Organizational Behavior

Work and Occupations
http://wox.sagepub.com

A Dual Process Model of Organizational Commitment: Job Satisfaction and Organizational Support
JEONGKOO YOON and SHANE R. THYE
Work and Occupations 2002; 29; 97
DOI: 10.1177/0730888402029001005

The online version of this article can be found at:
http://wox.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/29/1/97

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

Additional services and information for Work and Occupations can be found at:

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

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

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

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

Citations (this article cites 54 articles hosted on the
SAGE Journals Online and HighWire Press platforms):
http://wox.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/29/1/97

Downloaded from http://wox.sagepub.com at Middlesex University on February 22, 2008
© 2002 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.

Yoon, Thye / OCCUPATIONS
WORK AND ORGANIZATIONAL COMMITMENT
The authors propose and test a new dual-process model of organizational commitment that con-
nects organizational practices and specific job characteristics to the emotions and cognitions of
employees. In turn, emotional reactions and cognitive processes are theorized to be the proxi-
mate cause of organizational commitment. Specifically, the model stipulates that overall job sat-
isfaction and perceptions of organizational support are key emotional and cognitive processes
that mobilize commitment in the workplace. The theoretical model was estimated with a sample
of employees drawn from two large Korean organizations (N = 2,443). Overall, the results pro-
vide strong support for the model. The main findings are that feelings of job satisfaction and per-
ceptions of organizational support operate through independent channels to mediate the impact
of work experiences on organizational commitment. The authors discuss the implications of
these findings in light of current theory and research on commitment.

A Dual Process Model of
Organizational Commitment
Job Satisfaction and Organizational Support

JEONGKOO YOON
Ajou University
SHANE R. THYE
University of South Carolina

C ommitment is a broad-ranging concept that cuts across many organiza-
tional and sociological domains. It is generally recognized that commit-
ment is a good predictor of many behaviors, including absenteeism (Brooke
& Price, 1989; Gellatly, 1995; Sagie, 1998), turnover (Jaros, 1997; Martin,
1979; Micheals & Spector, 1982; Mueller & Price, 1990; Price & Mueller,
1986), and organizational citizenship behavior (Mathiew & Zajac, 1990;

Authors’ Note: We are grateful to Edward J. Lawler and three anonymous reviewers
for many valuable suggestions on this article. This study was supported in part by the
Brain Korea 21 Grant to the Supply Chain Management Team in School of Business
Administration at Ajou University. Direct correspondence to Jeongkoo Yoon at
School of Business Administration, Ajou University, Suwon, South Korea
(jkyoon@madang. ajou.ac.kr) or Shane R. Thye, Department of Sociology, University
of South Carolina, Columbia, SC (srthye@sc.edu).
WORK AND OCCUPATIONS, Vol. 29 No. 1, February 2002 97-124
© 2002 Sage Publications
97


98 WORK AND OCCUPATIONS

Schappe, 1998; Williams & Anderson, 1991).1 In recent years, theories of com-
mitment have also been advanced by researchers interested in social movements
(Kanter, 1968), social exchange relations (Kollock, 1994; Lawler & Yoon
1996), and more generally, social order and solidarity (Hechter, 1987).
In this article, we are concerned with organizational commitment, broadly
defined as a strong identification with a particular company or organization
(Mowday, Porter, & Steers, 1982). Drawing on previous research, we offer a
new theoretical model of organizational commitment. This model integrates
two interrelated approaches that have been sharply demarcated in traditional
studies of organizational commitment: (a) an emotional/affective approach
that centers on global job satisfaction and (b) a cognitive/evaluative approach
that focuses on perceptions of organizational support. In this study, overall
job satisfaction and perceived organizational support are simultaneously
incorporated into a single model as dual pathways to commitment. This new
model is then tested with a large sample of employees drawn from two
Korean organizations. To our knowledge, no research to date has developed
and tested a single theoretical model of organizational commitment that
includes both pathways.
Past efforts to understand organizational commitment have taken two
independent directions. The first emphasizes the importance of job satisfac-
tion, typically defined as “a pleasurable or positive emotional state resulting
from the appraisal of one’s job or job experiences” (Locke, 1976, p. 1300).
Psychological and organizational researchers agree that overall job satisfac-
tion is an important mediating construct in the development of employee
commitment (Iverson & Roy, 1994; Lincoln & Kalleberg, 1990; Mowday et
al., 1982; Mueller & Price, 1990; Price & Mueller, 1986).2 Much of this
research has focused on the causal agents that precipitate job satisfaction. For
example, psychologists tend to focus on personality traits (Brief, Butcher &
Roberson, 1995; Watson, Pennebaker, & Folger, 1986), whereas researchers
in sociology and organizational behavior typically emphasize organizational
features and job rewards (Mottaz, 1985; Rusbult & Farrell, 1983). Despite
these differences, it is now generally understood that global job satisfaction is
one of the best predictors of organizational commitment (Lincoln &
Kalleberg, 1990; Mueller & Price, 1990; Price & Mueller, 1986; Staw,
Sutton, & Pelled, 1994).
The second approach places greater emphasis on the principle of reciproc-
ity. An important concept in this tradition is perceived organizational sup-
port, which refers to the employee’s “global beliefs concerning the extent to
which the organization values their contributions and cares about their
well-being” (Eisenberger, Huntington, Hutchison, & Sowa, 1986, p. 501).
The concept of perceived organizational support (i.e., the organization’s


Yoon, Thye / ORGANIZATIONAL COMMITMENT 99

attachment to the employee) can be viewed as a reciprocal yet closely related
counterpart to organizational commitment (i.e., the employee’s attachment
to the organization). The basic theoretical premise is that employees who per-
ceive they are supported by the organization are likely to reciprocate in terms
of commitment (Eisenberger, Fasolo, & Davis-LaMastro, 1990; Settoon,
Bennett, & Liden, 1996; Shore & Tetrick, 1991). As such, perceived organi-
zational support is also widely known to be a good predictor of organizational
commitment (Eisenberger et al., 1986, 1990).
Despite substantial progress in each domain, the central ideas of these two
areas have not been integrated in theories of commitment. That is to say, the-
ory development and empirical studies on job satisfaction tend not to incor-
porate the key ideas found in the organizational support literature and vice
versa. In this article, we aim to develop a single model that bridges these two
important research programs and thereby provide a more general view of
commitment. Toward this end, we propose and test a theoretical model that
incorporates both overall job satisfaction and perceived organizational sup-
port as mediators of organizational commitment. We offer the two as theoret-
ically distinct paths to commitment; job satisfaction represents an emotional/
affective process, whereas perceived organizational support represents a par-
allel cognitive/evaluative process.
A secondary goal of this article is to identify more clearly the specific job
characteristics and organizational factors that result in perceived organiza-
tional support. Compared to job satisfaction, whose etiology is well under-
stood, studies have not systematically investigated the causes of perceived
organizational support (see Wayne, Shore, & Liden, 1997, for an exception).
Many researchers simply treat perceived organizational support as exoge-
nous. Yet if both job satisfaction and perceived organizational support medi-
ate employee commitment as independent pathways, then we would expect
to see certain job characteristics differentially related to each. As such, we
compare and contrast the organizational factors that lead to job satisfaction to
those associated with perceptions of organizational support.
In what follows, we explicate a new model of organizational commitment.
We then test the model with survey data collected in two large Korean work
organizations. Given the nature of the data, we control for cultural factors and
explore how Korean cultural norms affect the processes under consideration.

