Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
www.emeraldinsight.com/0262-1711.htm
A management
A management development development
model model
Measuring organizational commitment and its
impact on job satisfaction among executives in 353
a learning organization Received February 2006
Revised April 2006
Steven Pool and Brian Pool Accepted May 2006
Richard E. and Sandra J. Dauch College of Business and Economics,
Ashland University, Ashland, Ohio, USA
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this study is to investigate the nature of organizational commitment and
the impact on executive’s motivational level in providing job satisfaction within a learning
organization.
Design/methodology/approach – A management development model examines the relationship
between the measurable constructs. The model explores the relationship between the executive’s
motivation level and their outcome with job satisfaction and organizational learning.
Findings – The results indicate there is a goodness-of-fit for the research model. The path
coefficients explained a significant amount of variation along with the identification that
organizational commitment is a significant attribute in the management development model.
Research limitations/implications – Limitations include the self-report methodology that
measures perceptual data with a series of questionnaire items.
Originality/value – The study examines executive’s perceptions and the significance of
organizational commitment. Management development specialists will recognize the dynamics of
organizational commitment and its linkage with motivation and job satisfaction in a learning
organization. There are practical applications for management development specialists and the model
supports an environment in which employees are encouraged to use new behaviors and operation
processes within the learning organization.
Keywords Management development, Motivation (psychology), Job satisfaction,
Learning organizations
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
In the past decade, the impact of organizational commitment has grown significantly in
the field of management development. This concept receives a great deal of empirical
study both as a consequence or antecedent as a work-related variable (Mathieu and
Zajac, 1990). As a consequence, organizational commitment is critical among
executives in creating a business environment that promotes motivation and job
satisfaction at the workplace. It links the individual to the organization. Organizational
commitment reflects the extent an individual identifies with an organization and Journal of Management Development
Vol. 26 No. 4, 2007
committed to its organizational goals. Work attitude is important because committed pp. 353-369
executives are expected to exemplify a willingness to work harder to achieve q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0262-1711
organizational goals. Executives demonstrating this commitment have a greater desire DOI 10.1108/02621710710740101
JMD to remain employed with that organization. Research indicates organizational
26,4 commitment is a viable predictor of many behaviors, including absenteeism (Gellatly,
1995), turnover (Jaros, 1995), job satisfaction (Mathieu and Zajac, 1990), and work
motivation (Meyer et al., 2004). Organizational commitment is attitudinal behavior.
Organizational commitment is defined as the relative strength of an individual’s
identification and involvement is a particular organization (Mowday et al., 1979).
354 Conceptually, characterized by at least three factors; first, organizational commitment
reflects the strong belief and acceptance of the organization’s goals and values. Second,
commitment impacts the executive’s behavior within an organization. Third,
organizational commitment produces a strong desire to maintain membership in the
organization (Mowday et al., 1982). This study investigates the relationship of
organizational commitment, motivation, and job satisfaction. Therefore, organizational
commitment is measured as an antecedent construct for this study. Also, this study
investigates if the executive’s motivation level has a negative or positive relationship
with the attributes of the learning organization.
A learning organization creates, acquires, and transfers knowledge that changes
its behavior based on new knowledge and insights. Senge (1990) describes a
learning organization as a group of employees working together collectively
enhancing their capacities to create results that are truly meaningful.
Technological advancement, dynamic customer demands, increasing globalization,
the blurring of organizational boundaries, and increasing competition combine to
produce organizational environments’ that are more turbulent than ever before
(Parry and Proctor-Thompson (2003) and Bates and Khasawneh (2005). The
majority of literature defines a learning organization as acquiring, improving, and
transferring knowledge that improves individual learning (Campbell and Cairns,
1994).
Work motivation identified by the expectancy theory of motivation, determines how
individuals choose between alternative behaviors in studying motivation. The
executive’s motivation behavior is measured by two major components. They are (E-I)
effort-to-performance and (E-II) performance-to-outcomes. Effort-to-performance
expectancy (E-I) is a person’s perception of the probability that effort will lead to
successful performance. Performance-to-outcome expectancy (E-II) is a person’s
perception that the probability of performance will lead to specific other outcomes
(organizational and individual).
