work hours per week ranged between 9 and organizational
52 (M ¼ 20:89, SD ¼ 5:09).
In addition, the most common project type among the coordinators was individual commitment
tutoring (77.1 percent), followed by an adolescent project (12.2 percent), a group project
(6.9 percent) and a regional project (3.8 percent).
275
Research tools
The research tools included three questionnaires.
1. The job stress questionnaire. This measures the degree of job stress. The
questionnaire is based on the tool developed by Beehr et al. (1976), which appears in
Weisner (2003). It is a closed questionnaire composed of 16 items and divided into the
three stress types:
(1) Work overload – e.g. “It often seems that I have too much work for just one
person” (Cronbach’s alpha of 0.66).
(2) Role conflict – e.g. “I receive incompatible requests from two or more people”
(Cronbach’s alpha of 0.76).
(3) Role ambiguity – e.g. “I know what my areas of responsibility are” (Cronbach’s
alpha of 0.81).
The questionnaire answers range on a scale of 1 to 7, where 1 indicates “I do not agree
at all”, and 7 indicates “I completely agree”. The three types of stress are integrated
into the single index “overall job stresses”, and therefore the reliability of the
questionnaire on the whole is Cronbach’s alpha of 0.77.
In the present research we measured the internal consistency of the test indices with
Cronbach’s alpha coefficients. In the work overload, role conflict and role ambiguity
indices we received Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficients of 0.40 (since there were
only two statements in this category), 0.72 and 0.88, respectively. In addition, we
received Cronbach’s alpha reliability of 0.84 for the whole questionnaire.
Scoring manner – for each coordinator we calculated three indices on the three
stress types as follows:
(1) Work overload index – questions 1 and 2 in the questionnaire; a high score in
this index indicates a high level of work overload.
(2) Role conflict index – questions 3 to 10 in the questionnaire; a high score in this
index indicates a high level of role conflict.
(3) Role ambiguity index – questions 11 to 16 in the questionnaire; a high score in
this index indicates a high level of role ambiguity.

The indices and Cronbach’s alpha reliabilities were calculated after reversing
questions 1 and 11-16.
2. The organizational commitment questionnaire. This was measured with the three
scales of Meyer et al. (1993), as they appear in Weisner (2003). The questionnaire is a
closed questionnaire containing 18 items and divided into the three types of
organizational commitment:
(1) Affective commitment – e.g. “I really feel like the organization’s problems are
my own” (Cronbach’s alpha of 0.88).
IJEM (2) Continuance commitment – e.g. “Had I not already invested so much of myself
23,3 in this organization, perhaps I’d consider working elsewhere” (Cronbach’s alpha
of 0.61).
(3) Normative commitment – e.g. “This organization deserves my commitment”
(Cronbach’s alpha of 0.85).

276 The questionnaire answers range on a scale of 1 to 7, where 1 indicates “I do not agree
at all”, and 7 indicates “I completely agree”.
In this research the internal consistency of the test indices was measured by
Cronbach’s alpha coefficients. In the affective commitment, continuance commitment
and normative commitment indices we received Cronbach’s alpha coefficients of 0.89,
0.68 and 0.84, respectively. In addition, we received Cronbach’s alpha of 0.51 for the
entire questionnaire.
Scoring manner – for each coordinator we calculated three indices on the three
types of organizational commitment as follows:
(1) Affective commitment index – questions 1 to 6 in the questionnaire; a high
score in this index indicates a high level of affective commitment.
(2) Continuance commitment index – questions 7 to 12 in the questionnaire; a high
score in this index indicates a high level of continuance commitment.
(3) Normative commitment index – questions 13 to 18 in the questionnaire; a high
score in this index indicates a high level of normative commitment.
The indices and Cronbach’s alpha reliabilities were calculated after reversing
questions 3-5 and 13.
3. The demographical questionnaire. This was composed of questions regarding
gender, age, ethnic background, marital status, level of education and seniority in the
position.
The research also included interviews with some participants. While these results
are reported elsewhere (in preparation) some insights from the interview data are
included in the discussion section of this paper since they shed light on the statistical
results.