THE MODEL

As shown in Figure 1, we propose that dual processes lead to organiza-
tional commitment: One pathway runs through overall job satisfaction and



Job Characteristics
Autonomy (+)
Variety (+)
Workload (-)
Pay (+) Job
Satisfaction
Organization-Related Variables
Communication (+)
Distributive Justice (+)
Procedural Justice (+) Organizational
Commitment

Controls & Covariates
Tenure Organizational
Occupation Support
Organization A
Age
Male
Education

Figure 1: A Dual Process Model of Organizational Commitment

the other through perceived organizational support. Based on prior theory
and research, our model of commitment includes four job-related variables
(i.e., job autonomy, job variety, workload, and pay) and three variables
related to organizational practice (i.e., procedural justice, distributive justice,
and communication). Together, these seven are theorized to be important pre-
dictors of job satisfaction and organizational support. To partition off addi-
tional variance, we also include a number of control variables that measure
characteristics of the employee and organization.
The model presumes that employees develop emotions and beliefs from
their work experiences. In turn, these are the proximal cause of organiza-
tional commitment. Most research to date has focused either on the direct
effects of work experiences on organizational commitment or on their indi-
rect effects mediated by job satisfaction. In contrast, we claim that employee
work experiences are mediated both by global positive emotions (i.e., overall
job satisfaction) and cognitions regarding the organization’s treatment of
employees (i.e., perceived organizational support). If correct, this view
implies that most direct relations between work experiences and commit-
ment will be spurious when mediating factors are taken into account (also see
Smith, 1992; Smith, Kendall, & Hulin, 1985). We also investigate whether
perceived organizational support is equivalent to job satisfaction as a mediat-
ing factor when the two are simultaneously considered in the same model.
In the abstract, our model suggests that multiple layers of exchange tran-
spire between the employee and organization. Specifically, the exogenous
and endogenous variables of our model can be construed as the objects of
first- and second-order exchange, respectively. First-order exchange refers to



the direct exchange between any two parties of material goods or tangible
resources. This occurs when the employee is given tangible benefits (e.g.,
salary, promotions, job autonomy, clear communication, fair treatment) in
exchange for labor. In contrast, second-order exchange involves the
exchange of nonmaterial goods, such as beliefs, perceptions, emotions, and
cognitions. The endogenous path through perceived organizational support
suggests that organizations exchange a satisfying and supportive environ-
ment for the loyalty and commitment of their employees. This has been
shown to occur through an attribution process (Lawler, 1992). Whether it is
through global job satisfaction or perceived organizational support, in either
case the organization is attributed as the source of benefit. In this manner, the
model suggests that first- and second-order exchanges are important in the
commitment process.

EXOGENOUS FACTORS

Four exogenous job-related variables are predicted to directly affect job
satisfaction. Variety and autonomy may be construed as rewards intrinsic to
the job itself (Hackman & Oldham, 1975). Variety is the degree to which a job
allows choice or freedom over work methods, quality criteria, and work
schedule (Price & Mueller, 1986). The lack of variety makes a job easily pro-
grammable and can thereby alienate the employee from the work process
(Hackman & Oldham, 1975; Perrow, 1986; Price & Mueller, 1986). As such,
variety should enhance job satisfaction. Autonomy is the degree to which the
employee is directly involved with job-related decisions (Breaugh, 1985;
Price & Mueller, 1986; Spector, 1986). Research has shown that high levels
of autonomy increase job satisfaction because it enhances the psychological
ownership of work (Cummings, Molloy, & Glen, 1977; Hackman, 1986). In
contrast, work overload may be viewed as an inherent cost. Work overload is
defined as the degree to which job demands are too high for an employee to
finish the job on time (Price & Mueller, 1986). Empirical studies find that
work overload reduces job satisfaction because it is stressful and physically
taxing (Ko, Price, & Mueller, 1997). Of the four exogenous variables, pay is
perhaps the best-known predictor of job satisfaction (Iverson & Roy, 1994;
Mottaz, 1987).
We also explore whether the four job factors affect perceptions of organi-
zational support. On one hand, there is little prior research directed at the
antecedents of organizational support, so there is no a priori reason to suspect
these four variables are necessarily good predictors. On the other hand, pay,
autonomy, variety, and workload can be construed as everyday rewards that
indirectly communicate if the organization values or cares about the



employee. In this sense, the four exogenous factors may be related to percep-
tions of organizational support. Given the less direct nature of the connection,
however, we suspect the four job factors will have a weaker effect on per-
ceived organizational support than on everyday job satisfaction.
The model also hypothesizes that three organizational factors affect both
perceived organizational support and overall job satisfaction. The organiza-
tional factors we investigate here are communication, distributive justice, and
procedural justice. Each variable reflects a wide range of organizational prac-
tices that affect everyday job experiences, information flows, and employee
benefits. Given the breadth of these factors, we predict the three organiza-
tional variables will directly affect both job satisfaction and perceived organi-
zational support.
Communication refers to the degree to which an organization provides
proper information in a clear and timely manner (O’Reilly & Roberts, 1976;
Weick, 1987). Communication plays an instrumental role in everyday work
routines by providing the information necessary for employees to perform
their jobs efficiently (O’Reilly & Roberts, 1976; Weick, 1987; Yates &
Orlikowski, 1992). With this in mind, we predict that high levels of commu-
nication will enhance job satisfaction. Communication is also predicted to
affect perceived organizational support (Dollar & Zimmers, 1998; Suzuki,
1998). To the extent the employee can reliably provide and receive informa-
tion from superiors, this should foster perceptions of choice and control
known to strengthen cognitive attachments to the larger organization
(Lawler, 1992). When communication is indirect and limited, the employee
may feel isolated and perceive less organizational support.
Perceptions of justice play a similar role. There are two fundamental types
of justice (Hegtvedt & Markovsky, 1995). Distributive justice is “the per-
ceived fairness of the amounts of compensations employees receive com-
pared to their contributions,” whereas procedural justice is “the perceived
fairness of the means used to determine those amounts” (Folger & Konovsky,
1989, p. 115). Many researchers are interested in how perceptions of justice
affect organizational behavior and in which kind of justice is more important
(Brockner, Tyler, & Cooper-Schneider, 1992; Tyler, 1990, 1994; Yoon,
1996). Overall, prior research suggests that procedural justice affects percep-
tions of the organization (e.g., trust, legitimacy of authority, and commit-
ment), whereas distributive justice has a greater effect on job satisfaction and
turnover (Alexander & Ruderman, 1987; Folger & Konovsky, 1989; Yoon,
1996). Based on these findings, we predict that although both kinds of justice
are important, distributive justice will have a greater impact on job satisfac-
tion, whereas procedural justice will have a greater impact on perceived orga-
nizational support.



In addition, we include a number of control variables, that is, tenure, occu-
pation, and organization. Previous studies of Korean hospital employees find
that nonmanual workers and those with longer tenure perceive greater orga-
nizational support (Yoon, Han, & Seo, 1996). Other research indicates these
factors are also related to job satisfaction (Yoon, 1996). Furthermore, we
include a dummy variable to capture unmeasured differences between the
two organizations. This will absorb variation on the dependent variable due
to different organizational cultures or specific company policies (Harris &
Mossholder, 1996; Meglino, Ravlin, & Adkins, 1989).

THE ENDOGENOUS PROCESSES

Shore and Tetrick (1991) proposed a conceptual distinction between over-
all job satisfaction and perceived organizational support, indicating the for-
mer represents an affective-laden attitude, whereas the latter is a descriptive
belief about the organization. They argued that overall job satisfaction is
more sensitive to fluctuations in the immediate job, whereas perceived orga-
nizational support is more responsive to accumulated job experience.
Eisenberger, Cummings, Armeli, and Lynch (1997) agreed that job satisfac-
tion and organizational support are distinct. To illustrate, consider an
employee who temporarily endures poor working conditions and long hours
for a business in financial trouble. The employee may recognize the financial
problems, be dissatisfied with the current job, but attribute the problems
externally (i.e., market conditions or a competing firm) and still view the
organization as supportive. The contrary can also occur: Conditions over
which the organization has little control may result in high job satisfaction
without an increase in perceived organizational support. In effect, perceived
organizational support varies with the degree of organizational discretion,
whereas job satisfaction does not (Eisenberger et al., 1997).
As noted above, much research connects job satisfaction to organizational
commitment (Iverson & Roy, 1994; Lincoln & Kalleberg, 1990; Mowday et
al., 1982; Mueller & Price, 1990; Price & Mueller, 1986). Overall, this litera-
ture indicates that satisfied employees are more likely to develop cognitive
bonds with the organization (i.e., commitment) and are less prone to turnover.
Turning to perceived organizational support, research indicates that employ-
ees who perceive organizational support are likely to express gratitude in the
form of commitment (Buchanan, 1974; Cook & Wall, 1980; Eisenberger, et
al., 1986, 1990; Steers, 1977). Moreover, perceived organizational support
can work through the employee’s reward expectations to induce commit-
ment. In a supportive organization, employees should come to anticipate
their efforts will be rewarded. As a consequence, they should be more likely



to identify with the larger institution and incorporate organizational member-
ship into their identity (Eisenberger et al., 1986, p. 501).