Job satisfaction is one of the most studied variables in the history of industrial and
organizational psychology (Spector et al., 1997). Job satisfaction and organizational
commitment receive significant importance in research studies. This establishes these
variables as major determinants of organizational performance (Riketta, 2002) and
effectiveness (Laschinger, 2001). Job satisfaction is an attitude formed by individuals in
reference to their jobs. It results from the perception of their jobs and the degree to
which there is a good fit between the individual and the organization. Further research
involving job satisfaction is advocated. If organizations can successfully measure
which factors influence job satisfaction, they may strengthen employee’s morale and
provide positive outcomes for their organization.
Management development specialists are interested in the synergistic elements
(organizational commitment, work motivation, and job satisfaction) impact on a
learning organization culture. Therefore, further research and investigation is A management
warranted in analyzing this synergistic impact. development
model
Background
Nature of organization commitment
The most significant developments in commitment theory over the past two decades
recognizes commitment takes different forms (e.g. Becker et al., 1996; Jaros et al., 1993; 355
Meyer and Allen, 1991; O’Reilly and Chatman, 1986). Second, it can be directed toward
various targets, or foci (e.g. Becker et al., 1996; Cohen-Charash and Spector, 2003;
Reichers, 1985). Several authors argue commitment evolves into different forms. There
is considerable overlap in the various models to explain these differences. For our
purposes, we focus on the three-component model developed by Meyer and Allen
(1991). This model retains the greatest empirical scrutiny and arguably receives the
greatest support. Meyer and Allen (1990) initially developed a three-component model
that observes similarities and differences in the conceptualizations of organizational
commitment. Distinguishing different levels of commitment characterized by these
different mindsets, Meyer and Allen labeled them “affective commitment”, “normative
commitment”, and “continuance commitment”, respectively. Meyer and Allen (1991)
states one of the most important reasons for distinguishing the different forms of
organizational commitment was the different implications of behavior.
Figure 1.
Expectancy model of
motivation
and choice (Eerde and Thierry, 1996). Another summary of sixteen students revealed A management
that expectancy theory correctly predicted occupational or organizational choice 64. development
percent of the time: this was significantly better than chance predictions (Wanous et al.,
1983). The most recent study investigates the relationship between leadership and model
expectancy theory in motivating employees (Isaac et al., 2001).
Empirical study
Management development model
Figure 2 illustrates the model utilized in this study. The constructs were organizational
commitment, E-I (effort-to-performance motivation), E-II (performance-to-outcomes
JMD
26,4
358
Figure 2.
The management
development model
Hypotheses
This study investigates organizational commitment and its impact on the executive’s
motivation level. Organizational commitment measures the path and the effect on the
executive’s motivation, job satisfaction, and organizational learning.
Organizational commitment researchers seldom incorporate the motivational
processes in which commitment affects behavior (Meyer et al., 2004). Measuring
organizational commitment indicates the more committed the executive, the higher the
motivation level in pursing organizational goals for the business. Therefore:
H1. Executives with high levels of organizational commitment will be associated
with high levels of E-I motivation (effort-to-performance).
Expectancy motivation suggests individuals, acting through self-interest, adopt A management
courses of action perceived as maximizing the probability of desirable outcomes. This development
desire to maximize self-interest provides management development specialists with a
unique opportunity to assess executive’s expectancy and their outcomes. Managerial model
effort-to-performance expectancy (E-I) action will increase executive’s expectations
about outcomes (E-II). Therefore:
H2. Executives with high levels of effort-to-performance (E-I) attributes will be 359
associated with high levels of performance-to-outcomes (E-II).
If executives attain high E-II motivational levels and they value the outcomes
associated with the E-II’s instrumentalities, the question arises what impact will it have
on the executive’s level of job satisfaction? High levels of E-II expectancies will be
associated with high levels of job satisfaction. Therefore:
H3. Executives demonstrating high motivational levels with performance-to-
outcomes expectancies (E-II) at work will be associated with high levels of job
satisfaction.
An essential question to be address: What is the relationship between the executive’s
level of E-II expectancies and the organizational learning? If executives are highly
motivated, there should be a high level of organizational learning. Therefore:
H4. The higher levels of motivation (E-II) among executives in performing their
work, the higher levels of organizational learning
The study
The study is a cross sectional and a multi-industry sample. The data is a sample of 208
MBA executives at Ashland University. The participants were employed in
manufacturing, retailing, financials, health organizations, accounting, energy, and
insurance industries. The questionnaire was developed with current literature
available. Procedures for the survey include a review of previous questionnaires. The
psychometric properties for a learning organization, organizational commitment,
motivation levels (E-I and E-II), and job satisfaction were satisfactory and listed in the
next section.
model
361
Table I.
26,4
362
JMD
Table I.
Maximum likelihood solution (normal distribution
theory) Adjusted
Standardized solution: R-squared
model
363
Table I.
JMD Results
26,4 Utilizing EQS software, the determinant of input matrix is 0.5363 indicting no
multicolinearity or perfect linear dependency with the data. This indicates the data
analysis is accurate and no redundant data was evident that artificially inflates the
prediction of the model. The amount of adjusted explained R 2 variation is listed in
Table I for each variable. The amount of explained variation between E-I and
364 organizational commitment is 72 percent. The amount of explained variation between
E-I and E-II is 78 percent. The amount of explained variation between job satisfaction
and E-II is 64 percent. The amount of explained variation between E-II and learning
organization is 77 percent.
Table I illustrates the statistical results for the model. Chi-square value is 361.04 and
significant at the P ¼ 0.00. The results indicate a goodness-of-fit for this research
model. The residual covariance matrix contains the computed variable variance and
covariance residuals. No large standardized residuals were observed. Therefore,
indicating no serious deficiencies in the model when reviewing these variances. This
study depicts a good fit of the model to the data; specifically; those variable in the path
analysis model.
The limitations of the Chi-square value indicate the importance that alternative fit
indices aid in the process of model evaluation. The descriptive-fit indices provide an
alternative of indices that assess the goodness-of-fit in the proposed model. These indices
are similar to the R 2 in explaining the amount variation for a goodness-of-fit. The indices
demonstrate as much as 91 percent and as low as 60 percent of the amount of variation
explained for the goodness-to-fit for the model. Models with scores in the mid-1990s or
higher are viewed likely to represent a reasonably good approximation of the data
(Raykov and Marcolulides, 2000). The results are mixed comparing the indices. Figure 2
lists the descriptive-fit-indices. Bentler-Bonett ðNFI ¼ 0:91Þ; Bentler-Bonett Non-normed
fit index ðNNFI ¼ 0:77Þ; Comparative fit index ðCFI ¼ 0:91Þ; and Lisrel fit index
ðGFI ¼ 0:91Þ; and Lisrel adjusted fit index ðAGFI ¼ 0:60Þ and the root mean-square
error of approximation ðRMSEA ¼ 0:15Þ:
All path coefficients are significant at the 0.05 alpha level. The results are listed in
Table I. The overall results with the goodness-of-fit utilizing the chi-square and the fit
indices are encouraging. The model denotes the importance of organizational
commitment and its impact on the motivation level among executives for high job
satisfaction in businesses promoting organizational learning.
H1. Executives with high levels of organizational commitment will be associated
with high levels of E-I motivation (effort-to-performance). Results: There was
a significant and positive relationship between organization commitment and
E-I motivation level ðR 2 ¼ 72 percent).
H2. Executives with high levels of effort-to-performance (E-I) attributes will be
associated with high levels of performance-to-outcomes (E-II). Results: There
was a significant and positive relationship between E-I and E-II motivational
levels ðR 2 ¼ 78 percent) among executives.
H3. Executives demonstrating high motivational levels with performance-to-
outcomes expectancies (E-II) in the workplace relates to high levels of job
satisfaction. Results: There was a significant and positive relationship between
E-II (motivation) and job satisfaction ðR 2 ¼ 64 percent) among executives.
H4. The higher levels of motivation (E-II) among executives in performing their A management
work will result in higher levels of organizational learning (Senge, 1990). development
Results: There was a significant and positive relationship between E-II
(expectancy) and organizational learning (learning organization) among model
executives ðR 2 ¼ 77 percent).
Conclusion
The findings in this research paper established strong support for commitment as an
antecedent in motivating employees that directly impacts job satisfaction.
Management specialists must examine the power of commitment when personal and
professional relationships become a priority goal. This generates trust among
employees and empowering subordinates in accomplishing corporate goals. Once the
employees gain trust, and build a culture of commitment, they are motivated to remain
with the organization, because commitment is a strong force in enhancing motivation
and job satisfaction. The management development model in this research paper
indicates a direct relationship between commitment, expectancy motivation, and job
satisfaction.. An organization supporting developmental programs that promotes and
values commitment reaps substantial benefits. Commitment enables employees to
collaborate and solve business problems as successful teams, because they value
commitment. These findings reveal tangible relationships between commitment,
motivation, and job satisfaction that are integral components for success within a
learning organization.