Research procedure
The questionnaires were taken from the work of Weisner (2003), who studied more
broadly the dimensions of stress and organizational commitment among high-tech
workers. Questionnaires were distributed via registered mail during March 2005 to all
the PMP branches that participated in the study. A total of 180 questionnaires were
sent to the branches altogether. With the help of the managers, the questionnaires were
then distributed to the coordinators. The participants were given a deadline on
receiving it of two weeks for submitting the completed questionnaire.
When the questionnaires were collected in each branch, they were sent back to the
researcher, after three months. The batch of questionnaires from each branch was
bound together and given the name of the branch. A total of 131 questionnaires were
returned, a total of 73 percent from all the distributed questionnaires. The rest of the
questionnaires, which were not returned, were not included in the study. The research
was conducted in a manner that guaranteed the coordinators complete confidentiality,
and the questionnaires were answered anonymously.
Results Job stress and
The main aim of this research was to examine the job stresses among PMP organizational
coordinators, and to determine to what degree these stresses influence their
organizational commitment. In the first part of the results section we present the commitment
averages and standard deviations of the research variables, and then the findings
regarding the research hypotheses. In the second part we consider the research
hypotheses in relation to the demographic variables. 277
Part 1: averages, standard deviations and the research hypotheses
Table II displays the averages and standard deviations of the levels of job stress and
organizational commitment, as these were reported by the coordinators (the answers
range on a scale of 1 to 7, where 1 is the lowest and 7 the highest).
As Table II indicates, PMP coordinators feel stress in their work, and their
organizational commitment is medium to high, particularly the normative and
affective commitment. Since the answer scale ranges between 1 and 7, 4 is the medium
value. However, the variable values are generally similar and are around the middle of
the answer range.
The first research question was whether there is a relation between job stress and
affective commitment, and if so, what relation it is. Affective commitment is the sense
of belonging that an employee feels towards the employing organization (Meyer et al.,
1990). In order to check this question, the Pearson correlations between the job stress
indices and affective commitment were first calculated. Table III shows the
correlations between the job stress indices and affective commitment.

Average Standard deviation

Research variable (n ¼ 131) (n ¼ 131)

Job stress
Work overload 3.93 1.24
Role conflict 3.21 0.94
Role ambiguity 2.70 1.03
Overall stress 3.11 0.81
Table II.
Organizational commitment Averages and standard
Affective 4.60 1.25 deviations of work stress
Continuance 3.64 0.99 and organizational
Normative 5.07 1.30 commitment among PMP
Overall organization commitment 4.44 0.83 coordinators

Job stress Affective commitment (r)

Work overload 20.10

Role conflict 20.25 * * Table III.
Role ambiguity 20.09 Pearson correlation
Stress – overall 20.21 * between the job stress
indices and affective
Notes: * p , 0:05; * * p , 0:01 commitment
IJEM As the findings in Table III suggest, a significant negative correlation was found
23,3 between role conflict and affective commitment. This finding means that the higher the
role conflict was, the lower the affective commitment. A similar trend was found in the
correlation between the overall stress variable and affective commitment. The work
overload and role ambiguity indices were not found to be significantly correlated to
affective commitment.
278 The second research question asked whether there is a correlation between job
stress and continuance commitment, and if so, what is it? Continuance commitment is,
as previously defined, the propensity to remain in the organization, which even
increases due to the perceived cost of leaving (Meyer and Allen, 1991). To check this
hypothesis, the Pearson correlation coefficients between the job stress indices and
continuance commitment were calculated. Table IV presents the correlations between
the job stress indices and continuance commitment.
According to the findings in Table IV, there was a significant positive correlation
between role conflict and continuance commitment. This correlation means that the
higher the role conflict was, the higher the continuance commitment. A similar result
was also found in the correlation between the overall stress index and continuance
commitment. The work overload and role ambiguity indices were not found to be in
significant correlation with continuance commitment.
In sum, the second research hypothesis was not proven. Moreover, the correlation
between the variables was found to be in the inverse direction to what we expected,
both in the overall level and in the role conflict subcategory.
The third question was whether there is a correlation between job stress and
normative commitment, and if so, what it is. Normative commitment is the tendency to
remain in the organization due to a sense of loyalty or duty, and the feeling that this is
the right thing to do (Meyer and Allen, 1997). To check this hypothesis, the Pearson
correlation coefficients between the job stress indices and normative commitment were
calculated. Table V presents the correlations between the job stress indices and
normative commitment.

Job stress Continuance commitment (r)

Work overload 0.11

Table IV. Role conflict 0.21 *
Pearson correlation Role ambiguity 0.09
between the job stress Stress – overall 0.19 *
indices and continuance
commitment Note: * p , 0:05

Job stress Normative commitment (r)

Work overload 0.04

Table V. Role conflict 20.09
Pearson correlation Role ambiguity 20.09
between the job stress Stress – overall 20.09
indices and normative
commitment Note: * p , 0:05
The results in Table VI do not reflect significant correlations between the job stress Job stress and
indices and normative commitment. We can thus conclude that the third research organizational
hypothesis was fully supported.
In sum, we see that no correlation was found between the coordinators’ job stress commitment
and their organizational commitment to the organization.