THE KOREAN CONTEXT

We examine the theoretical model with data from two Korean organiza-
tions. This provides an opportunity to consider how cultural and normative
processes unique to Korea might affect commitment and determine if theo-
retical explanations primarily developed in the West generalize to Eastern
settings. We also consider how Korean cultural norms interface with our the-
oretical model and discuss the broader applicability of our findings (Corn-
field, 1997).
A growing literature documents that values, attitudes, and behaviors
known to affect work outcomes differ between Western and Asian societies
(see Kim, Triandis, Kagitcibasi, Choi, & Yoon, 1994). For example, research
indicates that collective and relational orientations are dominant among
Korean workers, whereas individual and utilitarian orientations are most
prevalent among workers in Western societies (Cha, 1994; Kim, 1994). Other
studies indicate that work relations in the East are often treated as family rela-
tions (Bae & Chung, 1997; Hong, 1997). That is, based on Confucian philos-
ophy that emphasizes the family as the prototypical model around which to
organize groups and collectivities, many Korean employees might expect the
company to treat them as family members. This relationship entails high lev-
els of mutual obligation, employer protection of employee rights, and the
express devotion of the employee to the company as if it were a family busi-
ness (Yammarino & Jung, 1998). The implication is that relational and proce-
dural features of the organization may have greater predictive power in our
Korean sample.
In terms of our model, these norms suggest that communication and pro-
cedural justice will have strong effects on organizational support and job sat-
isfaction. The reason is that these measures capture relational and procedural
aspects of the organization. Similarly, we suspect that perceived organiza-
tional support (i.e., a relational construct) will be a better predictor of com-
mitment than job satisfaction (i.e., an individual emotion).
We also include measures of age, education, gender, and occupation to
capture the effect of culturally based status characteristics (Berger, Fisek,
Norman, & Zelditch, 1977). Historically, Korea is a deeply stratified society
in which observable status characteristics confer a broad range of social
advantages. Although industrialization since the 1960s has relaxed the tradi-
tional status order, many Koreans are still intensely concerned with occupa-
tional and educational prestige. High status is also accorded to males and the



elderly. It follows that educated, white-collar, male, and older employees
should perceive greater organizational support and job satisfaction.

METHOD

The data were collected from two large organizations in Korea between
the winter of 1996 and the spring of 1997. One company is the largest elec-
tronics company in Korea, which manufactures home appliances, multime-
dia products, telecommunication equipment, and semiconductors. The com-
pany’s net sales volume in the fiscal year 1996 was $18,800 million, and its
net profit was $194 million. There were approximately 57,000 employees as
of December 1996. The second company is one of the largest electric compa-
nies that generates, transmits, and distributes power. In 1996, the company’s
sales were $13,700 million, yielding a net profit of $1,300 million. The sec-
ond company was smaller than the first, with around 38,000 employees as of
December 1996.
We first clustered the branches of these two companies by regions and
business domains and then sampled employees randomly from each cluster.
The sample includes all employees representing all occupational categories.
Among the 3,500 questionnaires distributed, a total of 2,589 responses were
returned by the close-out date. The response rate was 74% (2,589/3,500 =
.74). Listwise deletion of missing values subjected the final analyses to 2,443
respondents.
The majority of respondents were male (82%), young (mean age = 32),
and had served 8.3 years in the same organization. The average level of edu-
cation was more than junior college graduation (mean = 14.4 years), and the
pay averaged 1,480,000 won per month (about U.S.$1,850 as of December
1996). White-collar workers constituted 31% of the respondents. About half
of the respondents (57%) were employees at the electronics company; the
others (43%) were employees at the electric company. An analysis of the
responses did not reveal any significant sampling biases with respect to occu-
pational categories, education, gender, or age.

MEASUREMENT

Most key measures (i.e., organizational commitment, organizational sup-
port, job satisfaction, autonomy, variety, workload, communication, distribu-
tive justice, and procedural justice) were composed of 5-point Likert-type
scales on which respondents were asked to indicate the extent of their



agreement with each item (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree). To con-
trol for an agreement response bias, a few statements were negatively worded.
The three endogenous variables in our theoretical model were organiza-
tional commitment, perceived organizational support, and job satisfaction.
Organizational commitment was measured by a four-item index selected
from Mowday et al. (1982): (a) “I speak highly of the company to my
friends,” (b) “I don’t care about the fate of the company in which I work”
(reverse coded), (c) “I am proud to tell others I am an employee of this com-
pany,” and (d) “I feel very little loyalty to this company” (reverse coded). Per-
ceived organizational support was measured by four items selected from
Eisenberger et al.’s (1986) scale: (a) “Our company really cares about me,”
(b) “our company is willing to help me when I need a special favor,” (c) “our
company does not care about my opinions” (reverse coded), and (d) “our
company feels that anyone could perform my job as well as I do” (reverse
coded). Job satisfaction was measured by five items modified from the
Brayfield and Rothe (1951) scale: (a) “I am contented with my job itself,” (b)
“I like my current job,” (c) “I often think my job is very good,” (d) “I find
enjoyment in my job,” and (e) “I am losing interest in my job” (reverse
coded). In general, these constructs were found to be reasonably reliable.
(Cronbach’s α = .70, .76, and .84, respectively, for the indices).
We measured two exogenous variables related to intrinsic job rewards.
Autonomy was measured by six items adapted from Breaugh (1985): (a) “I
am able to modify what I am supposed to accomplish,” (b) “I have control
over the scheduling of my work,” (c) “my job is such that I can decide when to
do particular work activities,” (d) “my job allows me to modify the normal
way I am evaluated so that I can emphasize some aspects of my job and play
down others,” (e) “I am allowed to decide how to go about getting my job
done,” and (6) “I am able to choose the way to go about my job.” Variety was
measured by a four-item scale selected from Price and Mueller (1986): (a)
“My job has variety,” (b) “the duties in my job are repetitious and routine”
(reverse coded), (c) “I have the opportunity to do a number of different things
in my job,” and (d) “many of my tasks are the same from day to day” (reverse
coded).
Turning to the job-related variables, workload was measured with a scale
adapted from Kahn, Wolfe, Quinn, and Rosenthal (1964): (a) “I do not have
enough time to get everything done on the job,” (b) “I have to work very fast
on the job,” and (c) “the workload on my job is too heavy.” Pay was measured
as the natural log transformation of respondents’ monthly income before
taxes and deductions. Communication was measured by a four-item scale
selected from O’Reilly and Roberts (1976): (a) “It is easy to talk openly to all
members of this work unit”; (b) “the information I receive is often inaccurate



in this work unit”; (reverse coded); (c) “communication in this work unit is
very open, clear, and timely,”; and (d) “I am kept informed of what’s going on
in this work unit.” These indices were again reasonably reliable (Cronbach’s
α = .82, .72, .75, and .71, respectively).
Distributive justice was measured by a four-item scale modified from
Price and Mueller (1986): (a) “Compared to other employees, my work
reward is proper in view of my training and education”; (b) “compared to
other employees, my work reward is proper in view of my effort that I input”;
(c) “compared to other employees, my work reward is proper in view of my
work experience,”; and (d) “compared to other employees, my work reward is
proper in view of my work responsibilities.” Whereas distributive justice is
related to organizational rewards, procedural justice is tied to the processes
and means through which the outcomes are generated (Alexander &
Ruderman, 1987). Procedural justice was measured with a four-item scale
modified from several sources (Alexander & Ruderman, 1987; Price &
Mueller, 1986; Yoon, 1996): (a) “The procedures used to determine my pay
raise are fair and consistent,” (b) “the procedures used to evaluate my perfor-
mance are fair and consistent,” (c) “the procedures used to determine my pro-
motion are fair and consistent,” and (d) “the procedures used to determine
other fringe benefits are fair and consistent” (Cronbach’s α = .81 and .76,
respectively, for the distributive and procedural justice scales.)
In terms of the covariates, occupation was classified as manual or
nonmanual. Tenure was simply measured by years of employment. Among
the respondent demographics, age was measured categorically, and the mid-
point of years was assigned to each respondent. Education was measured by
years in school. Gender was dummy coded, assigning 1 for males and 0 for
females. Finally, the two organizations were dummy coded to control for
variance at the organizational level.

