Organizational Behavior

Educational and Psychological Measurement
http://epm.sagepub.com

Antecedents and Consequences of Organizational Commitment: A Comparison of Two Scales
K. Michele Kacmar, Dawn S. Carlson and Robert A. Brymer
Educational and Psychological Measurement 1999; 59; 976
DOI: 10.1177/00131649921970297

The online version of this article can be found at:
http://epm.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/59/6/976

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

Additional services and information for Educational and Psychological Measurement can be found at:

Email Alerts: http://epm.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

Subscriptions: http://epm.sagepub.com/subscriptions

Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

Citations (this article cites 37 articles hosted on the
SAGE Journals Online and HighWire Press platforms):
http://epm.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/59/6/976

Downloaded from http://epm.sagepub.com at Middlesex University on February 22, 2008
© 1999 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.

EDUCATIONAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL MEASUREMENT
KACMAR ET AL.

ANTECEDENTS AND CONSEQUENCES OF
ORGANIZATIONAL COMMITMENT:
A COMPARISON OF TWO SCALES

K. MICHELE KACMAR
Florida State University

DAWN S. CARLSON
Baylor University

ROBERT A. BRYMER
Florida State University

The structural properties of two measures of organizational commitment, the Organiza-
tional Commitment Questionnaire and the Organizational Commitment Scale, were
examined to establish similarities and differences in the measures. Next, the antecedents
of age, gender, marital status, leader-member exchange, and justice and the conse-
quences of job satisfaction, life satisfaction, nonwork satisfaction, intent to turnover, and
job involvement were examined in relation to each scale. Results indicated that the scales
differed with respect to the components of commitment each measured and the strength
of the relationships each had with the antecedents and consequences. Suggestions for
when the use of each scale might be appropriate are provided.

Organizational commitment has been defined in a number of ways. Some
view commitment to the organization as the strength of involvement one has
with the organization (Brown, 1969; Hall & Schneider, 1972; Mowday,
Steers, & Porter, 1979). Others suggest that commitment is shown through
congruence between personal and organizational goals and values (Bucha-
nan, 1974) or through an exchange of behavior for valued rewards (Becker,
1960; Meyer & Allen, 1984). However defined, researchers who include or-
This article was greatly improved by comments provided by Wayne A. Hochwarter. A prior
version of this article was presented at the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology
meeting in St. Louis in April 1997.
Educational and Psychological Measurement, Vol. 59 No. 6, December 1999 976-994
© 1999 Sage Publications, Inc.
976


KACMAR ET AL. 977

ganizational commitment in their work are essentially interested in examin-
ing the psychological attachment an individual has to an organization.
The variety of perspectives regarding the most appropriate definition of
organizational commitment has led to some disagreement about how the con-
struct should be measured (Brown, 1996). An assortment of scales exist that
have been designed to measure organizational commitment (e.g., Balfour &
Wechsler, 1996; Cook & Wall, 1980; Meyer & Allen, 1984; Mowday et al.,
1979; O’Reilly & Chatman, 1986). The limited research that compared and
contrasted the available measures (Becker, 1992; Cohen, 1996; Magazine,
Williams, & Williams, 1996; Vandenberg, Self, & Seo, 1994) found a great
deal of overlap in the items that comprise the scales. In fact, Vandenberg et al.
(1994) noted that the identification component of O’Reilly and Chatman’s
(1986) measure of organizational commitment contributed nothing beyond
what the Mowday et al. (1979) scale captures. However, due to the lack of
comparative research on the available scales, such conclusions cannot be
drawn with respect to more recently developed measures of commitment.
Hence, one of the goals of the present study was to compare two measures of
commitment: the Organizational Commitment Questionnaire (OCQ), devel-
oped by Mowday et al. (1979), and Balfour and Wechsler’s (1996) Organiza-
tional Commitment Scale (OCS).
Another important area of study with respect to organizational commit-
ment has been the examination of its antecedents (e.g., Luthans, Baack, &
Taylor, 1987) and consequences (e.g., Blau & Boal, 1989). However, the
majority of previous research in this area has examined either the antecedents
or the consequences of commitment. The present study extends past research
by considering both simultaneously. Furthermore, because we employed two
measures of organizational commitment, we were able to explore differences
in the antecedents and consequences for the two scales. Consequently, a sec-
ond goal of the present study was to report any differences in the antecedents
and consequences of the two measures of organizational commitment under
investigation.

Measuring Organizational Commitment

The OCQ

In 1979, Mowday et al. published a scale designed to measure organiza-
tional commitment, which they named the OCQ. Commitment was defined
by Mowday, Porter, and Steers (1982) as “the relative strength of an individu-
al’s identification with and involvement in a particular organization” (p. 27).
It is this definition on which the OCQ was developed. Mowday et al. (1979)
characterized commitment as having three factors: “(1) a strong belief in and
acceptance of the organization’s goals and values; (2) a willingness to exert