279
Part 2: the research hypotheses in relation to the demographic variables
First we shall present the correlations between the demographic variables and the job
stress indices, as well as between the demographic variables and organizational
commitment. Then we turn to the correlations between job stress and organizational
commitment, in relation to the demographic variables.
In order to check whether there is a correlation between gender and job stress, we
examined the differences in the averages of the variables of all three stress types and
the overall variable in relation to gender. The analysis results indicated significant
differences between males and females in the degree of stress, F ð3;127Þ ¼ 3:58, p , 0:05.
The averages and standard deviations as well as the analysis of variance results that
were calculated individually for each index are displayed in Table VII.
Table VII shows that the level of job stress is higher among males than among
females in all indices except work overload.
To see whether there is a correlation between marital status and the job stress
characteristics, we performed an analysis of variance (ANOVA). The ANOVA analysis
results did not reveal significant differences in the job stress characteristics with
regard to marital status.
To check the correlation between seniority on the job and job stress, we compared
the job stress averages between PMP coordinators who are in their first year on the job
and coordinators who have worked at PMP two years or more. We found no differences
in the degree of the stress characteristics for the overall variable, nor for the role
conflict and role ambiguity variables.

Seniority as PMP coordinator

Job stress First year (n ¼ 93) Two years or more (n ¼ 38) T(129)

Work overload 2.104 *

M 4.08 3.58
SD 1.14 1.41
Role conflict 2 0.418
M 3.18 3.26
SD 0.87 1.11
Role ambiguity 1.449
M 2.78 2.50
SD 1.02 1.04
Stress – overall 0.838 Table VI.
M 3.14 3.01 Averages, standard
SD 0.75 0.95 deviations and analysis
of variance results for the
Note: * p , 0:05 job stress indices
IJEM
Job stress Males (n ¼ 27) Females (n ¼ 104) T(129)
23,3
Work overload 1.283
M 4.20 3.86
SD 1.23 1.24
Role conflict 2.787 *
280 M 3.64 3.09
SD 0.87 0.93
Role ambiguity 2.493 *
M 3.13 2.59
SD 0.96 1.02
Table VII. Stress – overall 3.07 *
Averages, standard M 3.52 3.00
deviations and analysis SD 0.74 0.80
of variance results for the
job stress indices Note: * p , 0:05

However, we found that the work overload perceived by the PMP coordinators in their
first year is significantly higher (Tð129Þ ¼ 2:104, p , 0:05) than that perceived by the
more senior coordinators. This is possibly due to stress of being newer in the
organization.
The averages, standard deviations and analysis of variance results calculated for
each index individually are displayed in Table VI.
In order to assess the correlation between job stress and the coordinators’ age and
number of work hours, we calculated the Pearson correlations. Table VIII presents the
received correlations.
As Table VIII shows, no significant correlation was found between the coordinators’
age or number of work hours and job stress.
Similar analyses were conducted to identify differences in the organizational
commitment characteristics and demographic characteristics. These analyses reveal
that there are no significant differences in the coordinators’ commitment according to
gender, marital status, their seniority in the project or their age. We found no influence
of the number of weekly work hours dedicated by the coordinators on their levels of
organizational commitment, apart from a significant positive correlation between the
level of affective organizational commitment and the number of work hours (r ¼ 0:204,
p , 0:05), namely, the higher the coordinators’ affective organizational commitment is,
the more hours they put in.

Job stress Age (r) Number of work hours (r)