RESULTS

Linear structural equation modeling was used for the analysis (LISREL 8:
Jöreskog & Sörbom, 1993). LISREL affords the advantage of estimating the
causal model while correcting for attenuation due to random measurement
error (see Thye, 2000). The maximum likelihood routines produce a measure
of the goodness of fit for the overall model as well as explained variance (R2)
of each endogenous variable. The standardized coefficients reported below
can be interpreted as standardized betas in ordinary least square regression.
The analysis is broken into four parts. First, we conduct a confirmatory factor
analysis to determine if our key theoretical constructs are distinct. Second,



we examine the correlation between key variables. Third, we estimate the
path coefficients for the dual process model of commitment. Finally, we
examine the direct and indirect effects of the exogenous variables to assess
the explanatory power of the endogenous pathways.

CONFIRMATORY FACTOR ANALYSIS

To assess whether organizational commitment, overall job satisfaction,
and perceived organizational support are distinct constructs, we conducted a
confirmatory factor analysis. Specifically, we compare the three-factor
model (i.e., all factors distinct) with several alternative formulations (i.e.,
Model 1 is the single-factor model; Model 2 represents all possible two-
factor models). The three-factor model is the baseline model for this compar-
ison (Model 3). Multiple indicators are used to assess the fit, including the
Comparative Fit Index (CFI) (Bentler & Bonett, 1980), the Tucker-Lewis
Index (TLI) (Tucker & Lewis, 1973), the Goodness-of-Fit Index (GFI), and
the Adjusted Goodness-of-Fit Index (AGFI) (Jöreskog & Sörbom, 1993). To
compare the three models, we use a chi-square significance test to determine
significant improvements in fit (James, Mulaik, & Brett, 1982).
Model 1 presumes one overall factor and fits the data poorly, as indicated
by low values of CFI, TLI, GFI, and AGFI (.77, .72, .84, and .78, respectively).
The standardized factor loadings also reveal that items measuring overall job
satisfaction loaded quite poorly on the global factor. Model 2 hypothesizes
three distinctive two-factor models, overall job satisfaction, and perceived
organizational support (Model 2a = organizational commitment + perceived
organizational support, overall job satisfaction; Model 2b = organizational
commitment + overall job satisfaction, perceived organizational support;
Model 2c = perceived organizational support + overall job satisfaction, orga-
nizational commitment). The associated GFIs are somewhat improved com-
pared to the single-factor model. However, the values are still below normally
accepted levels. The values for CFI, TLI, GFI, and AGFI associated with
each model are as follows: Model 2a (.87, .85, .91, and .87), Model 2b (.82,
.78, .88, and .82), and Model 2c (.86, .83, .89, and .84). Model 3, which hypoth-
esizes three distinctive factors, shows considerable improvement in the GFI
(.93, .91, .95, and .93, respectively, for CFI, TLI, GFI, and AGFI). Com-
paring Model 3 to the best two-factor model (i.e., Model 2a) yields a CFI
improvement of .06. Based on Widaman’s (1985) suggestion that an increase
in CFI of greater than 0.01 represent substantive improvement, we conclude
that Model 3 provides the best relative fit. We also find that the chi-square dif-
ference between Model 2a and Model 3 is significant, χ2 (2, N = 2,850) =
721.5, p < .001, which is further evidence in support of the three-factor



TABLE 1: Confirmatory Factor Loadings for the Three-Factor Model (N = 2,850)

Perceived
Organizational Organizational Overall Job
Commitment Support Satisfaction

Organizational commitment
I am proud to tell others I am an .85
employee of this company.
I speak highly of the company .82
to my friends.
I feel very little loyalty to this .54
company. (R)
I don’t care about the fate of .59
the company in which I work. (R)
Perceived organizational support
My company really cares about .74
my well-being.
My company is willing to help me if .61
I need a special favor.
My company does not care about .44
my opinions and extra effort. (R)
My company is proud that I am a .57
member of this organization.
Overall job satisfaction
I find enjoyment in my job. .73
I often think my job is very good. .73
I like my current job. .80
I am contented with my job itself. .81
I am losing interest in my job. (R) .58

NOTE: (R) indicates the item is reverse coded.
All factor loadings are statistically significant, p < .001.

model. The factor loadings for Model 3 are shown in Table 1. All of the items
load significantly on their respective factors, and all loadings are greater than
.46. An examination of the cross-loadings did not indicate values larger than
.27. Overall, these findings suggest that perceived organizational support,
overall job satisfaction, and organizational commitment are distinct constructs.3

CORRELATION MATRIX

Table 2 presents the LISREL corrected correlation matrix for all variables
in the analysis. In general, the pattern of correlations supports the paths
hypothesized in the model. As predicted, both perceived organizational sup-
port and overall job satisfaction are related to organizational commitment
(r = .62 and r = .60, respectively). We also find the exogenous variables are



related to perceived organizational support as expected. For example, per-
ceived organizational support is significantly correlated with variety (r =
.23), autonomy (r = .36), communication (r = .67), procedural justice (r =
.72), and distributive justice (r = .59). Although the correlations are some-
what smaller, job satisfaction is also related to key exogenous variables.
Table 2 shows that job satisfaction is moderately related to variety (r = .45),
procedural justice (r = .33), distributive justice (r = .36), and autonomy (r =
.44). There is a strong relation between job satisfaction and communication
(r = .62). We were somewhat surprised to find that work overload is not
related to organizational support (r = .00) or job satisfaction (r = .01). Fur-
thermore, pay is significantly related to job satisfaction (r = .12) but not per-
ceived organizational support (r = .02).
We also find that certain exogenous factors are differentially related to
perceived organizational support and job satisfaction. For example, variety
and autonomy are more strongly related to job satisfaction than perceived
organizational support (see Table 2). As predicted, perceived organizational
support is more strongly related to procedural justice (r = .72) than to distrib-
utive justice (r = .59), whereas job satisfaction is more strongly related to dis-
tributive justice (r = .36) than to procedural justice (r = .33). Interestingly,
communication is a good predictor of both organizational support and job
satisfaction (r = .67 and r = .62, respectively). In sum, the pattern of correla-
tion dovetails nicely with our theoretical model.

MODEL ESTIMATION

We adopt a progressive strategy to estimate the semi-chain path model
shown in Figure 1. After estimating the hypothesized model, we relax certain
paths to improve the model’s overall fit. Among numerous strategies for
doing so (Bollen, 1989; Marsh, Balla, & McDonald, 1988; Wheaton, 1987),
we adhere to a conservative approach. That is, we retain all original paths
even when they were not supported.
Table 3 shows results of the LISREL estimation. Model 1 represents the
estimation of the model given in Figure 1, whereas Model 2 shows another
estimation after paths were added to improve the model fit. The chi-square
for Model 1 is 5,988 with 889 degrees of freedom (p = .000). The GFIs show a
reasonable fit between this model and the data (GFI = .91, AGFI = .89, TLI =
.87). And although Model 2 uses 5 additional degrees of freedom, the overall
fit is significantly improved as indicated by the chi-square test (χ2 = 5,826,
df = 884, p = .000). Furthermore, the related GFIs remain nearly unchanged
in the second model (GFI = .92, AGFI = .90, TLI = .88). For these reasons, we
focus the remaining analysis on Model 2 shown in Table 3.