978 EDUCATIONAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL MEASUREMENT

considerable effort on behalf of the organization; (3) a strong desire to main-
tain membership in the organization” (p. 226). Using these components as a
framework, Mowday et al. (1979) developed 15 items (e.g., “I am proud to
tell others that I am part of this organization”) to tap these three aspects of
commitment. Although there are three underlying theoretical components of
the OCQ, the authors intended the scale to be unidimensional, and a majority
of researchers using this scale have reported or used a single-factor solution
(Dunham, Grube, & Castaneda, 1994; Mathieu & Zajac, 1990; Morrow,
1993).
In the original development article by Mowday et al. (1979), the OCQ was
administered to more than 200 individuals employed in a variety of jobs in
nine different organizations. In addition to the OCQ, 13 other scales (e.g., job
involvement, intent to leave, job satisfaction) were completed by at least one
of the samples. These additional scales were included as a means of assessing
the convergent, discriminant, and predictive validity of the OCQ scores.
The internal reliability estimates for the OCQ scores were strong across
all of the samples (range .82 to .93), and the factor analyses for six of the
samples “generally resulted in a single-factor solution” (Mowday et al.,
1979, p. 232). With respect to the validity of the scale scores, Mowday et al.
(1979) offered evidence of three types. First, they addressed convergent
validity by showing that the OCQ scores were positively correlated with
organizational attachment, intent to remain in the organization, intrinsic
motivation, work-oriented life interest, and supervisor ratings of subordi-
nates’ commitment. Evidence of discriminant validity was shown by lower
correlations than those reported by other research between scores on the
OCQ and scores for the outcome variables of job involvement, career satis-
faction, and job satisfaction. Finally, predictive validity was addressed by
examining the relationship between the OCQ scores and voluntary turnover,
absenteeism, and job performance.

The OCS

Although a great deal of what we know about organizational commitment
comes from research using the OCQ, the OCQ is not without faults. Many of
the criticisms of the OCQ are based on the underlying definition used when
developing the scale (Morrow, 1983; Osigweh, 1989). Using these criticisms
as an impetus, Balfour and Wechsler (1996) developed a new scale, the OCS,
which was designed to measure three components of organizational commit-
ment: identification, exchange, and affiliation.
Balfour and Wechsler’s (1996) scale development procedures included
three steps. First, they interviewed 19 individuals about their attachment to
their organization. Applying the repertory grid (RG) technique (Adams-
Webber, 1979; Bannister & Fransella, 1971; Kelly, 1955), they were able to


KACMAR ET AL. 979

elicit constructs that defined individuals’ attachment to the organization. In
the second step, Balfour and Wechsler content analyzed the interviews and
used the results to develop a cognitive map of the organizational commitment
process (Axelrod, 1976; Bougon, 1983; Gioia, 1986; Weick & Bougon,
1986). Finally, items that measured the components of the cognitive maps
were developed and tested. The items included in the scale were a combina-
tion of items from other commitment scales and new items that used the
actual words of the interviewees (e.g., “I am quite proud to be able to tell peo-
ple who it is I work for”).

Antecedents and Consequences of
Organizational Commitment
Researchers have found support for relationships between organizational
commitment and a variety of personality, demographic, and organizational
variables (Balfour & Wechsler, 1990; Blau & Boal, 1989; Luthans et al.,
1987; McFarlin & Sweeney, 1992; O’Reilly & Chatman, 1986; Settoon, Ben-
nett, & Liden, 1996; Vandenberg et al., 1994; Vandenberg & Lance, 1992).
Figure 1 diagrams the antecedents and consequences of organizational com-
mitment examined in the present study. The sections below further describe
the expected relationships.

Antecedents of Organizational Commitment

Demographics. A variety of demographic variables have been found to be
related to organizational commitment (Mathieu & Zajac, 1990). Age has
been a positive predictor of commitment for a variety of reasons. As workers
age, alternative employment options generally decrease, making their cur-
rent jobs more attractive (Mathieu & Zajac, 1990). Furthermore, older indi-
viduals may have more commitment to their organizations because they have
a stronger investment and greater history with the organizations than do
younger workers (Dunham et al., 1994). In general, women have reported
more commitment to their organizations than have men (Mathieu & Zajac,
1990). This finding frequently is attributed to the fact that women have to
overcome more barriers than men do to gain membership in an organization
(Grusky, 1966). The extra effort required to enter an organization may be
reflected in higher commitment by female employees. Marital status also has
been found to be related to commitment, with married individuals having
greater commitment to their organizations (Mathieu & Zajac, 1990). This
relationship is predicted because married individuals have greater financial
burdens and family responsibilities, thereby increasing their need to remain
with the organization when compared to their single counterparts (Angle &
Perry, 1983). Extant research provides empirical evidence for each of these



Figure 1. Antecedents and consequences of organizational commitment.

relationships (Blau & Boal, 1989; Cook & Wall, 1980; Green, Anderson, &
Shivers, 1996; Luthans et al., 1987; McFarlin & Sweeney, 1992).

Leader-member exchange (LMX). Several studies have examined the
impact that the quality of the relationship between the supervisor and subor-
dinate (measured using the LMX scale) has on organizational commitment.
Three such studies used the same 9 items from the OCQ (Green et al., 1996;
Nystrom, 1990; Settoon et al., 1996), but each used a different measure of the
LMX: Green et al. (1996) used Graen, Novak, and Sommerkamp’s (1982)
7-item measure; Nystrom (1990) used the 5-item version by Graen, Liden,
and Hoel (1982); and Settoon et al. (1996) used the 1993 version by Liden
and Maslyn. Two other studies (Kinicki & Vecchio, 1994; Major, Kozlowski,
Chao, & Gardner, 1995) used the Graen, Novak et al. (1982) 7-item version
of LMX, but each used a different form of commitment. Kinicki and Vecchio
(1994) used the 15-item OCQ, whereas Major et al. (1995) used 8 items from
Porter and Smith (1970). Despite the wide range of measures used, all of
these studies reported a statistically significant and positive relationship
between LMX and commitment.