Work overload 2 0.05 2 0.01

Table VIII. Role conflict 2 0.02 2 0.05
Pearson correlation Role ambiguity 0.01 0.12
between job stress and Stress – overall 2 0.01 0.03
coordinators’ age and
number of work hours Note: * p , 0:05
 Lastly, we examined differences in the levels of stress and organizational Job stress and
commitment according to the project branches. The most prominent finding is that no organizational
significant differences were found in the organizational commitment among the
various branches. commitment
Examination of the stress level resulted in slightly more complex findings.
Differences were found among the various branches, as described in Table IX.
However, a post-hoc analysis (according to Scheffe) showed that there were no 281
significant differences among the branches regarding work overload and role conflict
characteristics. Regarding role ambiguity, we found a borderline difference only
between the averages of branches 1 and 6 (p ¼ 0:49) and no differences among the
other branches. A similar trend was found also in the overall variable. This analysis
showed that there were differences between branch 6 and branches 1 and 3 (p ¼ 0:03,
p ¼ 0:025, respectively).
In addition, we checked the research questions for each branch alone and for males
alone and females alone (see Table X). In all branches and for both genders no
significant correlations were found between the stress characteristics and the
normative commitment characteristics. No significant correlations were found for the
branch 2 coordinators. Only partial correlations were found for the branch 4
(a positive correlation between role conflict and continuance commitment), branch 1
(a negative correlation between role conflict and affective commitment) and
branch 6 (a negative correlation between work overload and affective commitment).
In particular, no significant relations were found between the overall stress variable
in these branches and the organizational commitment characteristics.
However, significant negative correlations were found between stress
characteristics and emotional involvement in branch 1. In addition, significant
positive correlations were found between stress characteristics and the long-term
commitment characteristics in branch 3.

North Tel-Aviv Center South Technion Haifa

branch branch branch branch branch branch
Job stress n ¼ 21 n ¼ 16 n ¼ 28 n ¼ 20 n ¼ 23 n ¼ 23 F

Work overload
M 3.60 4.06 4.32 3.68 4.33 3.50 2.18 *
SD 1.10 1.03 1.45 1.46 1.09 0.97
Role conflict
M 3.38 3.03 3.50 2.96 3.48 2.76 2.65 *
SD 1.00 0.89 1.03 0.87 0.79 0.82
Role ambiguity
M 2.44 2.32 3.05 2.72 3.21 2.23 3.78 *
SD 0.92 0.73 1.02 0.94 1.37 0.61 Table IX.
Stress – overall Averages, standard
M 3.06 2.89 3.43 2.96 3.48 2.65 4.10 * deviations and analysis
SD 0.80 0.58 0.96 0.84 0.69 0.59 2.18 * of variance results for job
stress according to PMP
Note: * p , 0:05 branches
IJEM
Organizational commitment
23,3 Profile Job stress Affective (r) Continuance (r) Normative (r)
Branch no. 1 Work overload 20.51 * 2 0.01 2 0.22
(n ¼ 21) Role conflict 20.39 0.12 2 0.21
Role ambiguity 20.44 * 2 0.02 2 0.29
Overall stress 20.52 * 0.07 2 0.30
282 Branch no. 2 Work overload 20.14 2 0.30 0.14
(n ¼ 16) Role conflict 20.18 2 0.10 0.41
Role ambiguity 20.13 2 0.13 0.05
Overall stress 20.23 2 0.21 0.37
Branch no. 3 Work overload 0.25 0.57 * * 0.19
(n ¼ 28) Role conflict 20.18 0.57 * * 2 0.15
Role ambiguity 0.29 0.53 * * 0.24
Overall stress 0.07 0.63 * * 0.05
Branch no. 4 Work overload 0.10 0.08 2 0.34
(n ¼ 20) Role conflict 0.00 0.54 * 2 0.08
Role ambiguity 20.21 0.03 2 0.31
Overall stress 20.07 0.31 2 0.25
Branch no. 5 Work overload 0.00 0.25 0.26
(n ¼ 23) Role conflict 20.56 * * 0.12 2 0.24
Role ambiguity 20.02 0.02 2 0.24
Overall stress 20.34 0.13 2 0.26
Branch no. 6 Work overload 20.55 * 2 0.04 2 0.11
(n ¼ 23) Role conflict 20.22 2 0.12 2 0.22
Role ambiguity 20.33 0.08 2 0.37
Overall stress 20.39 2 0.06 2 0.32
Males Work overload 0.00 0.21 2 0.14
(n ¼ 27) Role conflict 20.14 0.41 * 2 0.08
Role ambiguity 0.01 2 0.20 2 0.13
Overall stress 20.08 0.19 2 0.14
Table X.
Females Work overload 20.14 0.08 0.07
Pearson correlations for
(n ¼ 104) Role conflict 20.33 * * 0.15 2 0.11
the relation between job
Role ambiguity 20.15 0.13 2 0.09
stress and organizational Overall stress 20.29 * * 0.17 2 0.09
commitment according to
branches and gender Notes: * p , 0:05; * * p , 0:01

These findings offer only partial support for the research hypotheses, which were:
.
A negative relation will be found between job stress and affective commitment.
.
A negative relation will be found between job stress and continuance
commitment.
.
No relation will be found between job stress and normative commitment.