TABLE 2: Means, Standard Deviations, Reliability Coefficients, and Correlations Between all Variables (N = 2,850)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

1. Organizational commitment 1.00
2. Organizational support .62 1.00
3. Job satisfaction .60 .61 1.00
4. Autonomy .32 .36 .44 1.00
5. Variety .25 .23 .45 .24 1.00
6. Workload .03 .00 .01 .07 .03 1.00
7. Communication .48 .67 .62 .51 .28 –.06 1.00
8. Procedural justice .44 .72 .33 .22 .14 .03 .41 1.00
9. Distributive justice .37 .59 .36 .20 .16 –.07 .29 .73 1.00
10. Pay .04 .02 .12 .24 .19 .08 .11 –.01 .00 1.00
11. Tenure –.04 –.08 .09 .15 –.05 –.01 .14 –.22 –.15 .44 1.00
12. White .17 .08 –.01 .09 .09 .02 –.02 .16 .12 .02 –.13 1.00
13. Age –.04 –.05 .14 .18 .06 .01 .18 –.21 –.15 .56 .79 –.16 1.00
14. Education –.03 –.03 .08 .10 .28 .05 .07 .00 .00 .36 –.11 .00 .19 1.00
15. Male .00 .10 .17 .15 .19 .14 .24 –.05 .02 .37 .24 –.11 .44 .25 1.00
16. Organization A .21 .09 –.05 .01 .03 .19 –.21 .33 .19 –.03 –.34 .43 –.38 –.11 –.19 1.00
Mean 2.89 2.90 3.05 3.12 3.23 3.14 2.90 2.65 2.74 14.21 8.29 .30 32.3 14.38 .82 .57
Standard deviation .50 .52 .55 .66 .53 .67 .54 .75 .70 .30 5.96 .46 6.5 2.05 .37 .49
Cronbach’s α .70 .76 .84 .82 .72 .65 .61 .76 .81

NOTE: Male, White, and Organization A are dummy variables. Their omitted categories are female, manual, and Organization B.
111

112

TABLE 3: Standardized LISREL Coefficient Estimates for the Causal Model (N = 2,850)

Model 1 Model 2

Organizational Job Organizational Organizational Job Organizational
Independent Variable Support Satisfaction Commitment Support Satisfaction Commitment

Controls and covariates
Male .01 –.05** .— .03 –.05* –.07***
Age .03 .11*** .— .03 .11*** .—
Education –.08*** –.04 .— –.07** –.04 –.04**
Tenure –.05 –.02 .— –.05 –.02 .—
White .01 –.01 .— –.01 –.01 .06***
Organization A .05 .05 .— .01 .04 .17***
Exogenous variables
Autonomy .01 .12*** .— .00 .12*** .—
Variety .04 .26*** .— .03 .26*** .—
Workload .02 .09*** .— .02 .09*** .—
Pay –.01 –.04 .— –.02 –.04 —
Communication .47*** .45*** .— .46*** .45*** .12**
Distributive justice .15*** .24*** .— .15*** .24*** .—
Procedural justice .40*** .09* .— .41*** .08* .—
Mediating variables
Organizational support .— .— .45*** .— .— .31***
Job satisfaction .— .— .32*** .— .— .36***
R2 .72 .50 .48 .73 .50 .51
Degrees of freedom 889 884
Chi-square 5,988 (p = .00) 5,826 (p = .00)
Goodness-of-Fit Index .91 .92
Adjusted Goodness-of-Fit Index .89 .90
Tucker-Lewis Index .87 .88

NOTE: Male, White, and Organization A are dummy variables. Their omitted categories are female, manual, and Organization B.
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001, two tailed tests.


Endogenous paths. Overall, the results suggest that dual processes medi-
ate organizational commitment. The Table 3 data indicate that the exogenous
variables explain 73% of the variance in perceived organizational support
and 50% of the variance in job satisfaction. In turn, the overall model explains
51% of the variance in organizational commitment. The standardized path
coefficients indicate that both perceived organizational support (beta = .31)
and job satisfaction (beta = .36) significantly enhance organizational com-
mitment. In terms of the relative strength of each endogenous pathway, a test
of equality shows no significant difference in the effect sizes. We find that
organizational support and job satisfaction play equal mediating roles in the
commitment process.4 Together, these results provide clear and consistent
support for the model.

Exogenous paths. The model presumes that job and organizational fea-
tures significantly predict job satisfaction and perceived organizational sup-
port. As expected, job autonomy, variety, and workload significantly increase
both organizational support and overall job satisfaction (see Model 2,
Table 3). Contrary to our prediction, however, pay was not significantly
related to either job satisfaction or organizational support. Turning to the
organizational factors, we predicted that communication, distributive justice,
and procedural justice would have broader effects, and the data indicate that
they do. These variables enhance both perceptions of organizational support
and overall job satisfaction (see Model 2).
We also predicted that although distributive and procedural justice would
affect both job satisfaction and perceived organizational support, their sizes
would differ. The results show this to be the case. We found the impact of dis-
tributive justice on job satisfaction (beta = .24, p < .001) is greater than that of
procedural justice (beta = .08, p < .05; see Model 2 in Table 3). In contrast, the
impact of procedural justice on perceived organizational support (beta = .41,
p < .001) is greater than that of distributive justice (beta = .15, p < .001). Inter-
estingly, we found no significant direct effect of either procedural or distribu-
tive justice on commitment. This suggests that when organizational support
and job satisfaction are taken into consideration, the effect of justice on com-
mitment is spurious. Again, this highlights the importance of the endogenous
processes at the core of our model.
We were somewhat surprised by one pattern in the results: the slight but
significant effect of workload on job satisfaction (beta = .09, p < .001, see
Table 3). This indicates that work overload mildly increases job satisfaction.
In previous studies, work overload has been found to be a job stressor, damp-
ening job satisfaction (Iverson & Roy, 1994; Ko et al., 1997; Yoon et al.,
1996). We return to this issue in the discussion.



Among the variables measured here, communication emerged as the sin-
gle best predictor of both perceived organizational support (beta = .46, p <
.001) and job satisfaction (beta = .45, p < .001). The importance of communi-
cation is further evidenced by the significant direct effect it has on commit-
ment (beta = .12, p < .01). In some regards, this pattern is not surprising. If
communication plays both instrumental and expressive roles, as we speculate
above, then we would expect to see strong effects running through both
endogenous processes. That we found such effects is not only consistent with
our theoretical model but also with past research (Suzuki, 1998; Weick, 1987;
Yates & Orlikowski, 1992). The direct effect of communication on commit-
ment means there are effects above and beyond the endogenous processes.
Clearly, communication is a strong predictor (both direct and indirect) of
organizational commitment.

Controls and covariates. We also made predictions concerning a variety
of interpersonal control variables. The results indicate that male employees
are slightly less satisfied and perceive less organizational commitment than
female employees, more educated employees perceive less organizational
support and are less committed to their organizations, and the elderly are
more satisfied with their job than younger coworkers. These results are
mostly consistent with previous findings (Luthans, McCaul, & Dodd, 1985;
Sommer, Bae, & Luthans, 1996; Yoon, 1996). We also find that nonmanual
workers are more committed to the organization than manual workers—a
result that might reflect the tendency for manual workers to identify more
with their union. Finally, we find some differences in organizational support
and commitment between the two companies. In light of the many ways the
two companies differ, this finding is difficult to interpret.

EFFECT DECOMPOSITION

To assess the mediating role of job satisfaction and organizational support
on commitment, we first estimate the direct paths from the exogenous vari-
ables to organizational commitment based on Model 2. We then decompose
the total effect of the exogenous variables on commitment into direct and
indirect components. Support for the dual process model comes in the form
of large indirect effects. Such a finding indicates that the exogenous variables
operate mostly through the mediating processes of the model.
Table 4 shows the decomposition of the total effects for key exogenous
variables. Again, the data strongly support the assumptions of the theoretical
model. Notice that communication is the only exogenous variable that
directly affects organizational commitment. Furthermore, only 13% of the



TABLE 4: Standardized Direct and Indirect Causal Effects of the Key Exoge-
nous Variables on Organizational Commitment (N = 2,850)

Indirect Through
Direct Job Organizational Total
Exogenous Variable Effect Satisfaction Support Effect

Autonomy .00 .04** .00 .04**
Variety .00 .10*** .01** .11***
Workload .00 .03** .01* .04**
Pay .00 –.02 .00 –.02
Communication .12*** .16*** .14*** .42***
Distributive justice .00 .09*** .05*** .14***
Procedural justice .00 .03** .12*** .15***

*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001, two-tailed test.

total causal effects are direct. A full 87% of the exogenous impact is mediated
through job satisfaction and organizational support. Among the two mediat-
ing processes, job satisfaction mediates 51% of the total causal effect and
organizational support mediates 36%. Also notice that except for procedural
justice, the mediating effect of each exogenous variable through job satisfac-
tion is larger than that for organizational support. Recall that in the previous
section, we found job satisfaction and organizational support to have similar
direct effects on commitment. Taken together, these two findings suggest that
although job satisfaction mediates a wider range of organizational features,
once established, job satisfaction and perceived organizational support are
equally potent in producing commitment. Both findings point to the impor-
tance of job satisfaction and perceived organizational support as mediating
factors.