Distributive justice. Distributive justice refers to the perceived fairness or
equity in the amount and type of rewards organizational members receive
(Folger & Konovsky, 1989). If individuals feel the rewards they receive are
fair, distributive justice is present. Intuitively, distributive justice should be
positively related to commitment. That is, individuals will exhibit more com-
mitment to an organization they view as providing fair and equitable rewards
for their performance than will individuals who feel cheated by their organi-
zations. Although few studies have investigated this relationship, some
empirical support for this positive relationship exists (McFarlin & Sweeney,
1992).


KACMAR ET AL. 981

Consequences of Organizational Commitment

Job satisfaction. Using nine items from the OCQ and a six-facet measure
of job satisfaction (i.e., manager, job in general, career progress opportuni-
ties, job transfer opportunities, department, and occupation), Vandenberg
and Lance (1992) examined the relationship between job satisfaction and
organizational commitment. Specifically, they tested four possible relation-
ships between these constructs: job satisfaction would predict commitment,
commitment would predict job satisfaction, a reciprocal relationship would
exist between job satisfaction and organizational commitment, and there
would be no relationship between job satisfaction and organizational com-
mitment. Support was found for the organizational commitment leading to
job satisfaction relationship as is predicted in the present study. Furthermore,
this relationship was found to be positive. A positive relationship between job
satisfaction and organizational commitment, using a variety of satisfaction
and commitment measures, has been consistently reported in past research as
well (Balfour & Wechsler, 1990, 1991; Cook & Wall, 1980; Green et al.,
1996; Major et al., 1995; McFarlin & Sweeney, 1992; Mowday et al., 1979).
Given this robust finding, we predicted that other forms of satisfaction (i.e.,
life and nonwork) would produce the same positive relationship with both
organizational commitment scales used in the present study.

Intentions to turnover. Consistent with our predictions, results from previ-
ous studies concerning the relationship between organizational commitment
and intentions to turnover support a negative relationship. For example, Blau
and Boal (1989) using nine items from the OCQ and three intent-to-turnover
items from Mobley (1977) reported a statistically significant negative rela-
tionship. Vandenberg et al. (1994) reported a similar finding using nine items
from the OCQ and a one-item intent-to-leave measure. Mowday et al. (1979)
also found a negative relationship between the OCQ and intent to leave on
four different samples. However, Vandenberg et al. noted that compliance
commitment (O’Reilly & Chatman, 1986) and intent to turnover produced a
positive relationship. Both the positive relationship between intent to turn-
over and compliance commitment and the negative relationship for the other
commitment facets also received support from Balfour and Wechsler (1991)
using O’Reilly and Chatman’s (1986) commitment measure and a one-item
intention measure. Finally, Balfour and Wechsler (1996) reported a negative
correlation between intent to turnover and all three components of the OCS.

Job involvement. Using a six-item measure of job involvement by
Kanungo (1982) and nine items from the OCQ, Blau and Boal (1989)
reported a positive relationship between commitment and job involvement.
Similarly, a positive relationship between work involvement, overall



commitment, and three components of commitment (i.e., identification,
involvement, and loyalty) was reported by Cook and Wall (1980). Mowday et al.
(1979) also reported a positive correlation between job involvement and the
OCQ for four different samples. These results lead us to predict a positive
relationship between job involvement and both measures of commitment.

Method

Sample

A total of 196 hospitality managers and supervisors participating in a
management skills workshop participated in the study. Respondents were
employed by the same parent company but were working in a variety of dif-
ferent locations. The sample consisted of 86 (44%) males and 110 (56%)
females. With respect to race, 55 (28%) were minorities. The average age of
the sample was 34.42 years (range 18 to 66 years), the average organizational
tenure was 4.5 years (range 1 month to 16 years), and 106 (54%) were
married.

Measures

Organizational commitment. Two scales were used to measure organiza-
tional commitment. The first scale was the 15-item OCQ developed by
Mowday et al. (1979). Example items include “I talk up this organization to
my friends as a great organization to work for” and “I feel very little loyalty to
this organization” (reverse coded). The second scale used to measure organ-
izational commitment was the 9-item OCS developed by Balfour and
Wechsler (1996). Example items include “What this organization stands for
is important to me” and “I feel like ‘part of the family’ at this organization.”
The respondents used a 5-point Likert-type scale to indicate their agreement
(1 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree) with each of the items in these
scales. The internal consistency reliability for the OCQ scores was .87. The
subscale scores for the OCS produced the following reliabilities: identifica-
tion = .69, affiliation = .73, exchange = .74.

Demographics. Respondents provided us with their current age, selected
either male (coded 0) or female (coded 1) to indicate their gender, and
checked one of four marital options provided (single, married, divorced, or
widowed). The single, divorced, and widowed were recoded into one cate-
gory (coded 1) and married was a second category (coded 2).