References A management
Bates, R. and Khasawneh, J. (2005), “Organizational learning culture, learning transfer climate development
and perceived innovation in Jordanian organizations”, International Journal of Training
and Development, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 96-109. model
Becker, T., Billings, R.S., Eveleth, D.M. and Gilbert, N.L. (1996), “Foci and bases of employee
commitment: implications for job performance”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 39
No. 2, pp. 464-73. 367
Bentler, P. (2005), EQS 6 Structural Equation Program Manual, Multivariate Software
Publishing, Encino, CA.
Campbell, T. and Cairns, H. (1994), “Developing and measuring the learning organization:
moving from buzz words to behaviours”, paper presented at the 1994 ECLO conference,
La Hulpek.
Cohen-Charash, Y. and Spector, P.E. (2003), “The role of justice in organizations: a meta-analysis”,
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processe, Vol. 86, pp. 278-321.
Eerde, W.V. and Thierry, H. (1996), “Vroom’s expectancy models and work-related criteria:
a meta-analysis”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 81 No. 5, pp. 575-86.
Egan, T., Yang, B. and Barlett, R.K. (2004), “The effects of organizational learning culture and job
satisfaction on motivation to transfer learning and turnover intentions”, Human Resource
Development Quarterly, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 279-301.
Ellinger, A., Yang, B. and Howton, S. (2002), “The relationship between the learning organization
concept and firms’ financial performance: an empirical assessment”, Human Resource
Development Quarterly, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 5-21.
Feather, N. (1995), “Values, valences, and choice: the influence of values on the perceived
attractiveness and choice of alternatives”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
Vol. 28 No. 7, pp. 639-56.
Gellatly, I. (1995), “Individual and group determinants of employee absenteeism: test of a causal
model”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 16 No. 5, pp. 469-85.
Gillet, B. and Schwab, D.F. (1975), “Convergent and discriminate validites of corresponding job
description index and Minnesota satisfaction questionnaire scales”, Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 60 No. 3, pp. 313-7.
Isaa, R., Zerbe, W. and Pitt, D. (2001), “Leadership and motivation: the effective application of
expectancy theory”, Journal of Managerial Issues, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 212-27.
Jaros, S. (1995), “An assessment of Meyer and Allen’s (1991) three-component model of
organizational commitment and turnover intentions”, Academy of Management
Proceedings, pp. 317-32.
Jaros, S., Jermier, J., Koehler, J. and Sincich, T. (1993), “Effects of continuance, affective, and moral
commitment on the withdrawal process: an evaluation”, Academy of Management Journal,
Vol. 36 No. 5, pp. 951-96.
Kinicki, A., McKee-Ryan, F., Schriesheim, C. and Carson, K. (2002), “Assessing the construct
validity of the job descriptive index: a review and meta-analysis”, Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 87 No. 1, pp. 14-32.
Laschinger, H. (2001), “The impact of workplace commitment, organizational trust on staff
nurses’ work satisfaction and organizational commitment”, Health Care Management
Review, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 7-24.
Lok, P. and Crawford, J. (2003), “The effect of organisational culture and leadership style on job
satisfaction and organisational commitment: a cross-national comparison”, Journal of
Management Development., Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 321-38.
JMD Mathieu, J. and Zajac, D. (1990), “A review and meta-analysis of antecedents, correlates, and
consequences of organizational commitment”, Psychological Bulletins, Vol. 108 No. 7,
26,4 pp. 171-94.
Mento, A., Locke, E. and Klein, H. (1992), “relationship of goal level to valence and
instrumentality”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 77 No. 4, pp. 395-405.
Mowday, R.T., Porter, L. and Steers, R. (1982), Employee-Organizational Linkages, Academic
368 Press, New York, NY.
Mowday, R., Steers, R. and Porter, L. (1979), “The measurement of organizational commitment”,
Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 224-47.
Mitchell, T. and Michel, A. (1999), “The meaning of money: an individual difference perspective”,
Academy of Management, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 568-78.
Meyer, J. and Allen, N. (1991), “A three-component conceptualization of organizational
commitment”, Human Resource Management Review, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 61-90.
Meyer, J., Bobocel, D. and Allen, N. (1991), “Development of organizational commitment during
the first year of employment: a longitudinal study of pre- and post-entry influences”,
Journal of Management, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 716-36.