DISCUSSION

Our study reveals that job characteristics and organizational features pri-
marily operate through job satisfaction and perceived organizational support
to produce organizational commitment. An estimation of the theoretical
model finds that these two constructs mediate a majority of the total variance
in organizational commitment. We also identify a variety of factors (such as
open communication, perceptions of distributive, and procedural justice) that
promote organizational commitment through both paths. In this section we
consider some of the more general issues these findings address.
This project offers a unique opportunity to compare the relative strength
of job satisfaction and perceived organizational support as mediating



constructs. We find that both constructs are strong predictors of organiza-
tional commitment (betas = .36 and .31, respectively). The primary differ-
ence between the two is that job satisfaction appears to be more strongly
related to a wider range of organizational policies and job practices. We are
not surprised that everyday work experiences (i.e., autonomy, variety, and
workload) have the strongest and most direct effect on everyday feelings of
satisfaction and are less predictive of more abstract perceptions of organiza-
tional support. Other researchers have speculated that job satisfaction is the
most important predictor of commitment, precisely because it is sensitive to a
wide range of job-related traits (Farkas & Tetrick, 1989; Lincoln &
Kalleberg, 1990; Mathieu & Zajac, 1990; Mueller & Price, 1990). Our study
is consistent with this assertion.
We also find that communication is especially important in producing
commitment. In fact, communication has multiple indirect effects and is the
only theoretical variable that has an impact on organizational commitment
directly. Communication, as such, appears to have several positive aspects in
the organization. Earlier we claimed that communication plays an instrumen-
tal role in the completion of work routines (O’Reilly & Roberts, 1976; Weick,
1987; Yates & Orlikowski, 1992) and that it triggers important cues concern-
ing in-group membership (Dollar & Zimmers, 1998; Suzuki, 1998). To the
extent the dual paths of our theoretical model capture instrumental and
expressive processes, the findings suggest this to be the case.
Our study also poses new questions concerning the role of justice in the
commitment process. Prior research indicates that procedural justice tends to
affect the relationship between the employee and organization (e.g., trust,
legitimacy, and commitment), whereas distributive justice tends to have an
impact on individual experiences and decisions (e.g., job satisfaction and
turnover) (Brockner et al., 1992; Tyler, 1990, 1994). With this in mind, we
hypothesized that procedural justice would operate through organizational
support, whereas distributive justice would operate through job satisfaction.
Both hypotheses were supported. However, those effects are not exclusive.
We also found small but significant effects of procedural justice on job satis-
faction and distributive justice on perceived organizational support. These
findings indicate that justice perceptions have broader effects and suggest the
need for additional theory and research.
Autonomy and variety are well-known to be intrinsic job rewards (Hack-
man & Oldham, 1975). Pay can be construed as a reward that is extrinsic to
the job itself. Although we predicted that all three variables would increase
job satisfaction, only autonomy and variety received the expected support.
This suggests that intrinsic job rewards play a more important role in the
development of job satisfaction than do extrinsic factors. In fact, neither job



satisfaction nor organizational commitment were found to increase with pay
when intrinsic job factors were controlled. More generally, these data suggest
that inherent job features are the proximate cause of satisfaction; external
rewards appear to be less central.
We were somewhat surprised by one finding: the small but positive effect
of workload on job satisfaction. This finding may be interpreted in several
ways. First, it may suggest that under some conditions, employees with high
workloads have greater opportunity to contribute to the company and there-
fore experience greater self-efficacy and esteem. The converse may also be
true. That is, corporations may assign difficult and challenging tasks to the
most competent employees. In either case, future researchers should find
positive relations between workload, job satisfaction, and measures of
employee self-esteem or self-efficacy. A final possibility is that the finding is
not reliable and will not replicate in future studies. Only future research will
be able to distinguish among these possibilities.
We also found slight evidence of cultural norms at work. We suspected
that group orientation, social relationships, and familism would be particu-
larly important in our Korean sample. These factors, in turn, suggest that
(a) procedural justice and communication should be good predictors of the
endogenous processes and (b) organizational support would have a greater
effect on commitment than job satisfaction. These hypotheses were partially
supported. Although communication and procedural justice operate as pre-
dicted, organizational support was not a stronger predictor of commitment.
Some of the control variables related to commitment as in previous U.S. stud-
ies, but others did not. For instance, we found that educated and male employ-
ees were less committed to their organization, as is often reported in U.S.
samples (Mathieu & Zajac, 1990; Sommer et al., 1996). However, contrary to
previous studies in the United States, we did not find a positive impact of age
and tenure on organizational commitment (Luthans et al., 1985; Sommer et al.,
1996). Given the strong emphasis in Korea on respect for the elderly, these
findings may reflect subtleties in the particular organizations of our study.

CONCLUSION

We developed and tested a new model of commitment that integrates ideas
from two independent research programs: job satisfaction and organizational
support. Whereas previous research has tended to examine these constructs
as separate processes, our model suggests that organizational commitment
and job satisfaction are equally weighted affective and cognitive processes
that stem from a variety of job and personal characteristics.



At a theoretical level, our findings are consistent with Lawler and Yoon’s
(1996) theory of relational cohesion. According to this theory, there are two
endogenous processes leading to commitment: social bonding and boundary
defining. Social bonding is an affective process that explains the develop-
ment of commitment in terms of the emotions aroused through social interac-
tion. Boundary defining is a cognitive process wherein collections of people
come to see themselves as members of an overarching group and share a com-
mon group identity. The theory has been rigorously tested and supported
under a variety of conditions (Lawler, Thye, & Yoon, 2000; Lawler & Yoon,
1996).
Interpreting our study from this perspective, job satisfaction can be con-
strued as a type of positive emotion that is directed at the organization. Per-
ceived organizational support can been seen as a salient cognition that the
organization is concerned with employee well-being. As such, organiza-
tional support may reinforce the boundary between the organization and
employee by making organizational membership a component of the individ-
ual’s core identity. In this regard, our study represents a field application of
the theory of relational cohesion and provides further evidence for the impor-
tance of cognitive and emotional processes known to produce commitment.
In terms of practical implications, this project suggests that organizations
wishing to improve employee commitment should aim to develop two kinds
of programs. The first program should be aimed at increasing everyday job
satisfaction. This could involve any policy that gives the employee a greater
sense of variety, autonomy, and control over his or her job. The second set of
directives should seek to make the organizational boundary more salient.
This might involve corporate profit-sharing plans, weekly awards that are
given to especially deserving employees, or any other activity aimed at build-
ing a sense of organizational responsibility and communal identity. To the
extent such plans are instated, our research suggests that workers will experi-
ence job satisfaction, perceive high levels of organizational support, and ulti-
mately become committed to the organization.

LIMITS AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS

In this section, we discuss some of the limitations of our research and
specify reasons why our findings must be interpreted cautiously. We first
consider methodological issues and then move to issues of theory and appli-
cability. We conclude by examining how recent economic changes in Korea
may affect the organizational dynamics of our theory.
Because this research employs a cross-sectional survey, it is difficult to
make definitive causal claims based on the findings. The model presumes a