LMX. The seven-item measure of exchange commitment was used
(Graen, Novak et al., 1982). A sample item from this scale is “My immediate


KACMAR ET AL. 983

supervisor understands my problems and needs.” The items in this scale were
responded to on a 5-point Likert-type scale with the anchors of strongly dis-
agree for 1 and strongly agree for 5. The Cronbach alpha coefficient for
scores on this scale was .92.

Justice. Perceptions of organizational justice were measured with a six-
item scale by Price and Mueller (1986). The alpha reliability coefficient for
scores on these items was .94. A sample item was “To what extent are you
fairly rewarded considering the responsibilities you have?” The 5-point scale
had very fairly as the anchor for 1 and not at all fairly as the anchor for 5.

Job satisfaction. Job satisfaction was measured with five items from Cam-
mann, Fichman, Jenkins, and Klesh (1979). This is a global job satisfaction
scale as can be seen by examining a sample item from the scale: “In general, I
am satisfied with my job.” The anchors on the 5-point response scale were
strongly disagree for 1 and strongly agree for 5. The internal consistency reli-
ability estimate for scores on these five items was .87.

Life satisfaction. Diener, Emmons, Larsen, and Griffin’s (1985) five-item
scale was used to measure life satisfaction. A sample item is “The conditions
of my life are excellent.” Respondents indicated their agreement with each of
the five items using a response format with strongly agree the anchor for 5
and strongly disagree the anchor for 1. The coefficient alpha for the scores
obtained for this scale was .86.

Nonwork satisfaction. Eight items from Romzek (1989) were included to
tap nonwork satisfaction. Scores on this scale produced an internal consis-
tency reliability estimate of .70. Respondents used a 5-point scale (1 =
strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree) to indicate their level of agreement
with the eight items. A sample item from this scale is “I am satisfied with my
non-working activities, hobbies, and so on.”

Intent to turnover. The degree to which the respondents were considering
leaving the organization was measured with Mobley, Horner, and Hollings-
worth’s (1978) seven-item intent-to-turnover scale. A sample item from this
scale is “I will probably look for a new job in the near future.” The Cronbach
alpha coefficient for scores on this scale was .86. The response format for
these items was a 5-point Likert-type scale anchored with strongly disagree
at the low end and strongly agree at the high end.

Job involvement. Three items (e.g., “I live, eat, and breathe my job”)
developed by Lodahl and Kejner (1965) were used to measure job involve-
ment. Respondents indicated, on a 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree)



scale, their agreement with each item. Scores on the three items produced an
internal consistency reliability estimate of .73.

Results

Correlations

The means, standard deviations, and correlations among the variables
examined in the present study are provided in Table 1. As expected, the two
commitment scales were highly correlated (rs ranged from .77 to .56). Also
of interest is a similarity in the pattern and intensity of the correlations
between the two commitment scales and the remaining variables.

Structural Analysis of the Scales

Before the antecedents and consequences of organizational commitment
could be examined, the structural components of the two scales were estab-
lished. To accomplish this, each scale was analyzed separately via confirma-
tory factor analysis (CFA) using LISREL 8 (Jöreskog & Sörbom, 1993). The
results for these analyses follow.

OCQ. A single-factor model, shown in Figure 2, was estimated using
LISREL 8 to determine whether the OCQ was unidimensional as intended by
its developers (Mowday et al., 1979). The fit statistics (Jöreskog & Sörbom,
1993) for this model are presented in Table 2. For comparison purposes, a
two-factor model (i.e., value commitment and commitment to stay) reported
by Angle and Perry (1981) also was estimated. The value commitment factor
included Items 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, 12, 13, and 14. The commitment-to-stay
factor included Items 3, 7, 9, 11, and 15. The fit statistics for the comparison
model also can be found in Table 2. To directly compare the one-factor model
to the two-factor model, a chi-square difference test was conducted. Results
(χ2diff(1) = 114.02, p < .05) indicated that the unidimensional model was the
better of the two. Further examination of the unidimensional model indicated
that the path coefficients for two items, 3 and 7, fell below the .40 cutoff
(Ford, MacCallum, & Tait, 1986). These items were removed, and the model
was reestimated producing completely standardized path coefficients for all
remaining items of .40 or higher (see Figure 2). This modification also
increased the fit statistics for five of the seven statistics reported in Table 2.

OCS. The model estimated for the OCS (see Figure 3) had nine items lead-
ing to three different subcomponents of commitment as intended by the scale
developers. The completely standardized path coefficients, shown in Figure 3,
were all greater than .40. Some of the model fit statistics (see Table 2) were


Table 1

Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations Among Variables of Interest