Meyer, J. and Allen, N. (1990), “The measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance and
normative commitment to the organization”, Journal of Occupational Psychology, Vol. 63
No. 1, pp. 1-18.
Meyer, J.P. and Allen, N.J. (1984), “Testing the ‘side-bet theory’ of organizational commitment:
some methodological considerations”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 69 No. 3,
pp. 372-8.
Meyer, J., Becker, T. and Vandenberghe, C. (2004), “Employee commitment and motivation: a
conceptual analysis and integrative model”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 89 No. 6,
pp. 991-1007.
Nadler, D. and Lawler, E. (1977), Perspective on Behavior in Organizations, McGraw-Hill,
New York, NY.
O’Reilly, C. and Chatman, J. (1986), “Organizational commitment and psychological attachment:
the effects of compliance, identification, and internalization on pro-social behavior”,
Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 71 No. 3, pp. 492-9.
Parry, K. and Proctor-Thompson, S. (2003), “Leadership, culture and performance: the case of the
New Zealand public sector”, Journal of Change Management, Vol. 3 No. 4, pp. 376-99.
Pinder, C. (1984), Work Motivation: Theory, Issues, and Applications, Scott, Foresman and
Company, Glenview, IL.
Porter, L. and Lawler, E. (1968), Managerial Attitudes and Performance, Dorsey Press,
Homewood, IL.
Power, J. and Waddell, D. (2004), “The link between self-managed work teams and learning
organizations using performance indicators”, The Learning Organization, Vol. 11 No. 3,
pp. 244-59.
Raykov, T. and Marcolulides, J. (2000), A First Course in Structural Equation Modeling,
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ.
Reichers, A. (1985), “A review and reconceptualization of organizational commitment”, Academy
of Management Review, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 465-76.
Riketta, M. (2002), “Attitudinal organizational commitment and job performance: a meta-analysis”,
Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 257-66.
Schriesheim, C. (1978), “Development, validation, and application of new leadership behavior and A management
expectancy research instruments”, Dissertation Abstracts International, Vol. 42, p. 251.
Senge, P. (1990), The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization,
development
Currency/Doubleday, New York, NY. model
Spector, P., Brannick, P. and Chen, P. (1997), “When two factors don’t reflect two constructs: how
item characteristics can produce artifactual factors”, Journal of Management, Vol. 23 No. 5,
pp. 659-68. 369
Vroom, V.H. (1964), Work and Motivation, Wiley, New York, NY.
Wanous, J., Keon, V. and Lattack, J.C. (1983), “Expectancy theory and occupational/organizational
choices: a review and test”, Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, Vol. 32
No. 1, pp. 66-86.
Weiss, D., Dawis, R., England, G. and Lifquist, L. (1967), Manual for the Minnesota Satisfaction
Questionnaire – Minnesota Studies in Vocational Rehabilitation: XXII, Industrial Relations
Center Work Adjustment Project, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN.
Watkins, K. and Marsick, V. (1993), Sculpting the Learning Organization: Lessons in the Art and
Science of Systemic Change, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Watkins, K. and Marsick, V. (1996a), “Adult educators and the challenge of the learning
organization”, Adult Learning, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 18-20.
Watkins, K. and Marsick, V. (Eds.) (1996b), In Action: Creating the Learning Organization,
American Society for Training and Development, Alexandria, VA.
Watkins, K. and Marsick, V. (1999), Dimensions of the Learning Organization Questionnaire,
Partners for the Learning Organization, Warwick, RI.
Watkins, K., Yang, B. and Marsick, V. (1997) in Torraco, R. (Ed.), “Measuring dimensions of the
learning organization”, Proceedings of the Academy of Human Resource Development
Conference, Academy of Human Resource Development, Academy of Human Resource
Development, Atlanta, GA.
Yang, B., Watkins, K. and Marsick, V. (2004), “The construct of learning organization:
dimensions, measurement and validation”, Human Resource Development Quarterly,
Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 31-55.
Further reading
Yang, B., Watkins, K. and Marsick, V. (1998) in Torraco, R. (Ed.), “Examining construct validity
of the dimensions of the learning organization questionnaire”, Proceedings of the Academy
of Human Resource Development Conference, Academy of Human Resource Development,
Oak Brook, IL, pp. 83-90.
Corresponding author
Steve Pool can be contacted at: spool@ashland.edu