Analysis of the differences in relation to gender suggested that no significant

correlations were found, and particularly not for the overall stress variable, between
the stress characteristics and the organizational commitment characteristics, apart
from a significant positive correlation between role conflict and long-term
commitment. On the other hand, significant negative correlations were found
between the stress characteristics – role conflict, role ambiguity and the overall stress
variable – and affective commitment.
Discussion Job stress and
This research examined the correlation between job stresses among PMP coordinators organizational
and their organizational commitment. Job stress stimuli originate in the job itself and
have negative implications (Kahn and Byosiere, 1992; Koslowsky, 1998), which in the commitment
present case may cause PMP coordinators to not perform tasks to the satisfaction of
their PMP branch managers. Our results indicate that job stress, particularly of the
“role conflict” type, is related to the coordinators’ organizational commitment. 283
In checking the first hypothesis, which related to the influence of stress on affective
commitment, we found that the coordinators’ job stress negatively influences their
affective commitment. However we found that only the role conflict characteristic has a
significant correlation with this commitment.
When PMP coordinators reported that the role expectations are incompatible with
the requirements, they reported less affective commitment. Namely, their sense of
belonging (Mueller et al., 1992) towards their employing organization was lower. At
times of job stress, PMP coordinators do not consider their sense of belonging to the
organization. Rather they tend to regard the tasks they have to perform as a “goal”
(without emotional involvement of any kind) toward which they must aim in order to
satisfy the organization. The coordinators report a higher level of affective
commitment when the level of stress decreases, but as the level of stress rises at
crucial points in time at work, and mainly at the beginning of the year, when the
project is in formation, and at its end, which parallels the examination period in the
universities and colleges, their sense of belonging to the organization decreases to the
point where it virtually disappears..
However, the “work overload” index, defined as the mismatch between the role
requirements and the amount of time and resources available to comply with these
requirements (Newton and Keenan, 1987), was not found to be significantly related to
the PMP coordinators’ affective commitment. But we did find that the new
coordinators felt more “overload” than did the more veteran coordinators. The
explanations for this are likely straightforward: new coordinators in the PMP
organization lack experience in the job, itself a stressful situation; and they want to
prove themselves to their superiors. A similar finding was reported by Huling-Austin
(1990) who researched beginning teachers and found that because of such stresses half
of all new teachers leave teaching within the first five years. Whether “newcomer”
stresses are more prevalent in the educational arena, or whether this phenomenon is
widespread in various workplaces, would make for a useful comparative study.
The second research hypothesis, which examined the correlation between job stress
and continuance commitment, was not supported by the study at all. In cases where
significant correlations were found, the results were the opposite of what we expected:
when the coordinators reported that the role expectations were incompatible with the
requirements (for example, tasks that were not clear or tasks that did not appear in the
schedule), they in fact reported a high level of continuance commitment; that is, a
higher level of commitment to remain in the organization. This could be due to what
Meyer and Allen (1997) refer to as the perceived cost of leaving – benefit against loss,
such as the difficulty in finding other employment alternatives.
The third research hypothesis, which examined the correlation between job stress
and normative commitment, was fully substantiated. The sense of normative
IJEM commitment, namely, the sense of loyalty to the job due to the feeling that this is the
23,3 right thing to do (Meyer and Allen, 1997), was not found to be related to job stress.
Similar results were also received when we examined the correlations between job
stress and normative commitment for males alone and females alone, and for the
various PMP branches. The coordinators note that they feel normatively committed to
the branch and to the job, that the work is important to them, as are the organization’s
284 goals, and that the stress in their job does not lower their normative commitment.
Perhaps the “bottom line” can be found in Rousseau’s (1995) finding that normative
commitment develops based on a psychological contract between the employee and the
organization, which establishes faith between both parties as to their mutual
obligations.
Implications relevant for a broad variety of workplaces can be drawn from this
research. The coordinators reported in interviews that the PMP organization does
indeed appreciate its employees, which in turn causes them to want to perform their
tasks the best way possible, also in stressful periods, and to choose to remain in the
organization. Employers can extrapolate from this that appreciation is important to the
employee, both on the personal level and on the functional level. Appreciation that is
shown by employers and felt by employees will likely increase employees’
organizational commitment.
Time was also mentioned as an important factor in the interviews. Time to perform
tasks well is the Achilles’ heel in these coordinators’ work. Lack of time leads to stress
and deficient quality of work. Defining stress as a disposition emphasizes the
perception of stimulus (job requirements) as stress, and the employee’s cognitive
appraisal of the situation and his or her ability to cope with these requirements. In the
PMP context project directors should consider the possibility of starting the
coordinator’s working year earlier, as well as notifying the coordinators of tasks (which
are not in the schedule) as early as possible. Again, extrapolating to the general
workplace, employees need time to prepare and time to develop a framework of what
the job requirements are, as well as time to learn the job and fulfill its requirements day
to day. While time is often a sparse commodity, some flexibility in terms of time could
go a long way toward reducing job stress and increasing organizational commitment.
The PMP coordinators’ continuance commitment and willingness to remain in the
organization are injured when they understand that they cannot climb the
organization’s job ladder (the PMP organization being structured and hierarchical)
or when they cannot develop professionally according to their studies (mainly if the
area of studies is not education, counseling or teaching), and thus they tend to leave the
organization. In the PMP context the coordinators’ job is stipulated on their being
students, which predefines the end of their employment. We recommend considering
the possibility of employing as coordinators employees who have already finished their
studies; a comparison of their stress levels can then also be done. Extrapolating to the
general workplace, opportunities for employees’ advancement and professional
development must somehow be built in to the structure of organizations, so that effort,
a job well done and the ongoing development of relevant skills can lead to promotion.
While not reducing stress, this will likely increase both affective and continuance
commitment.
The finding that these mentoring coordinators have strong normative commitment
and stay in their jobs despite stress because they feel it is “the right thing to do” is
provocative. Further research should investigate whether this normative characteristic Job stress and
is more pronounced amongst those who work in educational organizations than in organizational
other kinds of workplaces. Educators often work for relatively small salaries and in
situations of considerable stress. Comparative study of the normative commitment of commitment
educators, workers in other human service fields and those in business may shed
further light on the nature of organizational commitment and the many human and
structural factors which influence it. 285