Scale Mean SD N 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

1. OCQ 3.83 0.64 196 —
2. Identification
commitment (OCS) 4.28 0.70 196 .77 —
3. Affiliation
commitment (OCS) 3.94 0.84 196 .63 .65 —
4. Exchange
commitment (OCS) 3.60 0.92 196 .56 .55 .71 —
5. Age 34.42 9.54 186 .11 .15 .06 .09 —
6. Gender 1.56 0.50 195 –.05 –.03 –.03 –.04 –.09 —
7. Marital status 1.54 0.49 195 .09 .09 .03 .04 .23 –.06 —
8. LMX 3.53 1.02 196 .41 .38 .47 .45 –.05 –.05 .02 —
9. Justice 3.18 0.90 196 .45 .43 .52 .61 .00 .03 .05 .45 —
10. Job satisfaction 4.19 0.71 196 .68 .59 .57 .55 .06 –.06 .12 .36 .44 —
11. Life satisfaction 3.70 0.86 196 .19 .16 .19 .26 .21 .02 –.03 .22 .20 .25 —
12. Nonwork satisfaction 4.10 0.74 196 .15 .17 .15 .24 .14 .14 .04 .26 .19 .17 .63 —
13. Turnover 1.99 0.98 196 –.71 –.61 –.48 –.46 –.08 –.00 –.05 –.30 –.42 –.54 –.10 –.09 —
14. Job involvement 3.15 0.95 196 .36 .21 .21 .12 –.02 –.14 –.03 .11 .16 .31 –.02 –.11 –.13 —

Note. Correlations greater than .14 are statistically significant at p < .05. OCQ = Organizational Commitment Questionnaire; OCS = Organizational Commitment Scale; LMX = leader-member
exchange.
985


Figure 2. LISREL 8 model for Organizational Commitment Questionnaire (OCQ).

acceptable, but none was as strong as the fit statistics for the OCQ models.
For comparison purposes, we estimated a unidimensional model with all nine
OCS items constituting one factor, consistent with the factor structure of the
OCQ. However, the fit statistics for this model (see Table 2) were substan-
tially worse than the original model. A chi-square difference test (χ2diff (3) =
39.31, p < .05) further confirmed that the three-factor model was the better of
the two models. Therefore, the best fitting model was determined to be the
one intended by the developers of the scale, three items leading to each of the
three subcomponents of organizational commitment.


KACMAR ET AL. 987

Table 2
Fit Statistics for OCQ and OCS Models

OCQ OCQ OCQ OCS OCS Both OCQ
15 Items 15 Items 13 Items 9 Items 9 Items 13 Items
One Two One Three One and OCS
Index Factor Factor Factor Factor Factor 9 Items

Goodness of fit .89 .90 .91 .89 .86 .83
Adjusted goodness of fit .85 .86 .87 .79 .76 .79
Parsimony goodness of fit .67 .67 .65 .47 .51 .67
Normed fit .84 .85 .87 .84 .83 .82
Parsimony normed fit .72 .72 .73 .58 .62 .72
Comparative fit .91 .89 .93 .90 .85 .90
Root mean square error
of approximation .072 .08 .075 .13 .15 .073
Chi-square 180.43*** 294.45*** 137.11*** 107.30*** 146.61*** 412.52***
Degrees of freedom 90 89 65 24 27 203
Chi-square difference 114.02(1)** 39.31(3)**

Note. OCQ = Organizational Commitment Questionnaire; OCS = Organizational Commitment Scale.
**p < .01. ***p < .001.

Combined scales. To explore the similarities and differences in the items
that make up both commitment scales, the two scales were estimated in one
CFA (Dunham et al., 1994). The model estimated included four factors, one
with the 13 retained OCQ items related to a general OCQ factor and three
OCS factors each being predicted by their respective 3 items. All of the com-
pletely standardized path coefficients were greater than .40, and the modifi-
cation indices indicated that only 1 item (OCQ 8) “cross loaded” (on the
exchange commitment subcomponent of the OCS). More than half of the fit
statistics for this model, shown in Table 2, were acceptable.

Antecedents and Consequences of
Organizational Commitment

In the next step, the antecedents and consequences of the OCQ and OCS
were explored. To do this, the model in Figure 1 was estimated using LISREL 8.
To compare the two scales, both commitment measures were included in the
model estimated.
The completely standardized path coefficients for the model are provided
in Table 3. As can be seen, not all of the antecedents worked the same for the
four commitment components. For example, gender and age were not good
predictors of any of the forms of organizational commitment (all coefficients <
.15). Marital status yielded higher path coefficients, although links were still
weak at best. Even though all of the paths for LMX and justice with all four
commitment components were statistically significant, large to moderate,



Figure 3. LISREL 8 model for Organizational Commitment Scale (OCS).

and in the direction predicted, the strength of the paths differed, especially for
justice. The exchange component of the OCS had a stronger path coefficient
with justice than did the other forms of commitment.
When examining the relationships between the outcome variables and the
commitment components, more differences arose. The expected positive link
between commitment and job satisfaction was found only for the OCQ.
Although job satisfaction was appreciably linked to the OCQ, life satisfac-
tion was not. Instead, exchange commitment was found to be a better predic-
tor of life satisfaction. Two of the subcomponents of OCS, identification and
exchange, positively predicted nonwork satisfaction. The link between
exchange commitment and intent to turnover was weak and not statistically
significant, but the paths between OCQ and identification commitment and
intent to turnover were statistically significant and in the predicted direction.
Surprisingly, affiliation commitment positively predicted intent to turnover.
Finally, job involvement was found to be related appreciably to all four com-
mitment measures. However, the links between identification and exchange
commitment and job involvement were negative, opposite of that predicted.