specific time ordering among the exogenous variables, job satisfaction, per-
ceived organizational support, and commitment. Yet all variables were mea-
sured at a single point in time. Only experimental or time-series data on com-
parable processes can fully determine the correct causal sequence. A related
issue stems from the limitations that are inherent to any perception-to-perception
methodology. Because we rely on perceptual data measured with a series of
questionnaire items, our results may be affected by response artifacts such as
common methods variance and/or demand characteristics. For example, the
theory distinguishes perceived organizational support from perceived job
satisfaction. And although the confirmatory factor analysis supports this dis-
tinction, artifacts may still exist when information is collected from a single
source. Future studies can resolve this issue by using research designs that
gather multiple sources of information over time.
With respect to the theory, our model explains 51% of variance in organi-
zational commitment and 50% of the variance in job satisfaction. These num-
bers suggest that some important theoretical variables may be missing from
the model. Although the demographic controls in our study help to absorb
extraneous variation due to potential misspecification (Harris & Mossholder,
1996; Meglino, Ravlin, & Adkins, 1989), such errors may still exist. Future
efforts should be directed at developing more theoretically precise models to
handle potential specification errors. Finally, we note that our model of com-
mitment is tested with a sample drawn from two relatively large firms. Thus,
special caution should be taken when the model is applied to smaller organi-
zations, because they may embody different organizational dynamics. For
instance, smaller firms or those with a unique market niche may engender an
even greater sense of organizational identity. As such, perceived organiza-
tional support may become even more potent as a predictor of commitment.
In closing, we note that many changes have transpired in Korea since our
1996 survey. Most large Korean companies under the International Monetary
Fund (IMF) regime experienced restructuring and downsizing as a result of
the 1998 exchange deficit. There is some evidence that these dynamics trig-
gered substantial changes in employee perceptions and emotions directed
toward the organization. For instance, Eisenberger and associates (1997)
claimed that such economic restrictions do more to dampen employee job
satisfaction than perceived organizational support. They assert that dissatis-
fied employees can attribute the problem externally and thereby retain the
image of a supportive organization. Beyond this, many Korean firms under
IMF have adopted Western standards in human resource practices and
accounting guidelines. These companies now pay employees based on merit;
factors such as age, seniority, and rank in the organization are simply less
important. This implies that the traditional hierarchical structure centered on



collectivism and seniority can no longer be assumed. Such changes beget a
shift in strategy for scholars interested in the contemporary work dynamics of
Korea. Researchers must be sensitive to the unique blending of cultural and
organizational forces that combine to produce basic social processes such as
commitment (Cornfield, 1997).

NOTES

1. Many researchers distinguish affective commitment from intent to stay. The two are often
referred to as attitudinal and behavioral commitment, respectively (Mueller & Price, 1990).
These constructs are also analogous to Allen and Meyer’s (1990) “affective and continuance
commitment,” O’Reilly and Chatman’s (1986) “identification and compliance,” and Kanter’s
(1968) “affective and instrumental commitment.” Scholars typically focus on one dimension or
the other. Rusbult and Farrell (1983) focused on the continuance commitment or intent to stay,
whereas organizational psychologists such as Mowday et al. (1982) and Lincoln and Kalleberg
(1990) tended to focus on affective commitment.
2. The causal ordering of job satisfaction and commitment has been debated in this literature
(Farkas & Tetrick, 1989; Mathieu & Zajac, 1990). In all, however, more studies support the posi-
tion that job satisfaction causes commitment than the converse (Lincoln & Kalleberg, 1990;
Mueller & Price, 1990). This is also consistent with our theoretical model.
3. We also performed a more inclusive confirmatory factor analysis that included all nine the-
oretical constructs. Once again, the nine-factor model also fits the data very well (Goodness-of-
Fit Index [GFI] = .93, adjusted GFI = .92, the Tucker-Lewis Index = .90, and Comparative Fit In-
dex = .91), and none of the cross-loadings surpassed .30. Furthermore, there was no serious
intercorrelation among the measurement errors. Taken in the context of the three-factor model,
this provides further evidence for the validity of our constructs.
4. In the model, the equation errors for job satisfaction and organizational support are speci-
fied to be intercorrelated with one another. We also tested for a reciprocal effect between per-
ceived organizational support and job satisfaction, but the result did not support this
nonrecursive model. The results are available from the author on request.

REFERENCES

Alexander, S., & Ruderman, M. (1987). The role of procedural and distributive justice in organi-
zational behavior. Social Justice Research, 1, 177-198.
Allen, N. J., & Meyer, J. P. (1990). The measurement and antecedents of affective responses to
task characteristics. Journal of Business Research, 3, 311-321.
Bae, K., & Chung, C. (1997). Cultural values and work attitudes of Korean industrial workers in
comparison with those of the United States and Japan. Work and Occupations, 24, 80-96.
Bentler, P. M., & Bonett, D. G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of
covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 588-606.
Berger, J., Fisek, M. H., Norman, R. Z., & Zelditch, M. (1977). Status characteristics and social
interaction. New York: Elsevier-North-Holland.
Bollen, K. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York: John Wiley.



Brayfield, A. H., & Rothe, H. F. (1951). An index of job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychol-
ogy, 35, 307-311.
Breaugh, J. A. (1985). The measure of work autonomy. Human Relations, 38, 551-570.
Brief, A. P., Butcher, A. H., & Roberson, L. (1995). Cookies, disposition, and job attitudes: The
effects of positive mood-inducing events and negative affectivity on job satisfaction in a field
experiment. Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, 62, 55-62.
Brockner, J., Tyler, T., & Cooper-Schneider, R. (1992). The influence of prior commitment to an
institution on reactions to perceived unfairness: The higher they are, the harder they fall. Ad-
ministrative Science Quarterly, 37, 241-261.
Brooke, P. P., & Price, J. L. (1989). The determinants of employee absenteeism: An empirical
test of a causal model. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 62, 1-19.
Buchanan, B. (1974). Building organizational commitment: The socialization of managers in
work organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 19, 533-546.
Cha, J. (1994). Aspects of individualism and collectivism in Korea. In U. Kim, H. C. Triandis,
C. Kagitcibasi, S. Choi, & G. Yoon (Eds.), Individualism and collectivism (pp. 157-174).
Thousand Oaks, CA : Sage.
Cook, J., & Wall, T. (1980). New work attitude measures of trust, organizational commitment
and personal need non-fulfillment. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 53, 39-52.
Cornfield, D. B. (1997). Applying U.S. research on labor union membership participation to
South Korean unions: An assessment. Korea Journal of Population and Development, 26,
121-137.
Cummings, T. G., Molloy, E. S., & Glen, R. (1977). A methodological critique of fifty-eight se-
lected work experiments. Human Relations, 8, 675-708.
Dollar, N. J., & Zimmers, B. G. (1998), Social identity and communicative boundaries. Commu-
nication Research, 25, 596-617.
Eisenberger, R., Cummings, J., Armeli, S., & Lynch, P. (1997). Perceived organizational sup-
port, discretionary treatment, and job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82,
812-820.
Eisenberger, R., Fasolo, P., & Davis-LaMastro, V. (1990). Perceived organizational support and
employee diligence, commitment, and innovation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75,
51-59.
Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchison, S., & Sowa, D. (1986). Perceived organizational
support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 500-507.
Farkas, A., & Tetrick, L. (1989). A three-wave longitudinal analysis of the causal ordering of sat-
isfaction and commitment in turnover decisions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74,
855-868.
Folger, R., & Konovsky, M. (1989). Effects of procedural and distributive justice on reactions to
pay raise decisions. Academy of Management Journal, 32, 115-130.
Gellatly, I. R. (1995). Individual and group determinants of employee absenteeism: Test of a
causal model. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 16, 469-485.
Hackman, J. R. (1986). The psychology of self-management in organizations. In M. Pallak &
R. Perloff (Ed.), Psychology and work: Productivity, change, and employment. Washington,
DC: American Psychological Association.
Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1975). Development of the job diagnostic survey. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 60, 159-170.
Harris, S. G., & Mossholder, K. W. (1996). The affective implications of perceived congruence
with culture dimensions during organizational transformation. Journal of Management, 22,
527-547.
Hechter, M. (1987). Principles of group solidarity. Berkeley: University of California Press.