References
Allen, N.J. and Meyer, J.P. (1996), “Affective, continuance, and normative commitment to the
organization: examination of construct validity”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 49
No. 3, pp. 252-76.
Allen, N.J., Meyer, J.P. and Smith, C.A. (1993), “Commitment to organizations and occupations:
extension and test of a three-component conceptualization”, Journal of Applied Psychology,
Vol. 78 No. 4, pp. 538-51.
Angle, H.L. and Lawson, M.B. (1993), “Changes in affective and continuance commitment in
times of relocation”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 3-16.
Balay, R. (2007), “Predicting conflict management based on organizational commitment and
selected demographic variables”, Asia Pacific Education Review, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 321-36.
Bashaw, E.R. and Grant, S.E. (1994), “Exploring the distinctive nature of work commitment: their
relationship with personal characteristics, job performance, and propensity to leave”,
Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 41-56.
Beehr, T.A. and Bhagat, R.S. (1985), “Introduction to human stress and cognition in
organizations”, in Beeher, T.A. and Bhagat, R.S. (Eds), Human Stress and Cognition in
Organizations, Wiley, New York, NY, pp. 3-19.
Beehr, T.A., Walsh, J.T. and Taber, T.D. (1976), “Relationship of stress to individually and
organizationally valued states: higher order needs as a moderator”, Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 61 No. 7, pp. 41-7.
Beeri, A. and Zimmerman, Y. (2002), The PMP Mentor, Sources of Wear and Stress,
Recommendations for Job Development, The Center for Multidimensional Applied
Psychology, Timrat (in Hebrew).
Brewer, E.W. and McMahon, J. (2003), “Job stress and burnout among industrial education and
technical teachers educators”, Journal of Vocational Education, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 125-40.
Buchanan, B. (1974), “Building organizational commitment: the socialization of managers in
work organizations”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 19, pp. 533-46.
Bycio, P., Hackett, R.D. and Allen, J.S. (1995), “Further assessments of Bass’s (1985)
conceptualization of transactional and transformational leadership”, Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 80 No. 4, pp. 468-78.
Conley, S. and Woosley, S. (2000), “Teacher role stress, higher order needs and work outcomes”,
Journal of Educational Administration, Vol. 38 No. 2, pp. 179-201.
Dunham, R.B., Grube, J.A. and Castaneda, M.B. (1994), “Organizational commitment: the utility
of an integrative definition”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 79, pp. 370-80.
Eisenberg, T., Fresko, B. and Carmeli, M. (1980), Perach: A Tutoring Project for Disadvantaged
Children, The Weizmann Institute of Science, Rehovot.
Fresko, B. and Carmeli, A. (1990), “Perach: a nation-wide student tutorial project”, in Goodlad, S.
and Hirst, B. (Eds), Explorations in Peer Tutoring, Basil Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 73-81.
IJEM Fresko, B. and Kobelski, R. (1998), “The involvement of educational counselors in the Perach
Mentoring Project”, in Lazovski, R. and Feldman, S. (Eds), Space and Heritage in
23,3 Educational Counseling, Beit Berl College, Kfar Saba, pp. 333-55 (in Hebrew).
Gellatly, I.R. (1995), “Individual and group determinants of employee absenteeism: test of a
causal model”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 16 No. 5, pp. 469-85.
Glisson, C., Dukes, D. and Green, P. (2006), “The effects of the ARC organizational intervention
286 on caseworker turnover, climate and culture in children’s service systems”, Child Abuse
and Neglect: The International Journal, Vol. 30 No. 8, pp. 855-80.
Goodlad, S. and Hirst, B. (1989), Peer Tutoring: A Guide to Learning by Teaching, Kogan Page,
London.
Hobfull, E.S. (1989), “Conversation of resources: a new attempt at conceptualizing stress”,
American Psychology, Vol. 44 No. 3, pp. 513-24.