KACMAR ET AL. 989

Table 3
Completely Standardized Path Coefficients

Variable OCQ Identification Affiliation Exchange

Antecedents
Age –.04 .03 –.15* –.11
Gender –.07 .08 –.07 –.03
Marital status .16* .19* .13 .15*
LMX .29* .34* .35* .29*
Justice .44* .42* .56* .64*
Consequences
Job satisfaction .63* .01 .14 .14
Life satisfaction .03 .03 –.09 .38*
Nonwork satisfaction –.17 .30* –.23 .44*
Intent to turnover –.65* –.37* .22* –.08
Job involvement .70* –.45* .35* –.30*

Note. OCQ = Organizational Commitment Questionnaire; LMX = leader-member exchange.
*p < .05.

Supplemental Analyses

Given that all of the data used in the present study were collected via self-
report surveys, the threat of common method variance is present in our study.
To examine the extent to which common method variance was an issue in the
current research, a Harmon one-factor test was conducted using LISREL 8 as
has been done in previous research (McFarlin & Sweeney, 1992; Sanchez &
Brock, 1996). Specifically, we estimated a model in which all the items for
the variables of interest were related to a single global (method) factor. If this
model fit the data well, strong evidence of common method variance would
be present. Results suggested that one global factor for all the items produced
poor overall fit (goodness-of-fit index = .39, comparative fit index = .42).
These findings suggest that a method factor is not predominate in this study,
reducing the threat of common method variance.

Discussion
The present study had two goals. First, the factor structure of two different
organizational commitment scales was examined independently and then
combined. These tests were performed to determine the degree of overlap
and uniqueness of the two scales. Results indicated very little overlap
between the two scales. Only one item from the OCQ (i.e., Item 8) cross
loaded on the exchange component of the OCS. This would suggest that the
Balfour and Wechsler (1996) scale measured components of organizational
commitment not captured by the OCQ. Next, antecedents and consequences
of commitment were examined for both scales to determine if the two measures



of organizational commitment predicted and were predicted by different con-
structs. Not all of the path loadings were in the predicted direction, and not all
of the antecedents and consequences examined worked the same for the four
commitment components. These findings are discussed in more detail below.

Antecedents

Although the relationships were weak, there were four paths in the model
that were statistically significant for the demographic variables: marital
status with OCQ, identification, exchange commitment, and affiliation com-
mitment with age. Gender was not found to be significantly related to any
form of commitment, which is consistent with some past research findings
(Blau & Boal, 1989) and inconsistent with others (Mathieu & Zajac, 1990;
McFarlin & Sweeney, 1992). Contrary to prediction and past research, age
was negatively related to affiliation commitment (Dunham et al., 1994;
Mathieu & Zajac, 1990). That is, as individuals got older they were less likely
to have affiliation commitment. Marital status was positively related to OCQ,
identification, and exchange commitment as expected. This is consistent
with past research suggesting that married individuals exhibit greater com-
mitment due to financial burdens and family responsibilities (Angle & Perry,
1983; Mathieu & Zajac, 1990). Thus, the affiliation component of organiza-
tional commitment is most salient for younger, single workers.
The exchange quality of the relationship between the supervisors and sub-
ordinates in our sample (i.e., LMX) did directly affect the subordinates’ feel-
ings of commitment to the organization. Specifically, the better the relation-
ship, the more committed the employees. LMX appears to be equally related
to all forms of commitment, indicating that supervisors can make a big differ-
ence in the commitment level of their employees. As was found for LMX,
distributive justice was a consistent predictor of commitment as well. This
demonstrates that organizations that provide equitable and fair rewards for
their employees can increase the level of commitment shown by their
employees.

Consequences

Job involvement was the only outcome variable that had a noteworthy link
with all four commitment components. As expected, job involvement was
positively related to OCQ and affiliation commitment. Contrary to predic-
tions, job involvement was negatively related to identification and exchange
commitment. This finding suggests that people who are highly involved in
their jobs exhibit lower levels of identification and exchange commitment.
One possible explanation is that individuals who are highly involved in their
jobs identify more closely with their professions than with the organizations


KACMAR ET AL. 991

that employ them. Similarly, individuals highly involved in their jobs view
exchange commitment as less relevant as they are receiving positive feed-
back from the work itself.
When examining the relationships between commitment and intent to
turnover, we found the OCQ and the identification subscale performed simi-
larly but differently from affiliation. There were negative relationships
between intent to turnover and the OCQ and identification but a weak posi-
tive relationship between intent to turnover and affiliation commitment. This
finding for the OCQ was not surprising. Past researchers have reported a
strong correlation between the OCQ and intention-to-turnover scales
(Blau & Boal, 1989; Vandenberg et al., 1994). Some even have argued that
findings that include both commitment and intent to turnover may be con-
founded by the scales’ apparent overlap (Bozeman & Kacmar, 1996; Stone-
Romero, 1994). One suggestion that can be made based on the current find-
ings is that when intentions to turnover and commitment are both important
constructs in a study, some measure of commitment other than the OCQ or
the identification subscale should be used, as they are highly correlated with
intent to turnover. Instead, the exchange subcomponent of the OCS could be
used because it was found to be unrelated to intent to turnover.
Although not specifically mentioned in past research, it appears that the
same suggestion made for intention to turnover could be made for job satis-
faction. In the present study, the paths between job satisfaction and the OCQ
were positive and statistically significant, whereas the links for affiliation,
exchange, and identification commitment with job satisfaction were not.
Hence, future researchers interested in examining commitment and job satis-
faction in the same study might be well advised to steer clear of the OCQ.
The relationships between nonwork satisfaction and exchange and identi-
fication commitment were strong and positive, whereas the paths between
affiliation and OCQ with nonwork satisfaction were negligible. These results
suggest that individuals who have happy lives outside of work do not need
strong relationships at work. Life satisfaction was positively related to
exchange commitment but negligibly related to the other forms of commit-
ment. Thus, in a global sense, the element of exchange is the most important
form of commitment in determining overall life satisfaction. These findings
are intriguing and informative given that past research efforts have not
included these forms of satisfaction in their studies of commitment.