Hegtvedt, K. A., & Markovsky, B. (1995). Justice and injustice. In K. S. Cook, G. A. Fine, & J. S.
House (Eds.), Sociological perspectives on social psychology (pp. 257-280). Boston: Allyn
& Bacon.
Hong, D. (1997). Dynamics of Asian workplaces: An introductory essay. Work and Occupa-
tions, 24, 5-11.
Iverson, R. D., & Roy, P. (1994). A causal model of behavioral commitment: Evidence from a
study of Australian blue-collar employees. Journal of Management, 20, 15-41.
James, L. R., Mulaik, S. A., & Brett, J. M. (1982). Causal analysis, assumptions, models, and
data. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Jaros, S. J. (1997). An assessment of Meyer and Allen’s (1991) three-component model of orga-
nizational commitment and turnover intentions. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 51, 319-337.
Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. (1993). LISREL 8: Structural equation modeling with the
SIMPLIS command language. Chicago: Scientific Software International, Inc.
Kahn, R. L., Wolfe, D. M., Quinn, R. P., & Rosenthal, R. A. (1964). Organizational stress:
Studies in role conflict and ambiguity. New York: John Wiley.
Kanter, R. M. (1968). Commitment and social organization: A study of commitment mecha-
nisms in utopian communities. American Sociological Review, 33, 499-517.
Kim, U. (1994). Individualism and collectivism: Conceptual clarification and elaboration. In
U. Kim, H. C. Triandis, C. Kagitcibasi, S. Choi, & G. Yoon (Eds.), Individualism and collec-
tivism (pp. 19-40). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Kim, U., Triandis, H. C., Kagitcibasi, C., Choi, S., & Yoon, G. (1994). Individualism and collec-
tivism. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Ko, J. W., Price, J. L., & Mueller, C. W. (1997). Assessment of Meyer and Allen’s three-component
model of organizational commitment in South Korea. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82,
961-973.
Kollock, P. (1994). The emergence of exchange structures: An experimental study of uncer-
tainty, commitment, and trust. American Journal of Sociology, 100, 315-345.
Lawler, E. J. (1992). Choice processes and affective attachments to nested groups: A theoretical
analysis. American Sociological Review, 57, 327-339.
Lawler, E. J., Thye, S., & Yoon, J. (2000). Emotion and group cohesion in productive exchange.
American Journal of Sociology, 106, 616-657.
Lawler, E. J., & Yoon, J. (1996). Commitment in exchange relations: Test of a theory of rela-
tional cohesion. American Sociological Review, 61, 89-108.
Lincoln, J., & Kalleberg, A. (1990). Culture, control and commitment: A study of work organiza-
tion and work attitudes in the United States and Japan. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univer-
sity Press.
Locke, E. A. (1976). The nature and causes of job satisfaction. In M. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook
of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 1293-1349). Chicago: Rand McNally.
Luthans, F., McCaul, H. S., & Dodd, H. S. (1985). Organizational commitment: A comparison of
American, Japanese, and Korean employees. Academy of Management Journal, 28, 213-219.
Marsh, H., Balla, J., & McDonald, R. (1988). Goodness-of-fit indexes in confirmatory factor
analysis: The effect of sample size. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 391-410.
Martin, T. N. (1979). A contextual model of employee turnover intentions. Academy of Manage-
ment Journal, 22, 313-324.
Mathieu, J., & Zajac, D. M. (1990). A review and meta-analysis of the antecedents, correlates,
and consequences of organizational commitment. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 171-194.
Meglino, B. M., Ravlin, E. C., & Adkins, C. L. (1989). A work values approach to corporate cul-
ture: A field test of the value congruence process and its relationship to individual outcomes.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 424-432.



Michaels, C. E., & Spector, P. E. (1982). Causes of employee turnover: A test of the Mobbley,
Griffeth, Hand, and Meglino model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 53-59.
Mottaz, C. J. (1985). The relative importance of intrinsic and extrinsic rewards as determinants
of work satisfaction. Sociological Quarterly, 26, 365-385.
Mottaz, C. J. (1987). An analysis of the relationship between work satisfaction and organiza-
tional commitment. Sociological Quarterly, 28, 541-558.
Mowday, R. T., Porter, L. W., & Steers, R. M. (1982). Employee-organizational linkages. New
York: Academy Press.
Mueller, C. W., & Price, J. L. (1990). Economic, psychological and sociological determinants of
voluntary turnover. Journal of Behavioral Economics, 9, 321-335.
O’Reilly, C. A., & Chatman, J. (1986). Organizational commitment and psychological attach-
ment: The effects of compliance, identification, and internalization on prosocial behavior.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 492-499.
O’Reilly, C. A., & Roberts, K. H. (1976). Relationships among components of credibility and
communication behaviors in work units. Journal of Applied Psychology, 61, 99-102.
Perrow, C. (1986). Complex organizations: A critical essay. New York: Random House.
Price, J. L., & Mueller, C. W. (1986). Absenteeism and turnover of hospital employees. Green-
wich, CT: JAI.
Rusbult, C. E., & Farrell, D. (1983). A longitudinal test of the investment model: The impact on
job satisfaction, job commitment, and turnover of variations in rewards, costs, alternatives,
and investments. Social Psychology Quarterly, 68, 429-438.
Sagie, A. (1998). Employee absenteeism, organizational commitment, and job satisfaction: An-
other look. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 52, 156-171.
Schappe, S. P. (1998). The influence of job satisfaction, organizational commitment and fairness
perceptions on organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Psychology, 132, 277-290.
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.
Shore, L. M., & Tetrick, L. E. (1991). A construct validity study of the survey of perceived orga-
nizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 637-643.
Smith, P. A. (1992). In pursuit of happiness: Why study general job satisfaction? In C. J. Cranny,
P. C. Smith, & E. F. Stone (Eds.), Job satisfaction: How people feel about their jobs and how
it affects their performance (pp. 6-19). New York: Lexington Books.
Smith, P. C., Kendall, L. M., & Hulin, C. L. (1985). The revised Job Descriptive Index. Bowling
Green, OH: Bowling Green State University Press.
Sommer, S. M., Bae, S., & Luthans, F. (1996). Organizational commitment across cultures: The
impact of antecedents on Korean employees. Human Relations, 49, 977-993.
Spector, P. E. (1986). Perceived control by employees: A meta-analysis of studies concerning
autonomy and participation at work, Human Relations, 39, 1005-1016.
Staw, B. M., Sutton, R. I., & Pelled, L. H. (1994). Employee positive emotion and favorable out-
comes at the workplace. Organizational Science, 5, 51-71.
Steers, R. M. (1977). Antecedents and outcomes of organizational commitment. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 22, 46-56.
Suzuki, S. (1998). Ingroup and outgroup communication patterns in international organizations:
Implications for social identity theory. Communication Research, 25, 154-182.
Thye, S. R. (2000). Reliability in experimental sociology. Social Forces, 74, 1277-1309.
Tucker, L. R., & Lewis, C. (1973). The reliability coefficient for maximum likelihood factor
analysis. Psychometrika, 38, 1-10.



Tyler, T. R. (1990). Why people obey the law: Procedural justice, legitimacy, and compliance.
New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Tyler, T. R. (1994). Psychological models of the justice motive: Antecedents of distributive and
procedural justice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 850-863.
Watson, D., Pennebaker, J. W., & Folger, R. (1986). Beyond negative affectivity: Measuring
stress and satisfaction in the workplace. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management,
8, 141-157.
Wayne, S. J., Shore, L. M., & Liden, R. C. (1997). Perceived organizational support and
leader-member exchange: A social exchange perspective. Academy of Management Journal,
40, 82-111.
Weick, K. E. (1987). Theorizing about organizational communication. In F. M. Jablin, L. L.
Putnam, K. H. Roberts, & L. W. Porter (Eds.), Handbook of organizational communication
(pp. 97-122). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Wheaton, B. (1987). Assessment of fit in overidentified models with latent variables. Sociologi-
cal Methods and Research, 16, 118-154.
Widaman, K. F. (1985). Hierarchically nested covariance structure models for
multitrait-multimethod data. Applied Psychological Measurement, 9, 1-12.
Williams, L., & Anderson, S. E. (1991). Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as pre-
dictors of organizational citizenship and in-role behaviors. Journal of Management, 17,
601-617.
Yammarino, F. J., & Jung, D. I. (1998). Asian Americans and leadership: A level of analysis per-
spective. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 34, 47-67.
Yates, J. & Orlikowski, W. J. (1992). Genres of organizational communication: A structural ap-
proach to studying communication and media. Academy of Management Review, 17,
299-326.
Yoon, J. (1996). Fairness issues and job satisfaction among Korean employees: The significance
of status value and procedural justice in work orientation. Social Justice Research, 9,
121-143.
Yoon, J., Han, N., & Seo, Y. (1996). Sense of control among hospital employees: An assessment
of choice processes, empowerment, and buffering hypotheses. Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, 26, 687-716.


Organizational Behavior

Empfohlen

Empfohlen

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Was ist angesagt?

Was ist angesagt? (19)

Andere mochten auch

Andere mochten auch (6)

Ähnlich wie Organizational Behavior

Ähnlich wie Organizational Behavior (20)

Mehr von guest5e0c7e

Mehr von guest5e0c7e (20)

Kürzlich hochgeladen

Kürzlich hochgeladen (20)

Organizational Behavior