Huling-Austin, L. (1990), “Teacher induction programs and internships”, in Houston, W.R. (Ed.),
Handbook of Research on Teacher Education, 2nd ed., Macmillan, New York, NY,
pp. 548-94.
Jamal, M. (1990), “Relationship of job stress and Type-A behavior to employees job satisfaction,
organizational commitment, psychosomatic health problems and turnover motivation”,
Human Relations, Vol. 43 No. 8, pp. 727-38.
Kahn, R.L. and Byosiere, P. (1992), “Stress in organizations”, in Dunnette, M.D. (Ed.), Handbook
of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 3, Consulting Psychologists Press, Palo
Alto, CA, pp. 571-650.
Karasek, R. (1979), “Job demands, job decision latitude and mental strain: Implications for job
redesign”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 24, pp. 285-306.
Keinan, G. (1997), Stress Situations: Ways of Coping and Therapy, Prolog Press, Rosh Ha’ain (in
Hebrew).
Kondratuk, T., Hausdorf, P., Korabik, K. and Rosin, H. (2005), “Linking career mobility with
corporate loyalty: how does job change relate to organizational commitment?”, Journal of
Vocational Behavior, Vol. 65 No. 2, pp. 332-49.
Koslowsky, M. (1998), Modeling the Stress-Strain Relationship in Work Settings, Routledge,
London.
Mathieu, J.E. and Zajac, D.M. (1990), “A review and meta-analysis of the antecedents, correlates,
and consequences of organizational commitment”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 108,
pp. 171-94.
Meyer, J. and Allen, N. (1984), “Testing the ‘side-bet’ theory of organizational commitment: some
methodological considerations”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 69, pp. 372-8.
Meyer, J.P. and Allen, N.J. (1991), “A three-component conceptualization of organizational
commitment”, Human Resource Management Review, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 61-89.
Meyer, J.P. and Allen, N.J. (1997), Commitment in the Workplace: Theory, Research and
Application, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Meyer, J.P., Allen, N.J. and Gellatly, I.R. (1990), “Affective and continuance commitment to the
organization: evaluation of measures and analysis of concurrent and time-lagged
relations”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 75 No. 6, pp. 710-20.
Meyer, J.P., Allen, N.J. and Smith, C.A. (1993), “Commitment to organizations and occupations:
extension and test of a three-component conceptualization”, Journal of Applied Psychology,
Vol. 78 No. 4, pp. 538-51.
Meyer, J.P., Stanley, D.J., Herscovitch, L. and Topolnytsky, L. (2002), “Affective, continuance and Job stress and
normative commitment to the organization: a meta-analysis of antecedents, correlates and
consequences”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 61 No. 1, pp. 20-52. organizational
Michael, O. (2008), “A multicultural tutoring project among teacher education students”, commitment
International Journal of Evidence Based Coaching and Mentoring, Vol. 6, pp. 1-18.
Mirsalmi, H. and Roffe, M.W. (1991), “Psychosocial correlates of burnout and depression in HIV
counselors”, ERIC Document 354467. 287
Morrow, P.C. (1993), The Theory and Measurement of Work Commitment, JAI, Greenwich, CT.
Mottaz, C.J. (1988), “Determinants of organizational commitment”, Human Relations, Vol. 41
No. 1, pp. 467-82.
Mottaz, C.J. (1989), “An analysis between attitudinal and behavioral commitment”, Sociological
Quarterly, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 143-58.
Mueller, C.W., Wallace, J.E. and Price, J.L. (1992), “Employee commitment: resolving some
issues”, Work and Occupations, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 211-36.
Newton, T. and Keenan, A. (1987), “Role stress reexamined: an investigation of role stress
predictors”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decisions Processes, Vol. 40, pp. 346-68.
Pelletier, K.R. (1992), “Mind-body health: research, clinical and applications”, American Journal
of Health Promotion, Vol. 6 No. 5, pp. 345-58.
PMP (1984), A Decade of the Mentoring Project, 1974-1984, PMP Administration Press,