References
Adams-Webber, J. R. (1979). Personal construct theory: Concepts and applications. London:
John Wiley.
Angle, H. L., & Perry, J. L. (1981). An empirical assessment of organizational commitment and
organizational effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 26, 1-14.
Angle, H. L., & Perry, J. L. (1983). Organizational commitment: Individual and organizational
influences. Work and Occupations, 10, 123-146.



Axelrod, R. (1976). Structure of decision: The cognitive maps of political elites. Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press.
Balfour, D. L., & Wechsler, B. (1990). Organizational commitment: A reconceptualization and
empirical test of public-private difference. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 10,
23-40.
Balfour, D. L., & Wechsler, B. (1991). Commitment, performance, and productivity in public or-
ganizations. Public Productivity & Management Review, 14, 355-367.
Balfour, D. L., & Wechsler, B. (1996). Organizational commitment: Antecedents and outcomes
in public organizations. Public Productivity and Management Review, 29, 256-277.
Bannister, D., & Fransella, F. (1971). Inquiring man: The theory of personal constructs. Balti-
more: Penguin.
Becker, H. S. (1960). Notes on the concept of commitment. American Journal of Sociology, 66,
32-40.
Becker, T. E. (1992). Foci and bases of commitment: Are they distinctions worth making? Acad-
emy of Management Journal, 35, 232-244.
Blau, G., & Boal, K. (1989). Using job involvement and organizational commitment interac-
tively to predict turnover. Journal of Management, 15, 115-127.
Bougon, M. G. (1983). Uncovering cognitive maps: The self-Q technique. In G. Morgan (Ed.),
Beyond method (pp. 173-188). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Bozeman, D. P., & Kacmar, K. M. (1996, April). The effect of item contamination on the OCQ-
turnover intention relationship. Paper presented at the 11th annual conference of the Society
for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, San Diego, CA.
Brown, M. (1969). Identification and some conditions of organizational involvement. Adminis-
trative Science Quarterly, 14, 346-355.
Brown, R. B. (1996). Organizational commitment: Clarifying the concept and simplifying the
existing construct typology. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 49, 230-251.
Buchanan, B. (1974). Building organizational commitment: The socialization of managers in
work organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 19, 533-546.
Cammann, C., Fichman, M., Jenkins, D., & Klesh, J. (1979). The Michigan Organizational As-
sessment Questionnaire. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan.
Cohen, A. (1996). On the discriminant validity of the Meyer and Allen measure of organiza-
tional commitment: How does it fit with the work commitment construct? Educational and
Psychological Measurement, 56, 494-503.
Cook, J., & Wall, T. (1980). New work attitude measures of trust, organizational commitment
and personal need nonfulfillment. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 53, 39-52.
Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The satisfaction with life scale.
Journal of Personality Assessment, 49, 71-75.
Dunham, R. B., Grube, J. A., & Castaneda, M. B. (1994). Organizational commitment: The util-
ity of an integrative definition. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 370-380.
Folger, R., & Konovsky, M. A. (1989). Effects of procedural and distributive justice on reactions
to pay raise decisions. Academy of Management Journal, 32, 115-130.
Ford, J. C., MacCallum, R. C., & Tait, M. (1986). The application of exploratory factor analysis
in applied psychology: A critical review and analysis. Personnel Psychology, 39, 291-314.
Gioia, D. A. (1986). Symbols, scripts, and sensemaking: Creating meaning in the organizational
experience. In H. P. Sims, D. A. Gioia, and Associates (Eds.), The thinking organization: Dy-
namics of organizational and social cognition (pp. 49-74). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Graen, G. B., Liden, R. C., & Hoel, W. (1982). Role of leadership in the employee withdrawal
process. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 868-872.
Graen, G. B., Novak, M., & Sommerkamp, P. (1982). The effects of leader-member exchange
and job design on productivity and satisfaction: Testing a dual attachment model. Organiza-
tional Behavior and Human Performance, 30, 109-131.


KACMAR ET AL. 993

Green, S. G., Anderson, S. E., & Shivers, S. L. (1996). Demographics and organizational influ-
ences on leader-member exchange and related work attitudes. Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, 66, 203-214.
Grusky, D. (1966). Career mobility and organizational commitment. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 10, 488-503.
Hall, D. T., & Schneider, B. (1972). Correlates of organizational identification as a function of
career patterns and organizational types. Administrative Science Quarterly, 15, 176-189.
Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. (1993). LISREL 8: User’s reference guide. Chicago: Scientific
Software International.
Kanungo, R. (1982). Measurement of job and work involvement. Journal of Applied Psychol-
ogy, 67, 341-349.
Kelly, G. A. (1955). The psychology of personal constructs. New York: Norton.
Kinicki, A. J., & Vecchio, R. P. (1994). Influences on the quality of supervisor-subordinate rela-
tions: The role of time-pressure, organizational commitment, and locus of control. Journal
of Organizational Behavior, 15, 75-82.
Liden, R. C., & Maslyn, J. M. (1993, August). Scale development for a multidimensional mea-
sure of leader-member exchange. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Academy of
Management, Atlanta, GA.
Lodahl, T. M., & Kejner, M. (1965). The definition and measurement of job involvement. Jour-
nal of Applied Psychology, 4, 24-33.
Luthans, F., Baack, D., & Taylor, L. (1987). Organizational commitment: Analysis of antece-
dents. Human Relations, 40, 219-236.
Magazine, S. L., Williams, L. J., & Williams, M. L. (1996). A confirmatory factor analysis ex-
amination of reverse coding effects in Meyer and Allen’s affective and continuance commit-
ment scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 56(2), 241-250.
Major, D. A., Kozlowski, S.W.J., Chao, G. T., & Gardner, P. D. (1995). A longitudinal investiga-
tion of newcomer expectations, early socialization outcomes, and moderating effects of role
development factors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 418-431.
Mathieu, J. E., & Zajac, D. M. (1990). A review and meta-analysis of the antecedents, correlates,
and consequences of organizational commitment. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 171-194.
McFarlin, D. B., & Sweeney, P. D. (1992). Distributive and procedural justice as predictors of
satisfaction with personal and organizational outcomes. Academy of Management Journal,
35, 626-637.
Meyer, J., & Allen, N. (1984). Testing the “side-bet theory” of organizational commitment:
Some methodological considerations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 372-378.
Mobley, W. (1977). Intermediate linkages in the relationship between job satisfaction and em-
ployee turnover. Journal of Applied Psychology, 62, 237-240.
Mobley, W., Horner, S. O., & Hollingsworth, A. T. (1978). An evaluation of the precursors of
hospital employee turnover. Journal of Applied Psychology, 63, 408-414.
Morrow, P. (1983). Concept redundancy in organizational research: The case of work commit-
ment. Academy of Management Review, 8, 486-500.
Morrow, P. (1993). The theory and measurement of work commitment. Greenwich, CT: JAI.
Mowday, R., Porter, L., & Steers, R. (1982). Organizational linkages: The psychology of com-
mitment, absenteeism, and turnover. New York: Academic Press.
Mowday, R., Steers, R., & Porter, L. (1979). The measurement of organizational commitment.
Journal of Vocational Behavior, 14, 224-247.
Nystrom, P. C. (1990). Vertical exchanges and organizational commitments of American busi-
ness managers. Group & Organizational Studies, 15, 296-312.
O’Reilly, C., & Chatman, J. (1986). Organizational commitment and psychological attachment:
The effects of compliance, identification, and internalization on prosocial behavior. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 71, 492-499.



Osigweh, C.A.B. (1989). Concept fallibility in organizational science. Academy of Management
Review, 14, 579-594.
Porter, L. W., & Smith, F. J. (1970). The etiology of organizational commitment. Unpublished
manuscript, University of California, Irvine.
Price, J. L., & Mueller, C. W. (1986). Handbook of organizational measurement. Marshfield,
MA: Pitman.
Romzek, B. S. (1989). Personal consequences of employee commitment. Academy of Manage-
ment Journal, 32, 649-661.
Sanchez, J. I., & Brock, P. (1996). Outcomes of perceived discrimination among Hispanic em-
ployees: Is diversity management a luxury or necessity? Academy of Management Journal,
39, 704-719.
Settoon, R. P., Bennett, N., & Liden, R. C. (1996). Social exchange in organizations: Perceived
organizational support, leader-member exchange, and employee reciprocity. Journal of Ap-
plied Psychology, 81, 219-227.
Stone-Romero, E. (1994). Construct validity issues in organizational behavior research. In J. Green-
berg (Ed.), Organizational behavior: The state of the science (pp. 155-179). Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Vandenberg, R. J., & Lance, C. E. (1992). Satisfaction and organizational commitment. Journal
of Management, 18, 153-167.
Vandenberg, R. J., Self, R. M., & Seo, J. H. (1994). A critical examination of the internalization,
identification, and compliance commitment measures. Journal of Management, 20, 123-140.
Weick, K. E., & Bougon, M. G. (1986). Organizations as cognitive maps: Charting ways to suc-
cess and failure. In H. P. Sims, D. A. Gioia, and Associates (Eds.), The thinking organization:
Dynamics of organizational and social cognition (pp. 102-135). San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass.


Organizational Behavior

Empfohlen

Empfohlen

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Ähnlich wie Organizational Behavior

Ähnlich wie Organizational Behavior (20)

Mehr von guest5e0c7e

Mehr von guest5e0c7e (20)

Kürzlich hochgeladen

Kürzlich hochgeladen (20)

Organizational Behavior