Weizmann Institute of Science, Rehovot (in Hebrew).
PMP (2003), Complete Guide of the Perplexed for the PMP Coordinator, PMP Administration
Press, Weizmann Institute of Science, Rehovot (in Hebrew).
Popper, M. (1984), “Dimension and expressions of commitment to the organization”,
PhD dissertation, Tel-Aviv, Tel-Aviv University (in Hebrew).
Rahim, M.A. (1992), “A model of stress, strain, locus of control, social support and propensity to
leave a job: a field study with entrepreneurs and managers”, paper presented at the
Annual Meeting of the National Academy of Management, Las Vegas, NV.
Rizzo, J., House, R. and Lirtzman, S. (1970), “Role conflict and ambiguity in complex
organizations”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 15, pp. 150-63.
Rodriguez, I., Bravo, M.J., Peiro, J. and Schaufeli, W. (2001), “Support model, locus of control and
job dissatisfaction: a longitudinal study”, Work and Stress, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 97-114.
Rodriguez-Calcagno, M. and Brewer, E.W. (2005), “Job stress among Hispanic professionals”,
Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 504-16.
Rousseau, D.M. (1995), Promises in Action: Psychological Contracts in Organizations, Sage,
Newbury Park, CA.
Rozenblatt, Z. (2001), “Teachers’ multiple roles and skill flexibility: effects on work attitudes”,
Educational Administration Quarterly, Vol. 37 No. 5, pp. 684-708.
Wallace, J.E. (1997), “Becker’s side-bet theory of commitment revisited: is it time for a
moratorium or a resurrection?”, Human Relations, Vol. 50 No. 6, pp. 727-49.
Wasti, S.A. (2005), “Commitment profiles: combinations of organizational commitment forms
and job outcomes”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 67 No. 2, pp. 290-308.
Weisner, S. (2003), “A model linking the individual’s personality, job stresses and types of
organizational commitment”, PhD dissertation, Ramat-Gan, Bar Ilan University,
(in Hebrew).
IJEM Whitener, E. (2001), “Do high commitment human resource practices affect employee
commitment? A cross-level analysis using hierarchical linear modeling”, Journal of
23,3 Management, Vol. 27 No. 5, pp. 515-35.
Wolfing, S. (1999), “To be a PMP mentor”, MA thesis, Tel-Aviv University, Tel-Aviv (in Hebrew).
Zaitman-Speiser, I. (2005), “On the relationship between performance level, organizational
commitment, career commitment and employees’ turnover: comparison between high-tech
288 and low-tech organizations”, PhD dissertation, Bar Ilan University, Ramat-Gan
(in Hebrew).

Further reading
Allen, N.J. and Meyer, J.P. (1990), “The measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance
and normative commitment to the organization”, Journal of Occupational Psychology,
Vol. 63, pp. 1-18.
Steers, R. (1977), “Antecedents and outcomes of organizational commitment”, Administrative
Science Quarterly, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 46-56.

About the authors

Orly Michael obtained her PhD from the Hebrew University in Jerusalem. She is a Senior
Lecturer at Achva Academic College of Education and a Lecturer at the School of Education of
Bar-Ilan University in Israel. She specializes in teacher training, pedagogical instruction,
multicultural education, mentoring and tutoring projects and distance learning in multicultural
environments.
Deborah Court is a Lecturer in the School of Education at Bar-Ilan University in Israel and is
Director of the Joseph H. Lookstein Center’s Principals’ Program. She teaches courses in
curriculum studies and qualitative research methodology. Her research centers on school and
classroom culture, the ways values are transmitted through school culture, and on school
leadership. Deborah Court is the corresponding author and can be contacted at:
debcourt@inter.net.il
Pnina Petel was an educator in the Israel school system and a coordinator in the mentoring
organization PMP. She is now a PMP Branch Director.

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints