University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Comparative study of organizational commitment in the public and private sectors: The case of transportation agencies in Thailand

(USC Thesis Other)

Comparative study of organizational commitment in the public and private sectors: The case of transportation agencies in Thailand

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content NOTE TO USERS This reproduction is the best copy available. ® UMI Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. COMPARATIVE STUDY OF ORGANIZATIONAL COMMITMENT IN THE PUBLIC AND PRIVATE SECTORS: THE CASE OF TRANSPORTATION AGENCIES IN THAILAND by Supamas Trivisvavet A Dissertation Presented to the FACULTY OF THE SCHOOL OF POLICY, PLANNING, AND DEVELOPMENT UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY (PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION) December 2004 Copyright 2004 Supamas Trivisvavet Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. UMI Number: 3155490 Copyright 2004 by Trivisvavet, Supamas All rights reserved. INFORMATION TO USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleed-through, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. ® UMI UMI Microform 3155490 Copyright 2005 by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code. ProQuest Information and Learning Company 300 North Zeeb Road P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The pursuit of my doctoral study, especially the process of writing this dissertation, has been one of the most challenging yet the most fulfilling at the same time. This dissertation could not have been finished without continuous help and support from many people. First, I would like to thank Dr. Peter Robertson, the chair of my Guidance Committee, Dissertation Committee, my academic advisor and my mentor in the past four years at the School of Policy, Planning and Development, University of Southern California. Peter, thank you for all your advice and support. You have not only provided me with academic advice, but also inspiration to challenge the dominant worldview, to have passion in research, teaching, and most importantly, in the pursuit of knowledge inside and outside of the classroom. I also would like to thank my Dissertation Committee members - Dr. Shui Yan Tang from the School of Policy, Planning and Development and Dr. Christine Porath from Marshall Business School - for their guidance and advice throughout the process of my dissertation work. I also have to thank my former Duke University advisor, Dr. William Ascher, who is the first person to convince me to pursue a graduate study in public policy and has been giving me continuous support and advice even after my days at Duke. I would not have been here today without your introducing me to the field of public policy. Moreover, I would like to thank all the organizations and people that participated in this research study. Your time and input enabled me to gather valuable information Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. and made this study possible. A big thank also to Bin, Yuhua, Feng, and Haitao for your help with statistical models and SAS and June Muranaka for administrative advice. Aside from the academic help, my doctoral study could not have been accomplished without the unconditional support from my family - my father and mother - who have instilled in me the value of education and the importance of having aspiration and perseverance, and have always encouraged me and supported me in realizing my dreams. You said, “go for it and give it your best. But if it does not work out, it is ok; we love you regardless.” Thank both of you for such unconditional love and support. Last but not least, I would like to thank Alvin. Thank you for believing. Thank you for being there for me, in good times and in bad times. As our favorite quote from the Aerosmith goes, “life is journey, not a destination,” we have traveled together this far, and it has been an amazing journey, thanks to you. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgements ii List of Tables v Abstract viii Chapter 1: Introduction 1 Chapter 2: Literature Review 13 Chapter 3: Theoretical Framework and Hypothesis Development 57 Chapter 4: Methods 79 Chapter 5: Results 111 Chapter 6: Discussion and Conclusion 160 Bibliography 187 Appendices Appendix I: Questionnaire (English) 198 Appendix II: Questionnaire (Thai) 208 Appendix III: List of Original Antecedents 219 Appendix IV: List of Variables and Detailed Descriptions 220 Appendix V: Statistical Results for Factor Analysis: Communality Estimates 222 Appendix VI: Pearson Correlation Coefficients 223 Appendix VII: Regression Results with Interaction Terms 226 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. V LIST OF TABLES Table 2.1 Summary of Key Empirical Findings of Commitment Consequences 23 Table 2.2 Summary of Key Empirical Findings for AAC Antecedents 29 Table 2.3 Summary of Key Empirical Findings for CCC Antecedents 34 Table 2.4 Summary of Key Empirical Findings for NC Antecedents 38 Table 2.5 Summary of Themes in Commitment Antecedent Research 40 Table 3.1 Theoretical Framework and Level of Analysis 58 Table 3.2 Theoretical Framework and Potential Antecedents 75 Table 4.1 Six Organizations Comprising the Sample 81 Table 4.2 Linking Theoretical Framework to Measurement Framework 88 Table 4.3 Meyer and Allen’s Commitment Three-Component Measurement 89 Table 4.4 Response Rates 93 Table 4.5 Factor Loading Patterns 97 Table 4.6 Results of the Tolerance Test 102 Table 4.7 Final List of Operationalized Variables 102 Table 4.8 Statistical Methods for Analysis Part I 107 Table 4.9 List of Variables for Statistical Analyses 107 Table 5.1 Key Demographic and Occupational Variables (Age and Time) 112 Table 5.2 Key Demographic and Occupational Variables (Gender, Education And Managerial Position) 112 Table 5.3 ANOVA - Overall Commitment Scores, Sector Comparison 115 Table 5.4 Mean Overall Commitment Scores 116 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. vi Table 5.5 ANCOVA - Overall Commitment Scores 117 Table 5.6 ANOVA - Three Commitment Scores, Sector Comparison 118 Table 5.7 Mean AAC 119 Table 5.8 ANCOVA - AAC 120 Table 5.9 Mean CCC 120 Table 5.10 ANCOVA-CCC 121 Table 5.11 Mean NC 122 Table 5.12 ANCOVA - NC 122 Table 5.13 Summary of Hypothesis Testing Results 123 'I'able 5.14 Theoretical Framework and Potential Antecedents 125 Table 5.15 Overall Commitment Score for Entire Sample 126 Table 5.16 Overall Commitment Score, Sector Comparison 128 Table 5.17 Attitudinal-Affective Commitment Score for Entire Sample 130 Table 5.18 Attitudinal-Affective Commitment Score, Sector Comparison 132 Table 5.19 Calculative-Continuance Commitment Score for Entire Sample 134 Table 5.20 Calculative-Continuance Commitment Score, Sector Comparison 136 Table 5.21 Normative Commitment Score for Entire Sample 138 Table 5.22 Normative Commitment Score, Sector Comparison 140 Table 5.23 Commitment Feeling for Entire Sample 142 Table 5.24 Commitment Feeling, Sector Comparison 144 Table 5.25 Summary of Hypothesis Testing Results 145 Table 6.1 Commitment Types and Commitment Feeling 173 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Table 6.2 Summary of Hypothesis Testing Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. ABSTRACT This study explores organizational commitment in public and private organizations in the transportation industry in Thailand. Adopting rational-choice and humanistic theories to explain the developmental process of commitment and the two- dimensional framework (Morrow, 1993) - attitudinal-affective commitment and calculative-continuance commitment - this study explores the levels of commitment, dimensions of commitment, and corresponding commitment antecedents in the public and private sectors. Meyer and Allen’s (1997) three-component commitment scales - AAC, CCC and NC - are adopted as the measurement instmment. The NC dimension is included in this study for exploratory purposes. One hundred and fifty questionnaires were distributed to each of six organizations. The resulting sample size for the study is 614. Descriptive statistics and regression analyses were used. The study finds that there are no statistically significant sectoral differences for the levels and types of commitment. Sector differences emerge in the patterns of commitment antecedents. Public sector’s overall commitment is driven by both humanistic and rational-choice antecedents while that of the private sector is driven exclusively by rational-choice antecedents. Distinct patterns of antecedents also emerge across the dimensions of commitment. AAC is more related to humanistic antecedents while CCC is more related to rational-choice commitment. NC is found to be related to many antecedents. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. This study also takes an exploratory step to examine the relationships among the three types of commitment and a variable called commitment feeling. AAC and NC are found to have positive relationships with commitment feeling, with NC having a much stronger relationship, while CCC has a negative relationship. The findings create some puzzles: Is there really no difference between public and private sector commitment levels, types, and patterns? Is NC the most desirable type of commitment? Do these findings suggest cultural effects? Practical management strategies to encourage commitment are suggested at the end of the study. Some limitations are noted and ideas for future research are also proposed. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1 CHAPTER 1 Introduction Organizational commitment is an important area of research for various disciplines, namely management, organizational behavior, industrial psychology and public administration. Scholars from different disciplines have explored different aspects of this important yet highly complicated concept and looked at organizational commitment in various organizational settings. In this study, commitment among employees in public and private sector organizations in Thailand’s transportation industry is the primary focus. The purpose of this chapter is to discuss the rationale and contribution of this research. The key questions that motivate this study include the following: ♦ Are there any differences between the public and private sectors in terms of the levels and types of organizational commitment among employees? ♦ Are there any differences in terms of which antecedents are related toe the different types of commitment? ♦ Are there differences between the two sectors in terms of the pattern of relationships between antecedents and commitment types? ♦ How are the three types of commitment related to one another? Which of the three contributes to the overall commitment feeling and how? ♦ Are there any cultural effects on levels and types of organizational commitment among employees in public and private sector organizations Thailand? Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 2 A. Rationale for the Study on Commitment In the past several decades, organizational commitment has been one of the most popular research topics among scholars and practitioners in the fields of industrial psychology, organizational behavior, management, and public administration (Morrow, 1993; Benkhoff, 1997; Cohen, 2003). Many studies have been done in an attempt to conceptualize its meaning and development (Reichers, 1985; Meyer and Allen, 1990, 1993; Morrow, 1993), to develop appropriate measures (Mowday, Porter and Steers, 1979, 1982; Meyer and Allen, 1990, 1993), to identify the multiple dimensions of commitment as well as their antecedents (Porter et al, 1974; O’Reilly and Chatman, 1986; Meyer and Allen, 1990;Becker, 1992), and to establish empirical evidence linking organizational commitment to individual performance and overall organizational performance. Even with decades of continuous research, organizational commitment has remained a complex and inconclusive research topic. This is due to the fact that organizational commitment is a complex and multi-dimensional construct. There has been little consensus on what the term commitment means and scholars and researchers from various disciplines designate their own meanings to this construct and measure it in different ways (Mowday et al, 1982; Meyer and Allen, 1997). Meyer and Allen contend that it is no surprise that opinions differ greatly concerning what commitment is, how to measure it, what antecedents lead to it, and whether commitment is stable or in decline in the modem organizational world. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 3 Despite these on-going challenges, scholars can agree on one important thing: commitment is very essential for any organization and thus commitment remains an important and indispensable research topic. Thus, this study aims to empirically explore organizational commitment in public and private organizations in the transportation industry in Thailand. This is because the contribution to both academic knowledge and organizational practice is valuable. The specific rationale and contribution of this study are discussed below. 1. Commitment is Key to Organizations’ Performance In the twenty first century, we have observed several major changes in the world of work - in organizations and in the way of organizing. The rapid changes affecting the market and organizational arrangements, the shift of emphasis from “jobs” to “roles” and from the conventional organizational structure to the new network, the rise of team-based or project-based units and the development of information technology, all lead to fundamental changes in today’s organizations. These new workplace conditions can translate into decreased personal contacts and long-term relationships, a shift from a lifetime career to short-term and highly mobile work assignments. Given these new conditions, scholars and managers have raised interesting questions: Have these changes affected the ties that bind employees to their organizations (Lincoln and Kalleberg, 1990)? Have these changes resulted in an erosion of loyalty (Morrow and McElrol, 1993)? Does organizational commitment still matter in modern organizations? Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 4 The answer is obvious: commitment is indispensable, especially in today’s world of work where new organizational arrangements might pose threats to the relationships between employees and organizations. Strong organizational commitment can assure that, despite such changes, employees will still contribute and perform the best they can. The long-accepted belief that commitment is linked to various positive consequences is still strongly held by most scholars and managers. The positive consequences of strong commitment include higher retention rates, pro-organizational behaviors, namely in-role and extra-role behaviors, as well as employee well-being (Meyer and Allen, 1997), all of which lead to improved organizational effectiveness and performance. Organizational development consultants have reported that intervention strategies designed to increase commitment could often result in 30 to 50% improvement in measurable performance and sometimes even more (Davis, 2000). Davis argued that commitment is an untapped energy reserve waiting to be unleashed. In contrast, ignoring commitment is very costly to the organizations (Davis, 2000; Green et al, 2000). Many scholars have pointed out that a lack of commitment will result in negative consequences such as dissatisfaction, absenteeism, turnover, lower level of work performance, and declining morale (Porter et al, 1974; Mowday et al, 1982; Morrow, 1993). Yankelovich (1983), for example, argued that one of the major factors contributing to slow productivity in the U.S. is employee’s attitudes. He argued that gaining employees’ commitment and making work more satisfying are key solutions (Ostroff, 1992). A number of scholars have also argued that the problem of declining Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 5 commitment is serious in both the private and public sectors and needs to be properly addressed (Liou and Nyhan, 1994; Jae Moon, 2000). Recognizing that commitment is key to any organization, a continuous attempt to understand the commitment concept and how it is developed is warranted. 2. Current Knowledge is Biased Toward Private Sector Organizational commitment is important for all organizations - in both the public and private sectors. However, since most of the studies on commitment focus on private organizations and scant research has been done in the public sector (Balfour and Wechsler, 1994), the insights regarding commitment might be biased toward the private sector. In a time when the body of knowledge is primarily based on private sector insights and the distinction between sectors seems to be increasingly blurred (Bozeman, 1987), many public organizations might readily adopt private sector management strategies, especially in light of the trend toward New Public Management practices. One question facing scholars now is whether or not commitment differs between the two sectors. The general view has been that public employees tend to be less committed to their organizations than their private sector counterparts (Buchanan, 1974; Angle and Perry, 1983; Bozeman, 1987). This view is supported by another general stipulation that economic or extrinsic rewards/benefits are the primary driver of commitment. The private sector is known to provide more economic or extrinsic rewards/benefits, private sector employees are therefore perceived as being more committed. However, is this Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 6 conclusion valid? Could it be that employees in the two sectors have different types of commitment? Private sector employees might have higher economic-driven commitment, while those in the public sector might have higher non-economic commitment. Some empirical studies have already pointed out that affective-attitudinal commitment is stronger in the public sector than calculative-continuance commitment (Liou and Nyhan, 1994; Jae Moon, 2000). This finding suggests that there might be sector-specific implications to be learned about commitment. More research that explores sector comparisons would be a valuable contribution to the understanding of organizational commitment. One of the difficulties in carrying out a sector comparative study is that the two sectors could be inherently different. Organizations might face different conditions (environment, market, etc.) and produce different goods and services. Organizations might have different goals, structures, human resource strategies and incentive schemes, etc. Given these differences, comparing public and private organizations could pose a serious problem of comparing apples to oranges. One might argue that comparing any two organizations, regardless of sector, could face the same problem of comparability. Sector comparison simply makes such an endeavor more challenging. An attempt to mitigate this potential problem is to identify an industry in which public and private organizations are in adequately comparable conditions and providing comparable goods and services. As will be discussed below, this strategy was adopted for this research. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 7 3. Need for More Studies on Non-Western Cultures In this modem era, the knowledge can easily be shared all over the world. Management practices developed from theories based on Western and North American cultures have been adopted worldwide. International management consultants are giving their recommendations to all kinds of organizations - public and private - all over the world. But is this knowledge really universal and applicable everywhere, in various parts of the world? Can the same theories and practical insights be applied to different cultures? Not only is the knowledge of organizational commitment biased toward the private sector, but the theories and empirical studies also have primarily focused on Western countries or countries in North America. Scholars have observed that studies on organizational commitment in non-Westem countries or studies of commitment from a cross-cultural perspective have only begun to appear in academic journals in the last decade (Randall, 1993). It is only recently that “commitment researchers are entering into an ‘international phase’ in which they are attempting to extend and apply theories abroad” (Randall, 1993, p. 92). A number of scholars have recognized the gap of knowledge and have called for more studies in non-Westem countries. After reviewing the existing literature on commitment, Meyer and Allen (1997, p. 112) observed that “relatively few studies were conducted elsewhere in the world” and called for more research on commitment in different cultures. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 8 It can be argued that since the late 80s and 90s, cultural issues have been increasingly explored in the field of organization and management. Randall observed that “when researchers seek to explore organizational commitment outside of the U.S., it appears that they turn to one of their nearest neighbors - Canada” - and “after Canada, Japan is the most frequently explored country in organizational commitment research” (Randall, 1993, p. 1-5). There has been an increase in the application of a Japanese style of management, especially concerning their approaches to achieving organizational commitment and loyalty. More studies have been done on Japanese organizations both in Japan and in the West (e.g., exploring Japanese culture in Japanese-owned companies in the West). Some Japanese models of organizational commitment strategies and management have been widely studied (Lincoln and Kalleberg, 1990; Mintzberg, 1989). This expansion of cultural understanding of commitment, however, has not gone far beyond the case of Japan. Randall (1993) made an interesting point that, while studies in Japan can yield interesting cultural insights, the potential cultural implications might be offset or obscured by the fact that Japan is an industrialized country and industrialization has proved to have major impact on cultural values. Other scholars seem to agree with this point. In his recommendations for future research, Cohen (2003, p. 298) wrote: Most of what we know about commitment is based on American theories and findings. These theories clearly need to be tested in other cultures for us to learn whether they are generalizable. Very little research has examined commitment in settings other than North American. Most of what we know is based on comparisons of Japanese and American organizational commitment.... Far more research is required to examine other cultures. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 9 B. Contribution of the Study 1. Overview of the Research Settings for this Study Thailand’s transportation industry was chosen because it offers an ideal sample population for this study. This industry comprises of three major transportation sub sectors including land (expressway, railway and most recently subway), water and air. It is characterized as a mixed economy with extensive private sector involvement and cross sector interactions through concession and licensing agreements. This unique condition means that while the public sector maintains its dominating role as the policy maker and regulator, organizations in Thailand’s transportation industry oftentimes provide similar services, closely interact in operations, and have tremendous effects on transportation project development, policy formulation as well as regulations (Thanitcul, Thailand Law Forum, 2004). Some organizations even provide very similar products and services to the same clientele and face the same market conditions and environment; for instance organizations in the expressway sub-sector. While some organizations - public and private - in transportation industry are rather comparable, several sector-specific characteristics that hold true across all industries should be noted. First, compensation in the private sector is known to be much more competitive than that of the public sector. Second, while the public sector is not known to be well compensated, it is considered honorable career. Given the legacy of feudalism where public officials were considered the ruling class, public service has long been considered an honor in the Thai culture. This mindset is changing with the rise of market economy and middle class, but the collective memory is still well ingrained. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 10 Public sector job also provides job security, stability and additional benefits (e.g., health insurance, tenure, pension) that are not always common in the private sector.1 Consequently, public sector employees usually stay with their organizations for a long time if not for life. On the contrary, private sector employees tend to have higher job mobility, changing career according to market conditions and job opportunities. Furthermore, to enter into the public sector career, specifically to be public officials in the line ministries, employees have to take the nationally standardized examination and to also take additional examinations in order to move up their career ladder. This process might result in high educational attainment in the public sector. Although, it should be noted that the required examinations for public sector job does not mean that all private sector employees have lower educational attainment. The high compensation in the private sector could also attract highly educated individuals and offset the education screening in the public sector. The unique comparability of transportation industry allows a high degree of control for industry characteristics and thus to better investigate potential sectoral effects or inherent characteristics. For these reasons, the Thai transportation industry provides a unique sample for adequate sector comparison. 2. Contributions Recognizing the need for commitment research that addresses sector comparisons and implications for non-Westem organizations, the study on organizational commitment 1 Private companies, unless they are “public companies limited” or listed in the Stock Exchange o f Thailand, do not have to provide health insurance and/or pension for their employees. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 11 in the public and private sectors in Thailand’s transportation industry contributes greatly to academic knowledge and management practice. Contributing to the on-going inquiry on organizational commitment by testing existing theories with empirical evidence, this study also provides valuable insights about organizational commitment in the two sectors - public and private. The sector comparison offers a tremendous contribution to the field in which most knowledge development process has been paying more attention to the private side. Moreover, since the focus of the sample is the transportation industry, policy and management implications for transportation organizations can also be observed. As this study focuses on organizations in Thailand, it not only offers insights to the scholars, policy makers and practitioners, but also to non-Thais who are interested in the Asian organizational and management implications (especially from a country that is not as highly industrialized as the countries which most non-Westem studies have focused on). Although this study is not cross-cultural in nature, its insights add to the new but on-going process of non-Westem theory building and empirical testing of issues pertaining to organizational commitment. The results of this study can be compared to existing studies and the methodologies can be used as template for future cross-cultural research. Better understanding of organizational commitment is more crucial today than ever. In a time when change is constant and presents a big threat to traditional organization-employee relationships, it is important to learn what makes people feel committed and loyal to their organization. Do we really have a comprehensive idea of Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 12 commitment, with its various dimensions and antecedents? Has our knowledge about commitment caught up with the increasing changes in the world of work? Furthermore, understanding commitment in the context of different sectors and cultures ensures that our knowledge is relevant and appropriate. This understanding of organizational commitment will not only enable organizations to implement appropriate human resources strategies that encourage and inculcate the right kind of commitment among their employees, but more importantly will enable organizations to understand what their employees think and feel. Equipped with new valuable insights, organizations will know how to better treat their employees in the hope that commitment will ensue and ultimately increase organizational effectiveness and organizational performance. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 13 CHAPTER 2 Literature Review In this chapter, the concept of organizational commitment is discussed in order to provide the context for general understanding, the current stage of academic inquiry, as well as emergent issues in the organizational commitment research area. This involves a literature review of the conceptualization and measurement as well as empirical evidence of organizational commitment. In-depth discussion of the theoretical framework for this study is presented in Chapter 3. A. What is Organizational Commitment? What does organizational commitment mean? Despite little consensus on the exact definition and classification schemes, there is definitely a consensus that organizational commitment is a multi-dimensional construct (Meyer and Allen, 1997, p. 16). Several approaches aiming to address these multiple dimensions have thus been developed and proposed. One of the most commonly recognized definitions follows that of Porter et al’s (1974) major contribution (Mayer and Schoorman, 1992). According to Porter et al, organizational commitment is the strength of an individual’s identification with and involvement in a particular organization, which can be categorized as: i) strong belief in and acceptance of organization’s goals and values; ii) willingness to exert efforts on behalf of the organization; and iii) a definite desire to maintain organizational membership (Porter et al, 1974, p. 604). A number of scholars argue that Porter et al’s definition scheme is uni-dimensional, capturing only the attitudinal-affective type of Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 14 commitment. O’Reilly and Chatman (1986) propose that organizational commitment represents the “psychological bond” that ties the employee to the organization. However, this “psychological bond” can be based on different psychological foundations namely: i) compliance; ii) identification; and iii) internalization. Employees’ commitment can reflect varying degrees and/or combinations of these foundations. According to O’Reilly and Chatman, compliance commitment occurs not because of the shared beliefs and values but when an individual expects to gain specific rewards from the organization. Identification commitment occurs when employees establish a satisfying relationship with the organization, feel like a part of that organization and respect its values and accomplishments without adopting them as their own. Internalization commitment occurs when employees’ and organization’s values are congruent (O’Reilly and Chatman, 1986, p. 493). While O’Reilly and Chatman’s definition scheme addresses the multi-dimensions of organizational commitment, researchers argue that identification and internalization commitments are hardly distinguishable. Moreover, empirical tests of the measures of these two commitment definitions reveal high correlations. An alternative definition and classification scheme can be found in Meyer and Allen’s (1991; 1997) “three-component model of commitment.” For them, organizational commitment is a “psychological state that characterizes the employee’s relationship with the organization and has implications for the decision to continue membership in the organization” (Meyer and Allen, 1991, p. 67). Like O’Reilly and Chatman, Meyer and Allen’s model is based on the assumption that the “psychological Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 15 state” can differ in nature. The three different types are labeled as: i) continuance; ii) affective; and iii) normative commitment. Continuance commitment occurs when employees feel that they “need” to remain with the organization because the benefits of staying exceed the benefits of leaving. Affective commitment occurs when employees feel that they “want” to stay with the organization because of the emotional attachment, identification and involvement in the organization as well as shared values/goals. Normative commitment occurs when employees feel that they “ought” to remain with the organization because it is their moral obligation or socially desirable behavior or social expectation (Meyer and Allen, 1997, p. 11-12). Varying definitions and classification schemes exist ranging from the highly rational exchange-based arguments to the socio-centric argument. For example, some scholars view commitment as calculative or instrumental - employees are committed to the organization because the benefits of staying exceeds the costs (Etzioni, 1961; Hrebiniak and Alutto, 1972; Mathieu and Zajac, 1990). Some scholars use the sunk-cost argument, also known as the “side-bets theory” (Becker, 1960) to explain organizational commitment as a rational-exchange relationship. According to the side-bets argument, employees feel committed to the organization because it would be too costly to leave. At the other spectrum of the argument, Etzioni, the prominent communitarian scholar, proposes “moral involvement” as the highest form of commitment, as opposed to the calculative-instrumental form of commitment.2 To Etzioni, employees are most 2 Etzioni defined commitment as a kind o f involvement. “We refer to positive involvement as commitment and to negative involvement as alienation. The advantage o f the term involvement is that it enables us to refer to the continuum in a neutral way” (Etzioni, 1961, p. 9). Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 16 committed to the organization when they feel a moral obligation to the organization (Etzioni, 1961). Morrow (1993) reviews the key definitions and measures of commitment including continuance, calculative, attitudinal, affective and normative commitment. She argues that there are some overlapping areas, redundant conceptualizing, and empirical correlations among these commitment definitions and measures. Normative commitment, in particular, seems to conceptually overlap with the attitudinal-affective form of commitment. Empirical findings also reveal weak discriminant validity, suggesting the redundancy of these concepts. Morrow contends that: The future of normative commitment is uncertain at best. Although the three approaches to organizational commitment, of which normative commitment is one component, formulated by Meyer and Allen form an intriguing framework, the components are not distinct.... At this juncture, normative commitment cannot be recommended for hypothesis testing research but studies furthering delineating the nature of this concept are desirable (Morrow, 1993, p. 106). She then concludes that: The evidence summarized in this chapter supports the view that at least two forms of organizational commitment exist: i) calculative-continuance and ii) attitudinal- affective. It would seem that people may form a bond with an employing organization based on their feelings toward it and/or a perception that costs associated with leaving would be very high. These two orientations are probably independent of one another, although they may share some antecedents (Morrow, 1993, p. 106). B. Conceptualization and Measurement of Commitment Organizational commitment is a complex and multi-dimensional construct. By nature, this construct reflects people’s perception and interpretation of their feelings, behaviors and relationships with the organization, which could take different forms or a Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 17 combination of different forms. This means that there is no easy instrument to quantify or model to calculate and weigh the different aspects of organizational commitment. Thus to measure it, researchers have relied on constructed scales to gauge its multiple dimensions. Following the major definitions and classification schemes discussed above, several measures of organizational commitment have been developed. Various constructed scales have been proposed by a number of scholars such as Ritzer and Trice (1969), Hrebiniak and Alutto (1972), Alutto et al (1973), Porter et al (1974), Meyer and Allen (1991, 1993) to measure the multiple behavioral and attitudinal aspects of commitment. As one of the most well recognized and commonly used instruments, the Organizational Commitment Questionnaire (OCQ) was developed by Porter, Steers, Mowday and Boulian in 1974 (Angle and Lawson, 1994). The fifteen-item questionnaire was designed to measure the degree to which subjects feel committed to their organization. The items represent questions pertaining to subjects’ perception of their commitment, their willingness to exert effort to achieve organizational goals, their acceptance of organizational values and so forth. The subjects respond to the 7-point Likert-type items, ranging from strongly agree to strongly disagree (Porter et al, 1974, p. 605). The OCQ has been criticized as being uni-dimensional and failing to acknowledge the various forms of commitment (Becker, 1992). Many scholars have attempted to develop and refine multi-dimensional measures. The measures based on O’Reilly and Chatman’s definitional framework of compliance, identification, and internalization have received mixed reviews due to the fact that the Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 18 identification and internalization forms of commitment have been found to be highly correlated and undistinguishable empirically. Angle and Perry (1981) performed factor- analysis on Porter et al’s OCQ and found two significant measurement factors, which they called “value commitment” and “commitment to stay.” Schechter (1985) adopted this two-dimensional framework and designed a measure to include more items on the questionnaire that would clearly reflect the two distinct types of commitment. This measurement framework was adopted and empirically tested by Mayer and Schoorman (1992) with positive validation. Among various commitment measures that have recently resurfaced, Meyer and Allen’s organizational commitment measurement scales comprise one of the most frequently adopted measurement instruments (Angle and Lawson, 1994). Meyer and Allen developed measurement scales to capture the three forms - continuance, affective and normative - of organizational commitment, as discussed earlier. Recall the three commitment types: Affective commitment refers to the employee’s emotional attachment to, identification with, and involvement in the organization. Employees with a strong affective commitment continue employment with the organization because they want to do so. Continuance commitment refers to an awareness of the costs associated with leaving the organizations. Employees whose primary link to the organization is based on continuance commitment remain because they need to do so. Finally, normative commitment reflects a feeling of obligation to continue employment. Employees with a high level of normative commitment feel that they ought to remain with the organization (Meyer and Allen, 1991, p. 67). Originally, eight items were included for each type of commitment. In their revised version, six items are used to calculate each of the three types of commitment. The items represent questions pertaining to subjects’ perception of their commitment, Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 19 which would then be calculated and interpreted as being continuance, affective or normative in nature. For example, a sample item for continuance commitment is it would be very hard for me to leave my organization right now, even if I wanted to. A sample item for affective commitment is I would be very happy to spend the rest of my career in this organization. A sample item for normative commitment is I think that people these days move from company to company too often). The subjects respond to the 7-point Likert-type scales ranging from strongly agree to strongly disagree (Meyer and Allen, 1997). Meyer and Allen found empirical support for the validation and reliability of their measures. However, they also acknowledge that the construct validation of these concepts and measures is an on-going process. For example, just as normative commitment has been found to conceptually overlap affective commitment, the measure for normative commitment has also been found to be correlated with the measure for affective commitment. Meyer and Allen’s organizational commitment scales have been empirically tested by a number of scholars. Angle and Lawson (1994) used two of Meyer and Allen’s organizational commitment scales - affective and continuance - to measure commitment among employees of the Fortune 500 companies in the U.S. They found that the two commitment dimensions are statistically distinct. Willis (2003) adopted Meyer and Allen’s commitment measurement scales for a study of commitment structure and antecedents in the Singapore army. Willis concluded that the validity of Meyer and Allen’s commitment scores was statistically and empirically supported. Moreover, Wasti Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 2 0 (2003) also used Meyer and Allen’s measurement scales on a Turkish sample and confirmed that these three-component scales have cross-cultural validation. Not only have many studies confirmed the statistical validity of Meyer and Allen’s commitment scales, these scales have also yielded significant empirical results for different sectors. Liou and Nyhan adopted Allen and Meyer’s commitment scores for their empirical study on the public sector - a county government agency - in a Southeastern state of the United States. Based on their empirical results, they concluded that affective-attitudinal commitment is more dominant than calculative-continuance commitment in the public sector. Other researchers have also empirically confirmed the same result for the public sector (Jae Moon, 2000). Note, however, that normative commitment was not addressed in these studies. The above discussion of the organizational commitment concept demonstrates that this area of research is an on-going challenge. Nevertheless, there seems to be a consensus and agreement among scholars that “the identity crisis which characterizes organizational commitment may be nearing an end” (Morrow, 1993, p. 106). The process of theoretical conceptualizing and empirical validation seems to point to two distinct forms of organizational commitment - calculative-continuance and attitudinal- affective - as the best conceptual and operational framework. For the third dimension - normative commitment - empirical validation is still in a rather nascent stage. In this study, therefore, I integrate the two-dimensional conceptual framework with Meyer and Allen’s three-component commitment measurement framework. This is because Morrow’s model is theoretically sound, as it comprises the two distinct Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 21 dimensions of commitment - the attitudinal-affective and calculative-continuance - which have been empirically delineated more clearly. Meyer and Allen’s organizational commitment scales are adopted in this study for the purpose of measurement. Their organizational commitment scales are recently among the most frequently used instrument (Angle and Lawson, 1994). Meyer and Allen’s affective commitment is consistent with Morrow’s attitudinal-affective commitment and their continuance commitment is consistent with Morrow’s calculative-continuance commitment. Thus, linking and integrating Morrow’s theoretical framework with Meyer and Allen’s methodological framework is reasonable. Moreover, by adopting Meyer and Allen’s organizational commitment scales, it is also possible to explore normative commitment, the area in which empirical investigation has been lacking and that Morrow’s conceptual framework does not cover. In this study, the overall or ultimate commitment feeling is also developed as another measure of organizational commitment. The logic for this measure is that if employees really have to narrow down their feelings to the simple, dichotomous choice of being either committed or not committed, their choice can reflect their ultimate commitment feeling. This measure might appear counter-intuitive as most of the common commitment measures attempt to be multi-dimensional and comprehensive. This measure is undeniably uni-dimensional and cannot explain all the dimensions and nuances related to the complex commitment concept. However, it can help gauge employees’ overall or ultimate commitment feeling. Furthermore, as I adopt Meyer and Allen’s three-component commitment measurement framework to address the multi - Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 2 2 dimensionality of organizational commitment, adding the measure of commitment feeling will not jeopardize the study, but in fact adds depth to the analysis. The measures of organizational commitment used in this study therefore include: i) calculative-continuance commitment; ii) attitudinal-affective commitment; iii) normative commitment; and iv) the ultimate commitment feeling. This framework is used for theory building as well as for hypothesis development, which will be discussed in Chapter 3. The operationlization of these measures is discussed in Chapter 4. C. Commitment Consequences With the generally accepted linkage between organizational commitment, individual behaviors and organizational performance (Tang, Robertson and Lane, 1996; Meyer and Allen, 1997), scholars and practitioners have been trying to establish empirical evidence that organizational commitment is valuable to organizations. Does commitment lead to improved organizational performance? Some empirical research has shown significant relationships between employee commitment and positive consequences such as increased performance and decreased stress, absenteeism, and turnover rates (Ostroff, 1992). Scholars, however, admit that empirical evidence for the consequences of organizational commitment has been rather inconclusive and, oftentimes, inconsistent. A meta-analysis by Mathieu and Zajac (1990), for example, suggests little direct impact of commitment on organizational performance. Nonetheless, weak empirical validation does not entirely reject organizational commitment as an on going challenge and important research topic. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 23 The inconclusiveness and inconsistency of research in this area indicates the complexity and multi-dimensional nature of the key constructs involved in commitment research, hence the difficulty to directly and accurately operationalize organizational commitment as well as the difficulty to measure outcome variables such as improved effectiveness and performance. Moreover, given the difficulties associated with these constructs, establishing the cause and effect relationship and empirically validating the consequences of organizational commitment have proved extremely difficult (Meyer and Allen, 1997). In spite of persistent conceptual and methodological difficulties, Meyer and Allen reviewed relevant empirical studies and summarized the results and trends as follows. Table 2.1: Summary of Key Empirical Findings of Commitment Consequences Source: Meyer and Allen, 1997 C o n se q u e n c e O perationalized C o n stru c ts A uthors/Y ear Em pirical R esu lts AAC CCC NC Individual T urnover Rate P erfo rm an ce Desire to leave and actual Mathieu and Zajac (1990) - - turnover Tett and Meyer (1993) - - Allen and Meyer (1996) - - A tten d an ce Attendance Mathieu and Zajac, 1990 + n/i n/i Voluntary absenteeism Meyer e ta l (1993) n/r - Hackett et al (1994) n/r n/i Gellatly (1995) n/r n/i Som ers (1995) n/r n/i Note: + = Positive relationship - = Negative or inverse relationship n/r = Not related n/i = Not included in the study Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 24 Table 2.1: Summary of Key Empirical Findings of Commitment Consequences (Continued) Source: Meyer and Allen, 1997 Consequence Operationalized Constructs Authors/Year Empirical Results AAC CCC NC Individual In-role job performance Performance Self-report indicators: Work effort Ingram et al (1989) + n/i n/i S ager and Johnson (1989) + n/i n/i Randal et al (1990) + n/i + Leong et al (1994) + n/i n/i Bycio et al (1995) + n/r n/i Adherence to org policy Kim and M auborgne (1993) + n/i n/i Nouri (1994) + n/i n/i Overall job perform ance Darden et al (1989) n/i n/i n/i Johnston and Snizek (1991) n/i n/i n/i Meyer et al (1993) + n/i n/i Baugh and Roberts (1994) + n/i n/i S aks (1995) + n/i n/i Individual Objective indicators: Performance Sales Bashaw and Grant (1994) + n/i n/i Control of operation costs DeCotiis and Sum m ers (1987) + n/i n/i Promotion Meyer et al (1989) + - n/i On-the-job perform ance Meyer et al (1989) + n/i n/i S ager and Johnston (1989) + n/i n/i Konovsky and Gropanzano (1991) + - n/i Mayer and Schoorm an (1992) + n/i n/i Moorman et al (1993) + n/r n/i Hackett et al (1994) n/i n/i n/r Extra-role job performance Self-reported indicators: Citizenship behaviors Meyer and Allen (1989) + n/i n/i Meyer e ta l (1993) + n/r + P earce (1993) + n/i n/i Morrison (1994) + n/i + Objective Indicators: Independent assessm en t of G regesen (1993) + n/i n/i citizenship behaviors Moorman et al (1993) + + n/i Shore and W ayne (1993) + - n/i M unene (1995) + - n/i Organ and Ryan (1995) + n/i n/i Note: + = Positive relationship - = Negative or inverse relationship n/r = Not related n/i = Not included in the study Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 25 Table 2.1: Summary of Key Empirical Findings of Commitment Consequences (Continued) Source: Meyer and Allen, 1997 Consequence Operationalized Constructs Authors/Year Empirical Results AAC CCC NC Employee well Job-related stress being Psychological and physical Jam al (1990) - n/i n/i Reilly and Orsak (1991) - n/r - O stroffam d Kozlowski (1992) - n/i n/l Begley and Czajka (1993) - n/l n/i Job displeasure (dissatisfaction, irritation and Begley and Czajka (1993) - n/i n/i intention to quit) Career and other non-work satisfaction Overall satisfaction Romzek (1989) + n/i n/r Kirchmeyer (1992) + n/i n/r C areer a s interference with life Cohen and Kirchmeyer (1995) n/r + n/r Note: + = Positive relationship - = Negative or inverse relationship n/r = Not related n/i = Not included in the study Meyer and Allen (1997) concluded that considerable evidence across various samples and performance indicators suggests that employees with strong affective commitment are valuable to their organizations. These employees tend to have low turnover rate, low voluntary absenteeism (although there is no difference among various types of commitment on involuntary absenteeism or in the case where employees have no control over their absence, i.e., illness, emergencies), and perform better in both in-role and extra-role tasks. Normative commitment has also been found to be positively related to favorable consequences. Nonetheless, there have been far fewer studies that include normative commitment in their empirical investigation. The effect of normative commitment is thus not conclusive. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 26 On the other hand, empirical studies that explored the impact of continuance commitment (although there are considerably fewer studies that included continuance commitment) have not found strong correlations between this type of commitment and individual well-being and organizational performance. A number of studies even found negative correlations. For example, employees with strong continuance commitment were found to perform less well than those with affective commitment in both in-role (Konovsky and Cropanzano, 1991) and extra-role tasks (Shore and Wayne, 1993), and tend to receive less favorable promotion recommendations from supervisors (Meyer et al, 1989). The only strong positive correlations were found between continuance commitment and turnover rate. As hypothesized, employees with strong continuance commitment are not likely to leave the organization. Employees with continuance commitment tend to be the “poorer performers” in their organizations. They stay with the organization not because they are committed but because there is no other choice. According to some scholars, having no alternative but to stay and perform the tasks could result in a psychological state called “learned helplessness” (Seligman, 1975), which could subsequently lead to mediocre performance if not negative or destructive behaviors. Empirical findings on the consequences of organizational commitment remain somewhat inconclusive and the causal relations could not be strongly established statistically because of the conceptual and methodological difficulties. Also, as Mathieu and Zajac (1990) acknowledge, other factors such as situational and dispositional or individual characteristics might be operating as moderating variables between Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 27 organizational commitment and its consequences on employees and organizations. Nevertheless, several trends consistently observed in the accumulation of empirical evidence already suggest the positive linkages between organizational commitment, organizational performance and employee well-being, particularly the strong linkages between attitudinal-affective commitment and positive consequences. As Meyer and Allen argue, given the difficulties of this research area, the modest empirical linkages are already impressive and warrant further empirical studies. Also, from a practitioner’s perspective, potential improvement in employee performance, albeit small, would definitely be useful for any organization. D. Commitment Antecedents Given positive linkages (although the causal relations are not definitively established) between organizational commitment and overall organizational performance and individual well-being, there has been increasing interest in understanding what factors contribute to the development of commitment. A rich body of empirical research has investigated antecedents of organizational commitment, testing various hypothesized antecedents according to the theoretical frameworks and subsequent methodological operationalization employed. As affective commitment has been found to be statistically correlated with favorable organizational behaviors, many studies have focused on this particular commitment dimension. A number of views and approaches exist in theorizing about the potential commitment antecedents. In terms of a psychological-behavioral perspective, the key Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 28 assumption is that individuals’ responses to certain incentives or experiences in the work context could affect their psychological state and consequently their behaviors. Key theories include: i) the rational-choice framework, which stipulates that individual employees are rational agents and they need certain inducements and stimuli (primarily external or extrinsic) to motivate their organizational commitment; and ii) the humanistic framework, which stipulates that individual employees are collaborative in nature and may feel committed to their organizations for a higher purpose (primarily internal or intrinsic motives). Aside from these two major psychological-behavioral perspectives, theories explaining commitment antecedents look at demographic characteristics and other individual attributes such as values and work ethic. Thus far, research on organizational commitment has focused primarily on the broad category of work-job experience (Meyer and Allen, 1993, p. 45), which includes various aspects of individual experiences with the organization - the technical aspects of the job (job scope, job descriptions), role and goal ambiguity or clarity, relationships with leaders and supervisors, the perceived justice and fairness of the leaders, the ability to participate in work and decision-making processes, the perceived feeling of appreciation, consideration and self-competence or importance. In the following section, a summary of empirical literature regarding commitment antecedents - divided into the three types of commitment - is provided. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 29 1. Attitudinal-Affective Commitment Antecedents Attitudinal-affective commitment (AAC) has been a popular topic for empirical antecedent research. This is due to the fact that empirical findings have adequately established strong positive links between attitudinal-affective commitment and desirable consequences such as improved organizational performance and individual well-being (see the previous discussion on organizational commitment consequences). A wide range of potential antecedents for AAC has been identified. As AAC is associated with feelings of attachment, identification and involvement, the development of AAC is usually theorized to be based on the experience that employees have at the organization, i.e., with the people at the organization (leaders and supervisors in particular), and with the job itself, as well as an employees’ own personal characteristics. Table 2.2: Summary of Key Empirical Findings for AAC Antecedents Source: Morrow, 1993 and Meyer and Allen, 1997 H ypothesized A n tec ed e n ts A uthors/Y ear Em pirical F indings O rganizational C h a ra cteristics Centralization Blegen et al (1988) . Brooke et al (1988) - Donstein and Matalon (1989) - Mathieu and Hamel (1989) - Decentralization Morris and S teers (1980) + Batem an and S trasser (1984) + Justice and fairness of policies and decisions Konovsky and Cropanzano (1990) + Kim and M auborgne (1993) + Schaubroeck et al (1994) + Communication and information Konovsky and Cropanzano (1990) + Greenberg (1994) + Note: + = Positive relationship - = Negative or inverse relationship n/r = Not related Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Table 2.2: Summary of Key Empirical Findings for AAC Antecedents (Continued) Source: Morrow, 1993 and Meyer and Allen, 1997 Hypothesized Antecedents Authors/Year Empirical _______________________________________Findings Mathieu and Zajac (1990) n/r Aven et al (1993) n/r Mathieu and Zajac (1990) + Mathieu and Zajac (1990) + Cohen (1993) + Person Characteristics G ender Age Tenure Marital status Education level C areer fulfillment/ work ethic Perceived self com petence Work Experiences Job scope and job descriptions Job challenge Role ambiguity and conflict Leadership Leadership - participation in decision-making Leadership - perceived good treatm ent and consideration Leadership - perceived fairness Supervisor - fair policies and decisions Met expectation Social desirability Blegen et al (1988) n/r Meyer and Allen (1993) n/r Buchanan (1974) + Mathieu and Zajac (1990) + S teers (1977) + Hackman and Oldham (1980) + Colarelli et al (1987) + Dunham et al (1994) + Meyer and Allen (1988) + Donstein and Matalon (1989) + Allen and Meyer (1990) Donstein and Matalon (1989) Glissson and Durick (1988) + Zaccaro and Dobbins (1989) + Jerm ier and Berkes (1979) + R hodes and Steers, 1981 + Decotiis and Sum m ers (1987) + Bycio et al (1995) + Folger and Konovsky (1989) + Allen and Neyer (1990) + Sw eeney and McFarlin (1993) + Moorman et al (1993) + Gellatly (1995) + Meyer and Allen (1988) + Zaccaro and Dobbins (1989) + Blau (1989)_________________________________+ Note: + = Positive relationship - = Negative or inverse relationship n/r = Not related Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 31 As the empirical findings suggest, organization characteristics are important explanatory variables for attitudinal-affective commitment. For example, the centralization-decentralization of organizational hierarchy and decision-making processes affect employees’ attitudinal-affective commitment. The more centralized the organization, the less committed employees tend to feel. By the same token, the more decentralized the organization, the more committed employees feel. This finding suggests that employees need to be able to participate in organizational processes and to feel involved and included in order to develop attitudinal-affective commitment to their organization. The perception of justice and fairness in organizational policies, strategies and decisions is strongly and positively related to attitudinal-affective commitment. More important than wanting to be a part of the organizational processes, employees want to feel that the organization is fair to them. Also, communication and information were found to be strongly related to high attitudinal-affective commitment. When communication channels and access to appropriate and necessary information are provided, employees feel more committed to the organization. The effects of demographic factors and individual disposition traits yielded mixed results. Gender, marital status and education level were not found to be related to attitudinal-affective commitment. On the other hand, age and tenure were found to be positively related to attitudinal-affective commitment. The effects of these two factors might show potential overlap between attitudinal-affective and continuance-calculative commitment. As employees become older and more secure with the organization, their Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 32 investment (or costs when leaving) could increase but at the same time, their psychological bond with the organization could increase as well. Dispositional traits such as the need for career fulfillment and work ethic show positive correlations with attitudinal-affective commitment. Employees who derive their fulfillment from career success and possess a strong normative basis of work ethic are likely to be psychologically attached to their organization. Furthermore, perceived self-competence was found to be strongly positively related to attitudinal-affective commitment. Employees who believe in their own ability and skills are likely to be strongly committed to their organization. Antecedents in the work experience category have been found to have the strongest effects on the development of attitudinal-affective commitment (Meyer and Allen, 1997). Job scope and job descriptions, the clarity as well as the challenge of job, were found to be positively related to attitudinal-affective commitment. Employees want to know what their job entails and they want a job that continuously challenges them. Along the same line of reasoning, employees also do not appreciate ambiguity and conflict in their role. The role ambiguity and conflict variable was found to be negatively related to attitudinal-affective commitment. In terms of the relationships in the work setting, leadership - management and supervisors - plays an important role in enhancing attitudinal-affective commitment. Leaders and supervisors who allow employees to participate in important decision making processes, who treat employees with respect and consideration (or at least are perceived by employees as treating them well), and who are perceived to be fair can Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 33 encourage higher attitudinal-affective commitment. The overall feeling of met expectations - expectations that individual employees have of the organization in exchange for their efforts and commitment - was also found to be correlated with high attitudinal-affective commitment. Lastly, social desirability - the sense of compliance to social norms - was also found to be positively correlated to attitudinal-affective commitment. However, the social desirability variable might be rather difficult to interpret as it could suggest the effect of an explanatory factor that goes beyond the boundary of a single organization. In other words, social desirability could signify the social and cultural impact from society at large, which could dictate the work norms in the organization - desirable norms of work behaviors and the desirability to comply with such norms. 2. Calculative-Continuance Commitment Antecedents The calculative-continuance commitment (CCC) is usually viewed in terms of how an individual employee makes a rational choice or independent decision regarding the level of effort and commitment he or she is willing to give in exchange for certain utilities and benefits (March and Simon, 1958; Boyd, 1992). As the words continuance and calculative imply, the antecedent research for this form of commitment mainly focuses on how rational and instrumental factors lead to particular behavioral effects (i.e., choices as to what kind of behaviors and course of actions). For the calculative-continuance aspect of commitment, the general theorizing follows that of Becker’s (1960) side-bets argument. The side-bets argument states that an Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 34 individual commits to a certain course of action by virtue of the fact that something would be forfeited if he or she discontinued the activity (Meyer and Allen, 1997, p. 57). In an organizational context, this means that individual employees might invest effort, time and resources in training and acquiring certain skills. Such investments become “sunk costs” and thus leaving the organization would mean a waste of such investments. For the calculative aspect of commitment, the general theorizing tends to follow that of March and Simon’s decision-making view. Provided certain inducements and stimuli, individuals make the decision to participate, produce and perform (March and Simon, 1958). Table 2.3: Summary of Key Empirical Findings for CCC Antecedents Source: Meyer and Allen, 1997 H ypothesized A n tec ed e n ts A uthors/Y ear Em pirical F indings In v estm en ts, S u n k C o sts, A lternatives Investm ents Withey (1988) + Allen and Meyer (1990) + Lee (1992) + W hitener and W alz (1993) + Perceived alternatives or Allen and Meyer (1990) - attractiveness of alternatives Meyer et al (1991) - Lee (1992) - W hitener and W alz (1993) “ Note: + = Positive relationship - = Negative or inverse relationship n/r = N ot related Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 35 Table 2.3: Summary of Key Empirical Findings for CCC Antecedents (Continued) Source: Meyer and Allen, 1997 H ypothesized A n tec ed e n ts A uthors/Y ear Em pirical F indings P erso n C h a ra cteristics D em ographic V ariables: G ender Mathieu and Zajac (1990) + Age Donstein and Matalon (1989) + Meyer et al (1989) n/r Mathieu and Zajac (1990) + Tenure Donstein and Matalon (1989) n/r Meyer e ta l (1989) + Mathieu and Zajac (1990) n/r Education Mathieu and Zajac (1990) n/r D ispositional V ariables: Work ethic Koslowsky et al (1990) + W ork E xperience Job satisfaction Witt (1989) + Mathieu and Zajac (1990) + Job involvement Mathieu and Zajac (1990) + Koslowsky et al (1990) + Organization climate Witt (1989) + Note: + = Positive relationship - = Negative or inverse relationship n/r = Not related Empirical findings do validate these theoretical views regarding calculative- continuance commitment (CCC). The amount of investments in education, training and skills is positively related to the degree of CCC. The more investments an individual has already incurred, the more likely he or she is to remain with the organization. On the other hand, negative correlations were found for the perceived availability or attractiveness of alternatives. If an individual has an attractive alternative, he or she would be less likely to remain with the organization. It should be noted that the number of studies on the CCC antecedents is far fewer than on AAC. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 36 Job satisfaction implies that benefits and utilities (intrinsic and extrinsic) outweigh costs in the decision-making function, and thus job satisfaction was found to be positively related to calculative-continuance commitment. Job involvement and organizational climate might represent the more intrinsic aspect of the benefits and utilities that an employee gains. These two factors were also found to be positively related to CCC. The impacts of demographic variables were found to be mixed. Mathieu and Zajac’s meta-analysis (1990) found a positive but very weak correlation between gender and CCC. Women are slightly more likely to remain with their organizations, although these gender effects could mean that women tend to have slightly higher sunk costs and fewer alternatives than their male counterparts. Age and tenure variables were found by some studies to be positively related to CCC and by some studies to be unrelated. Researchers argue that the effects of age and tenure are similar to those of investments and sunk costs. In other words, as employees age or become tenured, the more they have to lose when leaving the organization. In this way, age and tenure variables can be confounded with investment variables. Education was found to be unrelated to the level of CCC while work ethic was positively related. The education level of an individual might not translate into investment in skills as much as the more specific on-the-job training or the years spent at the organization. The asset specificity of the particular set of on-the-job skills would affect the decision to remain with the organization and discourage the decision to leave more than would education. Work ethic simply provides a sense of loyalty to the organization. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 37 While empirical findings have revealed the importance of many potential antecedents for CCC as well as attitudinal-affective commitment (AAC) with various theoretical explanations, an underlying theme can be observed. Demographic factors have mixed effects on both types of commitments. Gender and education do not seem to have any impact. Age and tenure, however, are empirically found to have positive links to both CCC and AAC. As explained before, as employees spend more time and become more secure at the organization, their investment (thus sunk costs) in that organization increases and at the same time, their psychological bond with the organization increases as well. The dispositional traits such as a good work ethic and perceived self-competence are also empirically proven to result in higher commitment in both forms. 3. Normative Commitment Antecedents Normative commitment (NC) is defined by Meyer and Allen as an “employee’s feelings of obligation to remain with the organization. Thus employees with strong normative commitment will remain with an organization by virtue of their belief that it is the ‘right and moral’ thing to do” (Meyer and Allen, 1993, p. 60). The development of NC has been theorized in various ways. Individuals might develop normative commitment based on “pressure” (Wiener, 1982; Meyer and Allen, 1997) accumulated through early socialization from family, culture and society at large as well as the socialization process within the organization (as newcomers are socialized and learn the organization’s norms). Some scholars argue that NC might develop with the feeling of Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 38 indebtedness where organizations invest in employees - e.g., providing scholarships or training - in exchange for employee’s reciprocal commitment. This method of NC development, however, seems limited as scholarship and training provision is not common for all employees. Lastly, scholars theorize that NC might develop on the basis of a “psychological contract” or “relational contract” (Rousseau, 1995). This view stipulates that employees see their employment relationship not as a transactional one (which is generally correlated with the calculative-continuance dimension of commitment whereby employees view the relationship to their organization as an economic exchange) but rather an obligation to reciprocate and fulfill the contract. A psychological contract reflects a deeper level of exchange relationship, beyond external or extrinsic, whereby a deeper level of commitment could be inculcated as long as the psychological contract is not violated. Table 2.4: Summary of Key Empirical Findings for NC Antecedents Source: Meyer and Allen, 1997 Hypothesized Antecedents Authors/Year Empirical Findings Mission3 Vardi et al (1989) + Socialization Process Expectations of peers Dunham et al (1994) + Socialization tactics Ashforth and S aks (1996) + Work Experience Supportiveness of organization Allen and Meyer (1996) + Note: + = Positive relationship - = Negative or inverse relationship n/r = Not related 3 B elief in organization’s mission, that the mission is congruent to the social and cultural values (Vardi et al, 1989). Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 39 Thus far, the number of empirical studies on NC is very limited (Meyer and Allen, 1997). Available empirical studies show that the development of NC is related to a shared belief in organization mission and the supportiveness of the organization. When mission is congruent with social and cultural values and when employees feel that organization supports them, NC develops and increases. Also, the socialization process seems to influence the development of NC. Expectations of peers and socialization tactics help encourage employees to internalize the sense of obligation to their organization. 4. Summary of Antecedent Literature and Area for Further Exploration To borrow Reichers’ observation, the current stage of antecedent research is like “a laundry list of significant antecedent or correlate variables” (Reichers, 1985 cited in Meyer and Allen, 1997, p. 46). Scholars and researchers have explored so many different hypothesized antecedents for the three types of commitment. To simplify the multitude of antecedents, they are categorized into three major themes,4 namely psychological- behavioral, person-individual, and work-job experience, as shown in Table 2.5. 4 Note that this is meant to provide key themes and does not represent all theories. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 40 Table 2.5: Summary of Themes in Commitment Antecedent Research Focus of Analysis Constructs Observed Artifacts Underlying Theories/ Perspectives Person-Individual Person-individual characteristics and attributes Demographic variables Dispositional features Personality traits - Attribution Psychological- Behavioral Psychological- behavioral process Investm ents-costs Opportunities/alternatives Incentives/inducements - Side-bets - Rational choice - Contract - Agency theory - Incentives Work-job Experience Organization characteristics Experience in organizational/work contexts Organization structures Organization processes/policies Feelings regarding work life Relationships in the organization - Contract - Justice/fairness - Socio-centric man - Institutional-relational The person-individual area of research has thus far yielded very inconclusive results. Some studies found relationships between commitment and variables such as age, gender, education, and personal work values, while some studies reported no such relationships. No concrete conclusions can be adequately drawn. For most research, the psychological-behavioral antecedents primarily reflect the rational-choice perspective. Consequently, researchers explore variables such as investments, sunk costs, and alternatives, which seem to explain calculative-continuance commitment well. Nevertheless, as research on the psychological-behavioral antecedents tends to focus on the rational-choice type theories, another component might be missing or inadequately addressed. What determines an employee’s choices or behaviors is not only extrinsically or externally driven motives such as investments, costs, and alternatives. Variables such as intrinsic rewards or internally driven motives tend to be either ignored or lumped into the work-job experience category. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 41 Based on existing research, antecedents that best explain AAC are those variables that fall into the work-job experience category. A clear and challenging job, considerate and fair leadership, the ability to be involved in key decision-making, and the feeling that the organization delivers on promises specified in the written employment contract or expected as part of the unwritten psychological contract (Rousseau, 1995) are all linked to high AAC. The work-job experience antecedents even boil down to the underlying psychological motives. Employees do not simply care about the hierarchical structure or the content of policies or strategies. What determines their AAC to the organization is the knowledge or perception that the organization’s policies, strategies and decisions, especially those that directly impact them, are fair and the process through which such policies, strategies and decisions are made are transparent with open communication and information channels through which they can gain knowledge and voice their feedback. Work-job experience antecedents, especially belief in mission and socialization process, have been associated with NC. However, the empirical research on NC is far from adequate and conclusive. This is due to the fact that researchers view NC as a part of AAC and thus NC is not considered desirable as an empirical topic. This summary of the empirical findings on the consequences and antecedents of organizational commitment suggests the following implications for continuing exploration: ♦ Adequate empirical evidence has been established on the positive links between organizational commitment, organizational performance and individual well-being. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 42 ♦ AAC and NC are more desirable from the point of view of the organization than CCC. NC is, however, weaker than AAC. ♦ Many antecedents for the three types of commitment have been identified. The knowledge of commitment antecedents is very important as it could be used by organizations that want to attract highly committed individuals (especially, those with high attitudinal-affective commitment) or to encourage their own employees to become more committed. ♦ Nonetheless, more research on commitment antecedents is warranted, as several gaps of knowledge development can be identified. First, there is a lack of a comprehensive - theoretical and empirical - framework (most studies focus on a certain set of antecedents). Second, psychological-behavioral research has not addressed intrinsic motives. Third, antecedents of normative commitment have not been studied much. More empirical research will contribute greatly in mitigating this gap of knowledge on commitment. E. Multiple Commitments The concept of multiple commitments is a new area of research that has been gaining more interest among academicians and practitioners. This concept is briefly reviewed in this study in order to provide a comprehensive understanding of the current literature on organizational commitment. Nevertheless, it should be noted that this study focuses on global commitment, not the multiple commitments. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 43 1. Concept and Theories Research on multiple commitments is a relatively new area. Following Morrow’s major contribution in 1983 and 1993, the concept of multiple commitments has gained more interest. Many scholars have started to raise the concern that organizational commitment is just one of many commitments and that global commitment - the commitment to the overall organization - might not be as important as the multiple commitments - commitment to specific foci, bases or constituents - that an individual employee could have simultaneously at a given time (Reichers, 1985; Lawler, 1992; Morrow, 1993; Hunt and Morgan, 1994; Cohen, 2003). This area of research is driven by the theoretical argument that humans live in the “multiple, nested collectivities” (Lawler, 1992) of social units or systems (Kanter, 1968; Salancick, 1977). Thus, humans with multiple selves take on multiple roles, as Lifton (1993) called the “Protean self or man”, simultaneously living various roles and thus having varying degree of commitment to various collectivities, units or systems (Kanter, 1968; Salancick, 1977). In other words, an individual employee does not simply take on the role of an employee that belongs to one entity, the organization, but is a member of various social units or entities such as family, organization, professional groups, occupational groups, and so fourth (Cohen, 2003). It follows that it cannot be expected that an employee would be committed solely to the organization as a single entity. An employee might see him or herself as belonging to the organization, the department or division or group, the profession or occupational group. An employee might see him or herself as a loyal ally Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 44 or collaborator to certain leaders or supervisors or group of co-workers. Or an employee might feel a strong sense of commitment to the ideal or value of his or her job or career without feeling much commitment toward the organization itself. The concept of multiple commitments becomes important as we realize that there might be certain dependencies or possible conflicts among various commitments (Cohen, 2003) and that understanding multiple commitments could lead to more comprehensive understanding of organizational commitment (e.g., global commitment might not represent the complete picture and therefore the OCQ should be used less - Becker, 1992), the relationships among and the well-being of people in the work place (Meyer and Allen, 1997). Prominent scholars in the area of multiple commitments have proposed several theoretical approaches to explain the development of multiple commitments. Two major approaches among these include: i) conflict approach; and ii) exchange approach (Cohen, 2003). The conflict approach postulates that, since an individual employee is committed simultaneously to various entities and constituents, conflicts among such commitments could exist. The basic assumption of this approach is that an individual’s decision making process as to what degree of commitment he or she would offer various entities and constituents is a zero-sum game (Gunz and Gunz, 1994). An individual has to abandon or lessen commitment to one entity as he or she becomes increasingly committed to another. The implication of this approach is that organizations must realize that there are potential commitment conflicts among various entities or constituents and try to reconcile or minimize such conflicts in order to increase the overall performance. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 45 The second approach is the exchange approach. The exchange view postulates that an individual employee evaluates his or her commitment level to a certain object (entity or constituent) in a developmental process. The basic assumption is that an individual’s positive behaviors and higher commitment are the result of their exchange with organization (receipt of rewards, benefits, incentives and so forth in exchange for their contributions). On the other hand, negative attitudes and feelings would result in a decrease or withdrawal of commitment (Cohen, 2003). The exchange approach can be further explained from a contracts perspective. Rousseau and Parks (1993) contend that the relationship between an individual and the organization could be understood in terms of an employment contract or an agreement of exchange, which specifies mutual exchanges, relationships, and expectations in the work context. Such contracts could include a written agreement, which Rousseau and Parks label a “transactional contract” as well as an unwritten agreement or “psychological contract” (Rousseau and Parks, 1993; Rousseau, 1995). These exchange agreements can exist with the organization as a whole, as well as with various entities or constituents within the organization. According to this view, when an individual employee perceives that a relationship fulfills the agreed-upon terms - pay, benefits, and rewards (transactional) as well as respect and appreciation (psychological), commitment would be high. Rousseau (1998) further distinguished two types of resources that are exchanged in a contract relationship as universalistic and particularistic. Universalistic resources include tangible things such as money, rewards and benefits that can be exchanged in any type of relationship. Particularistic resources, however, can be provided only when mutual trust exists Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 46 between an individual and a particular entity. Particularistic resources may include intangibles such as information, status, love, and respect (Foa and Foa, 1974). An implication of the exchange approach is that organizations must understand the nature of a mutual exchange employment relationship - what an organization should provide its employees in exchange for their positive behaviors, efforts and commitment - which could differ in different relationship contexts and hence would imply different types of commitment antecedents. For example, the exchange relationship in the overall organizational setting may differ from that within the group. Universalistic resources such as pay and benefits might be appropriately exchanged with the overall organization while the particularistic resources such as status and respect might be exchanged in a small division or occupational group. Cohen (2003) argued that the conflict approach is a good framework for understanding the inter-relationships and dynamics of the multiple commitments that individuals may have for various entities and constituents. However, the exchange approach is the dominant approach to explain multiple commitments because this approach allows researchers to understand different types and natures of relationships between individuals and various entities or constituents involved in the employment setting, and more importantly, to understand different commitment antecedents required for different commitment relationships. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 47 2. Empirical Studies Proponents of multiple commitments research argue that empirical findings on organizational commitment (when tested separately as a single or global construct rather than as multiple forms) have been disappointingly weak. Cohen (2003) reviewed several meta-analytical studies on organizational commitment (such as Mathieu and Zajac, 1990 and Griffeth, Horn and Gaertner, 2000), both of which showed very moderate correlation between organizational commitment and organizational consequences. To Cohen, the lack of powerful empirical validation means that global commitment cannot predict the behaviors that theories expect. This situation calls for re-consideration of the global commitment concept and more empirical research on the relations between the multiple forms of commitment and various consequences. Cohen summarized two major categories of empirical studies on multiple commitments; i) the direct approach and ii) the indirect approach (Cohen, 2003). Researchers employing the direct approach aim to directly study the impacts and relationships of various commitment forms on various outcomes or consequences. Usually, multivariate statistical techniques are used to test various commitment forms and establish their relationships to the outcome variables. Researchers can address more than one type of commitment in a certain organizational context, investigating various commitments and their subsequent antecedents and outcomes. However, the weakness of this approach has been noted. Researchers employing the direct approach focus on the characteristics and effects of each of the various commitments at a time, but not on the relationships among those commitments. The “inter-relations” among the multiple Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 48 commitment forms and consequences or the “simultaneous effects” cannot be properly addressed. Another approach, the indirect approach (which does not directly explore the effects of commitment but addresses the inter-relations among various commitment types), allows researchers to address this weakness of the first approach. Complex statistical techniques such as structural equation modeling and path analysis are generally employed to explore inter-correlations. This approach is thought to be more useful for conceptual-theory building research than for hypothesis-testing research. As multiple commitment research is a relatively new area of inquiry, the number of empirical studies is still rather limited. Also, due to the complexity of the concept and methodological difficulties, empirical findings in this area have not produced consistently powerful statistical results. Given the increasing interest in multiple commitments, does it indicate that the concept of organizational commitment is obsolete as an area of research? The answer might not be that either one of the two concepts is more academically valid and operationalizable and hence would warrant more academic inquiry. The choice between organizational commitment and multiple commitments might be one of the researcher’s theoretical stances, purpose or goal of the research, and focus and unit of analysis in a particular study. Opinions may differ as to which approach is more sound theoretically and more fruitful for theory-testing and empirical research. While Meyer and Allen (1993) contend that organizational commitment empirical research has adequately yielded consistent empirical results, and that even moderate empirical evidence could be considered satisfactory for research on such a complex issue, Cohen (2003) argued that Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 49 the lack of strong predictive power signifies the inappropriateness of the use of organizational commitment as the sole focus. While the concept of multiple commitments must be noted, this paper chooses to emphasize global organizational commitment or commitment to the organization. It should also be clarified that the three types of commitment - AAC, CCC and NC - represent three different dimensions or definitions of global commitment. Hunt and Morgan (1994), in their empirical study testing the global and multiple commitment hypotheses, contend that global commitment and multiple commitments are mediating and potentially complementary variables. Thus, understanding global commitment is still valuable. Particularly from the perspective of the organization, it is important to determine how to best encourage the commitment that employees have toward the overall organization. In this study, organizational commitment is the primary focus. F. Commitment in Public Sector Many scholars have observed that while research on commitment is extensive, it has been largely based on the private sector. Balfour and Wechsler (1996) eloquently described this observation: Although there has been a dramatic resurgence in research on organizational commitment, there have been only a few studies that have investigated organizational commitment in the public sector. As a result, we lack constructs anchored in the work experiences of public employees and have developed only limited theory about commitment in public organizations (Balfour and Wechsler, 1996, p. 256). Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 50 Without adequate theories and empirical evidence, the general view that has been readily adopted regarding public sector commitment is that public employees tend to be less committed to their organizations than their private sector counterparts (Buchanan, 1974; Angle and Perry, 1983; Bozeman, 1987). This general view rests on the dominant assumption that private sector employees are better paid and thus are more likely to be committed to their organizations. An empirical study on public sector commitment by Balfour and Wechsler (1996) found that extrinsic incentives (pay satisfaction and opportunities for advancement) are related to exchange commitment or desire to remain at the organization. Experiences at work, organizational as well as job characteristics, are related to attitudinal commitment. Personal or individual characteristics were also found to have an effect on commitment. Other empirical studies on public sector commitment found mixed and inconclusive results (Mathieu and Zajac, 1990; Liou and Nylan, 1994). Some scholars argue that the inconclusive findings regarding public sector commitment can be explained by the difficulties in defining the sector itself. To many scholars, the definition of “public” and “private” organization is complex, not clearly theorized and operationalized (Steinhaus, 1996). In fact, many scholars believe that the sectors may no longer be well delineated, especially in a time when many public organizations are going through privatization while private organizations are taking on more public responsibility and scrutiny (Bozeman, 1987; Perry and Rainey, 1988). Steinhaus (1996) argued that sector is not a significant factor, but rather industry might be a more relevant differentiating characteristic. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 51 Scholars have also argued that any sector differences in terms of commitment level may be on various types of commitment rather than on overall commitment. A number of empirical studies have found that affective-attitudinal commitment is more prevalent than calculative-continuance commitment among employees in the public agencies (Liou and Nylan, 1994; Jae Moon, 2000). These studies also conclude that, in the public sector, intrinsic incentives as well as identification with the organizational mission and values are more important than extrinsic or material incentives. On the contrary, in the private sector, pay is likely to be the most important commitment determinant (Liou and Nyhan, 1994; Jae Moon, 2000). These arguments suggest that current knowledge of commitment among public sector employees is inadequate, if not misleading. The argument that sector might not matter any more, as it is hard to define sector boundaries, might lead instead to the conclusion that, rather than dismissing sector as an issue, a better method would be to study a sector comparison. Furthermore, the argument that public sector employees are less committed than private sector employees might suggest that, rather than looking only at uni-dimensional commitment, more comprehensive commitment measurements are needed. Sector comparison of the various commitment types still offers fertile ground for research. Balfour and Wechsler (1996) provide an appropriate conclusion: Despite the progress reported here, an extensive research agenda remains to be accomplished. Future studies should be comparative, grounded in different settings to investigate variations resulting from organizational and sectoral differences (Balfour and Wechsler, 1996, p. 272). Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 52 G. Commitment in Non-Western Cultures The interest in organizational commitment in non-Westem cultures has been on a rise along with the “growth of interest in international management over the last decade” (Randall, 1993, p. 91). With this trend, research on organizational commitment has begun to enter into the “international phase” in which theories are being applied and extended (Boyacigiller and Adler, 1991 cited in Randall, 1993). Despite the increase in interest, literature on commitment in non-Westem cultures is still very much in the nascent stage. Due to the recent development of this research area as well as the possibility that such studies might be published in languages other than English and thus are usually not included in academic databases (Randall, 1993), the number of available studies (in English) in this area is very small. Why would research on organizational commitment in non-Westem cultures be valuable? This is due to the generally accepted assumption that culture determines the underlying foundation on which psychological-behavioral responses, person-individual characteristics, and work-job experiences are formed. Therefore, while we have some understanding about how various antecedents - behavioral-psychological, person- individual, and work-job experience - affect commitment in one culture, such understandings might not be applicable in different cultural contexts. In more practical terms, scholars have started to realize that theoretical understandings based primarily on Western cultures might not be applicable elsewhere. As Newman and Nollen put it, the “one size fits all” management theory is now being supplanted with the knowledge that management attitudes, values, behaviors, and Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 53 efficacy differ across national cultures” and “differences in national cultures call for differences in management practices” (Newman and Nollen, 1996, p. 753). Management practices that are congruent with the national culture would likely produce more effective outcomes (Black, 1999; Newman and Nollen, 1996). One of the key cultural issues in the commitment literature has to do with the difference between individualistic and collectivistic cultures. Specifically, Asian culture is perceived to be more collectivistic, where individuals tend to value compliance to social norms and pursuing the interest of something larger than themselves. This cultural issue has started to motivate interest in exploring potential cultural effects on organizational commitment - whether the cultural distinction really exists and, if so, how if affects organizational commitment. A number of studies - albeit not many - have explored this issue. Some studies on Japanese organizations found that Japanese employees tend to be more committed to their organizations due to the social norms and management ideologies - the Japanese ideology of highly collectivistic organizational culture or what some scholars call the practice of “welfare corporatism” (Dore, 1973; Lincoln and Kalleberg, 1990). Another study comparing business cultures between Thailand and the U.S. also found distinct social values and their effects on management styles (Adams and Vernon, 2001). It should be noted that it is difficult to obtain a comprehensive review of cross- cultural studies on commitment antecedents due to the limited number of such studies. Also, available studies were done with different measurement instruments and a variety of samples and thus are not necessarily comparable. Randall argues that “it is very Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 54 difficult to compare antecedents and consequences of commitment across cultures. However, some tentative conclusions can be drawn” (1993; p. 103). For example, participation in decision making has a mixed effect on the Canadian samples and no effect on the Japanese and English samples. Personal characteristics have no effect on the Canadian samples and stronger effects on the English and Israeli samples. Furthermore, job satisfaction is found to have a strong positive effect on the Canadian, Japanese and the Israeli samples (Randall, 1993, p. 103-104). Downs et al (1996) looked at communication and commitment in organizations in Australia, Guatemala, Thailand and the U.S. (Hofstede framework was used to classify Australia and the U.S. as individualistic cultures and Guatemala and Thailand as collectivistic cultures) and found interesting cultural implications. For example, money and openness in the communication process were found to be related to commitment in the individualistic cultures and not in the collectivistic cultures (Downs et al, 1996). Contradicting Down et al’s findings, a study comparing commitment among Japanese and American employees by Near (1989) identified the two cultures as collectivistic and individualistic, respectively, and found similar antecedents across these two cultural types. Moreover, another comparative study of organizational commitment on a sample of twelve European nationalities by Vandenberghe et al (2001) found no cultural effects on commitment types and antecedents. In short, while some differences regarding the level and antecedents of commitment have been identified across cultures, some studies also reveal consistent findings across different cultures. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 55 A few studies that are not cross-cultural in nature but that explore non-Westem cultures also reveal interesting results suggesting a potential cultural effect on commitment. A study on the Singapore army, for example, found that meaningfulness and satisfaction with the job5 is consistently the most significant antecedent for commitment - attitudinal, continuance, as well as normative commitment (Willis, 2003). A study on Thailand’s Express and Rapid Transit Authority found that fringe benefits as well as the relationship with leaders were significant antecedents to organizational commitment (Chongsawang, 1998). Another non-Westem study was done on Turkish employees from various organizations (Wasti, 2003). Wasti identified two types of values - idiocentricism and allocentricism - among Turkish employees and explored their effects on organizational commitment. The findings indicate that the two different values have no effects on commitment except that those Turkish employees who have high idiocentric value have lower normative commitment. Both the cross-cultural and non-Westem studies are in the nascent stage. Consequently, it is very hard to draw cultural conclusions about organizational commitment. The available studies, however, do reveal some interesting insights; some commitment antecedents might be different in different cultural contexts and some might be consistent across cultures. More questions remain to be explored. Which antecedents are consistently significant across cultures? Which differ? Do antecedents for various types of commitment - attitudinal-affective, calculative-continuance and normative 5 Other antecedents explored in this study include relationships with peers and supervisors, satisfaction with financial re-numeration, career and personal development opportunities, perception and satisfaction with issues pertaining to promotion and advancement, support provided by the organization, and workload. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 56 commitment - differ across cultures? What is the role of sector differences in a non- Western culture? Better understanding of the cultural aspect would greatly contribute to the current body of knowledge in the area, which is primarily Westem-oriented. The insights would be useful for academicians and practitioners in different cultures as well as those in the Western societies with an increasingly diverse workforce. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 57 CHAPTER 3 Theoretical Framework and Hypothesis Development As there are many antecedents to organizational commitment, there are also many theories pertaining to them. However, in this study, the focus is on the psychological- behavioral antecedents.6 In other words, what incentives, inducements or motivations affect individual employees and get them to feel committed to their organizations? This theoretical focus is adopted because a lot of empirical studies have already explored person-individual characteristics and work-job experiences. Two major theoretical perspectives - rational-choice and humanistic - are reviewed. These theories best explain the two-dimensional concept of organizational commitment, which is comprised of affective-attitudinal commitment and calculative-continuance commitment (Morrow, 1993). Subsequently, testable hypotheses regarding various types of commitment as well as commitment antecedents are developed. To review the rational-choice and humanistic perspectives, two levels of analysis - micro-individual and macro-structural - are adopted. Under the rational-choice perspective, neo-economic theory is presented as the theoretical explanation of psychological nature and motivation of commitment while agency theory is presented as the theoretical explanation of organizational-structural behaviors and patterns of commitment. Under the humanistic perspective, communitarian theory and collaborative theory are presented as the alternative theoretical explanations of commitment. 6 Commitment antecedents are categorized as: i) psychological-behavioral; ii) person-individual; and iii) work-job experience. While all categories are addressed, this study focuses on the psychological- behavioral antecedents. Refer to Table 2.5 in Chapter 2 for more details. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 58 Table 3.1: Theoretical Framework and Level of Analysis P erspective Level o f A nalysis ---------------- R ational-C hoice H um anistic M icro -In d ivid ual (Decision Process) M acro-S tructural (Relationship between Individual and Organization) Neo-economic Agency Theory Communitarian* Collaborative * Communitarian theory encompasses both micro-individual and macro-structural levels. Here, it is used to explain an individual’s decision-making process in which the “socio-economic” or “collective rationality” (Etzioni’s argument o f the I&We paradigm, 1961) are key assumptions. A. Rational Choice Perspective The rational choice perspective looks at organizational commitment as a rational decision process - an individual reacts to certain inducements or stimuli or behaviors induced through the contract relationship between employees and organizations. Neo- economic theory explains the micro-level or individual level of this process while agency theory explains the macro or structural level of this rational process of commitment development. 1. Neo-Economic Theory - Commitment as an Individual Choice The underlying assumptions of neo-economics are that individuals are rational agents who attempt to maximize their own interests and are primarily motivated by economic utilities and benefits. According to this view, commitment is a choice (Boyd, 1992) that a rational individual makes in response to certain triggers. This choice is often considered to be a zero-sum game - an individual either pursues his or her interests or is Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 59 committed to contributing to the organization’s interests. Motivations and needs are the key to inducing individual choices to participate, produce, and contribute to the organization. Barnard’s ideas of an organization as a “cooperative system” (Barnard, 1938) and the importance of motivating individual employees to participate and contribute have been invoked often (March and Simon, 1958; Wilson, 1995; Scott, 1998). To Barnard, organizations must rely on the willingness of participants to contribute toward a shared purpose, and such contributions must be induced through a variety of incentives (Scott, 1998, p. 67). March and Simon articulate the two types of decisions to contribute - to participate and to produce - and also argue that contribution can be encouraged through various inducements (March and Simon, 1958; Mayer and Schoorman, 1992). The decision to participate in an organization is based on the utilities of staying in comparison with the perceived desirability of leaving and the ease of movement from the organization (March and Simon, 1958, p. 93). Becker also proposes a side-bets theory, which is consistent with March and Simon’s decision criteria to participate. He contends that commitment is a function of the accumulation of side-bets (invested time, efforts, money), which would be lost if participation in an organization is discontinued (Becker, 1960 cited in Liou et al, 1994). The decision to produce is based on individual goals and values, perceived consequences and alternatives (March and Simon, 1958, p. 53) and, most importantly, the perceived inducements. The theories of inducements, motivations and needs are elaborated in more detail by Maslow (1943), Staw (1976) and Wilson (1995). Maslow Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 60 posits that human beings are insatiable, that is, their motivations have to be satisfied in a hierarchy of needs - physiological, safety, love, esteem, and self-actualization respectively (Maslow, 1943). Staw distinguishes extrinsic and intrinsic motivations and argues that the use of both motivations can lead to employees’ participation, persistence, satisfaction and performance (Staw, 1976). Wilson proposes that incentives include both tangible and intangible rewards. He further distinguishes four types of incentives - material, specific solidary incentives, collective solidary incentives, and purposive incentives - and argues that relying on one would not suffice in inducing commitment (Wilson, 1995). However, while scholars discuss various stimuli and inducements that could determine the choice, economic (especially extrinsic) inducements are primarily emphasized and the complicated nature of human needs is often ignored or over simplified. The neo-economic perspective - that views commitment as a rational decision process in the tradition of Simon or March and Simon - has dominated the contemporary research stream of organizational commitment (Balfour and Wechsler, 1994). Nonetheless, theories under this perspective are deficient in several areas. Some theorists tend to assume that shared and congruent goals between an organization and an individual can be achieved through the use of incentives. In reality, aligning goals could prove to reflect more than the individual’s choice (it also reflects institutional/social influence) and thus it requires more than the adoption of simple incentive schemes. In addition to multiple and complex inducements, scholars also note that self-interested individuals can also have multiple selves, a notion labeled by some scholars as “protean Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 61 man” (Lifton, 1993). People possess multiple roles, have to pursue multiple interests, and face multiple choices simultaneously. The idea of multiple selves suggests that the economic model of a self-interested agent should be more complicated in reality. This perspective oversimplifies the individual decision process. The complexity of human nature, and the relationships between individuals and organizations and among individuals in the same work context, are not adequately addressed. 2. Agency Theory Agency theory, one of the neo-institutional economic theories, which strongly upholds rational-choice assumptions, provides an interesting explanation as to the relationships between employees (agent) and organizations (principal) and the subsequent contractual arrangements. According to agency theory, organizational commitment is explained in terms of the employee-employer contract relationship. Agency theory assumes that rational individual employees are not likely to be committed after entering a contract and have to be manipulated through various mechanisms in order to maintain desirable behaviors such as commitment. The central concept of agency theory is the assumed conflict of interest between employees and organizations (Cyert and March, 1963; Kallebert et al, 1993; Barney and Hesterly, 1996). It is assumed that self-interested individuals will pursue their own goals, which are not necessarily consistent with those of the principals or organizations. Two key issues at the heart of agency theory are adverse selection and moral hazard. There is no perfect way to reveal the existence of this conflict of interest when an individual Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 62 decides to participate in an organization due to the problem of ex-ante incomplete information - hence, the adverse selection problem. In a given contractual relationship where the principal delegates authority to the agent, the principal cannot have complete information and the ability to consistently monitor the agent. Thus, there is no guarantee that the agent will be committed to deliver the services ex-post - hence, the moral hazard problem. Agency theory also posits that individuals have a tendency toward opportunism, shirking and free-riding. Agency theorists posit that individuals tend to exert less commitment once they are already in the contract relationship. According to this view, organizations try to establish credible commitment from their employees by devising objective conditions to discourage or prevent such opportunistic behaviors (Tang et al, 1996). To create such objective conditions, mechanisms such as screening, incentive alignment, monitoring, and enforcement of rewards and punishments are commonly prescribed by agency theorists (Cyert and March, 1963). Neo-institutional economics and agency theory in particular, is useful in that it provides an analytical framework that recognizes the inter-related role of both individual agents and institutional forces via governance mechanisms. This view also attempts to portray a more complex, albeit negative, picture of human beings - one with bounded rationality, opportunistic potential, and goal conflicts with their principals and organizations. With such assumptions of human nature, neo-institutional economists introduce the role bounded rational agent who decides to contribute and commit not because of shared purpose a-la Barnard, but because it is worthwhile in a game theory Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 63 sense (North, 1991, p. 97). The role of an institution in this context is an “instrument” to induce desirable aggregate behaviors. Despite its insightful framework, many scholars voice concerns regarding this perspective’s problems and limitations. Granovetter argues that even though neo-institutional economics has incorporated the role of social institutions, its underlying assumptions still over-emphasize self- interested rationality (Granovetter, 1985, p. 482). For example, institutional arrangements and mechanisms are presented as instrumental means or “humanly devised constraints that structure human interactions” (North, 1994, p. 360). The idea that rewards and punishments are to be used to induce certain aggregate behaviors implies the self-interested rationality of each atomistic individual agent. Furthermore, Barney and Flesterly (1996) argue that the assumption of opportunistic individuals is unrealistic and pessimistic. Neo-institutional economics’ primary focus on extrinsic rewards and punishment reflects a simplistic if not pessimistic view of human nature and an over emphasis on control. These scholars argue that too much emphasis on negative human aspects and control would only undermine moral potential and bring out even more negativity in human beings. B. Humanistic Perspective The humanistic perspective looks at organizational commitment also as the psychological and behavioral responses of individual employees to certain motivations. The major view that distinguishes the humanistic perspective from the rational-choice perspective is that the humanistic perspective does not assume that commitment is a Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 64 rational response of self-interested individuals nor is it simply behavior manipulated by organizational control mechanisms. 1. Communitarian Theory Communitarianism emerged in the late 1970s and early 1980s to challenge the rational-economic assumptions and argue that individuals are both rational and social agents at the same time, pursuing both self-interests and moral values. Communitarian scholars argue that the concept of humans as atomistic ego-centric rational agents pursuing their self-interests is simply a product of an inadequate paradigm and does not really reflect the true nature of humans. People are not radically individualistic and pursue only their own interests. People want to do good, they want to be a part of group, organization, community, or something larger than the narrowly defined world of the atomistic agent (Bellah et al, 1985) and want to contribute to collective interests. According to this view, individual employees intrinsically derive satisfaction from their job or organization, and satisfied employees or happy employees are more likely to contribute to collective interests (Ostroff, 1992) and to work harder and better (Etzioni, 1961). Key assumptions of communitarianism are based on what Etzioni calls “the socio economic view”, which posits that: i) individual self-interests and social-moral values and commitments may differ and may create conflicts (Etzioni, 1988); and ii) the social and collective context supersedes the individual as a decision-making agent (Etzioni, 1988; Selznick, 1992). While recognizing the role of both social and economic factors, Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 65 communitarians emphasize the overriding role of social and moral factors, the collectivity before the atomistic self. For example, “collective rationality” - decision-making at the collective-level through participation and involvement - is more important than individual rationality (Etzioni, 1988) and moral commitment - a sense of moral obligation to the organization - is more important to organizations than commitment resulting from hierarchical coercion and economic incentives (Etzioni, 1961). Communitarian scholars generally advocate strategies that probe into intrinsic or internally-driven incentives, making employees more intrinsically satisfied and happy. The implications of communitarian theory as it pertains to our understanding of self and collective interest are useful. Individuals are seen as rational as well as social-moral agents. With a combination of motivational factors such as economic incentives and, more importantly, intrinsic incentives and participation and engagement in collective decision-making and activities, moral coiftmitment toward collective interests can be fostered. 2. Collaborative Theory Influenced by various disciplines - including psychology, sociology, physics, and biology among many - the new philosophical and theoretical ideas under what we call the collaborative perspective have been generated to challenge the dominant paradigm of rational-economic, bureaucratic, and mechanistic thinking. Various theories and organizational-management practices have been developed recently under the Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 66 philosophical and theoretical umbrella of the collaborative paradigm.7 Collaborative paradigm scholars argue that the old model of organizing based on the rational-choice perspective is no longer appropriate in today’s world (Robertson, 1999). This new perspective calls for radical change of the underlying assumptions about human nature and behaviors, arguing that such assumptions are not the undisputable truth but rather a product of the Enlightenment philosophy, scientific and industrial revolutions (Wheatley, 1992). New underlying assumptions are proposed: i) individuals can be collaborative and have social-moral potential to pursue collective interests; ii) new organizational purposes, structures, designs, and incentive mechanisms consistent with collaborative assumptions would bring out desirable behaviors such as organizational commitment; and iii) management’s and leaders’ role is not to control (as is the key idea of Theory X) but to encourage and facilitate the collaborative nature and development of employees (Theory Y: McGregor, 1957). The collaborative assumptions espouse the humanistic view and reflect the human relations school’s key idea of the “cooperative system,” where individuals are believed to be willing to cooperate and contribute toward a common purpose (Barnard, 1938). The key departure of the collaborative perspective from the Bamardian human relations school, we believe, is that while Barnard does not adequately address the potential 7 Theories under the collaborative paradigm include ideas and concepts such as quantum physics, ecological models, living organization, adaptive and learning organization, self-organizing, chaos and complexity theory, participatory or democratic organization, decentralization, network, stewardship theory, and transformative leadership. We selectively discuss the ideas and concepts that are relevant to the issue o f self and collective interests in an organizational context. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 67 differences in interests of individuals and the organization, collaborative scholars recognize the unique set of individual interests that could differ from but not necessarily be in conflict with the organization’s. Also, as Barnard advocated that common purpose could be achieved through leaders’ actions, scholars criticize him for being patriarchal in putting power solely in the leader’s hand (Dennard, 1996). In the new collaborative perspective, Argyris (1973) and Block (1993) argue that “self-actualizing individuals” do have their own interests but are willing to be accountable for some larger body than themselves and are likely to put collective interests before their own. In this view, the distinct self and collective interests do not reflect conflict, but potential for harmony: individual interests could be maximized if collective interests are realized. According to the collaborative perspective, individual employees are seen as capable of aligning self and collective interests and contributing to collective interests, while the management or leaders are seen as taking the new role of facilitator, allowing for co-leadership, shared power and gaining collaboration from employees. Such thinking is reflected in stewardship theory and new leadership theory. Stewardship theory posits that an individual is a steward whose interests can be easily convergent with the organization’s and who will act to preserve the value of cooperation, collaboration, moral duty, and contribution toward realizing collective interests and goals (Davis et al, 1997; Gibson, 2000). Intrinsic incentives such as identification with organization’s values and missions, high-order needs (Maslow, 1970), appreciation and recognition, satisfaction of social and moral commitment are often advocated by stewardship scholars. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 68 As individual employees are seen as collaborative agents willing to contribute to collective interests and to be committed to their organizations, the role of management and leaders would become one that articulates visions and values necessary to intrinsically motivate employees, facilitates collaborative behaviors and commitment rather than using authority and imposing orders, and shares power with employees through co-leadership, employee empowerment and autonomy and participation (Senge, 1990; Wheatley, 1992; Block, 1993; De Geus, 1997; Robertson, 1999; Hock, 1999; Bennis, 2000; Capra, 2002). In this sense, leaders do not dictate what interests, values or missions to believe in and what tasks to perform, but rather work with employees to continuously and collectively define organizational interests, values, and missions as the situation facing the organization changes. The theories and practices comprising the collaborative perspective are not without criticism. As these theories rest on the premise that individuals are collaborative and moral in nature (Albanese et al, 1997) and are willing to collaborate, contribute, and trust others, critics argue that this premise is over-optimistic and over-socialized and under-estimates self-interest and risks in establishing reciprocal relationships as well as the stability of existing power relations. Which theoretical perspective better explains organizational commitment? This question might be rather irrelevant. Both rational-choice and humanistic perspectives have pros and cons. Both theoretical perspectives explain organizational commitment, just from different angles. Thus, both perspectives are valuable if we want to comprehend commitment as complex human psychology and behavior. With this in Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 69 mind though, scholars have observed that the rational-choice perspective influences most contemporary studies (Balfour and Wechsler, 1994). The bias toward the rational-choice perspective could be because it is easier to translate the extrinsically-driven concepts into measurable constructs in research studies. To adequately study organizational commitment, both rational-choice and humanistic perspectives should be employed. As Tang et al comment in their theoretical review: One conclusion of this analysis was that the study of commitment would be enhanced if both perspectives were used simultaneously to explore the processes through which commitment among organizational members is generated (Tang et al, 1996, p. 289-290). C. Linking the Theoretical Frameworks to Commitment Antecedents How do the rational-choice and humanistic theoretical frameworks actually explain the development of organizational commitment? The linkages between theories and commitment antecedents to be explored in this study are specified as follows: i) the rational-choice (RC) framework underlies extrinsic or externally driven antecedents and ii) the humanistic (H) framework underlies intrinsic or internally driven antecedents. Thus, splitting the box in the model into two parts makes sense (refer to Figure 3.1). In turn, extrinsically-driven antecedents are hypothesized to contribute to calculative-continuance commitment. The intrinsically-driven antecedents are hypothesized to contribute to attitudinal-affective as well as normative commitment (NC is included for exploratory purpose). Ultimately, all types of commitment might contribute to the overall commitment feeling. All these relationships form the Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 70 comprehensive framework explaining the theoretically-derived development process of organizational commitment (shown in Figure 3.1). Figure 3.1: Theoretical Frameworks for Commitment Antecedents ccc AAC NC oc Work-Job Experience Person-Individual Characteristics Extrinsic/Externally Driven (Rational-Choice/ R-C) Psychological-Behavioral Antecedents Intrinsic/Internally Driven (Humanistic/H) Note: The bold arrows represent hypothesized relationships explored in this study. The person-individual characteristics and work-job experience antecedents might also contribute to various commitment types and ultimately to organizational commitment as represented by dotted-line arrows, but these are not the primary focus o f this study. This theoretical framework is obviously a simplified conceptual model of the reality of organizational commitment development. Scholars in the rational-choice tradition as well as the humanistic tradition have extended their theories to encompass the complexity of human nature and behavior. For example, rational choice theorists have agreed that intrinsic incentives are also important to the rational process (Williamson, 1985), while humanistic theorists have agreed that rationality exists even with intrinsic motives and within a sociological and relational context (Kalleberg and Torger, 1993). However, it is argued in this study that the primary focus of each framework can still be Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 71 clearly delineated. In other words, the rational-choice framework emphasizes extrinsic incentives while the humanistic framework emphasizes intrinsic motivations affecting human psychology and behavior. It can be argued that some work-job experience antecedents could also be partially explained by the rational-choice and humanistic perspectives. For example, commitment driven by agreement with the job description and scope can be seen in rational terms (agreement with the technical aspect of the job makes it easier to perform tasks) as well as in humanistic terms (agreement with the intrinsic nature of the job increases motivation). By the same token, commitment driven by leadership and relationships with people can also be seen in rational terms (leaders, supervisors and peers provide supervision and technical support for the job) as well as humanistic terms (people enjoy their relationships with the leaders, supervisors and peers). In short, these antecedents are not clearly delineated by the strict definitions of the rational-choice and humanistic perspectives. Work-job experience antecedents as well as demographic-occupational factors (person-individual characteristics) are explored in this study (and labeled as “extra” and “control” variables, respectively, in the statistical analyses) since a number of empirical studies have shown that they can contribute to organizational commitment. However, it should be noted that these antecedents are not the primary focus of the study and are not part of the hypothesis testing. The findings and implications concerning the extras and controls are discussed in the Results and Discussion chapters as they provide interesting insights without which a complete understanding of commitment cannot be obtained. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 72 D. Key Testable Hypotheses The purpose of this research is to explore organizational commitment in different sectors, while controlling for industry. Hence, the hypotheses developed primarily entail sector comparisons. The key objectives for the hypotheses examined in this study are: ♦ To empirically test the levels and types of commitment in the two sectors and empirically determine whether or not sector differences exist. ♦ To empirically explore what antecedents contribute to overall commitment and the three types of commitment, whether or not sector differences exist, and if so, how. ♦ To empirically explore the relationships among the three types of commitment, and, to explore which among the three types contributes most to the ultimate commitment feeling, and whether sector differences exist. 1. Comparing Commitment between Sectors The general perception is that private sector employees are more committed than public sector employees (Buchanan, 1974; Angle and Perry, 1983; Bozeman, 1987). The hypothesis regarding commitment level can be stipulated as: HI: Private sector employees’ overall commitment score > Public sector employees’ overall commitment score. However, as argued before, the general presupposition that private sector commitment is higher than that in the public sector might not be adequate. Commitment levels might differ between sectors when commitment is distinguished into different Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 73 types. Previous empirical studies have also shown that AAC tends to be stronger in the public sector than in the private sector and CCC tends to be stronger in the private sector than in the public sector. Empirical studies on NC are still lacking. However, based on the assumption that public sector employees are motivated more by intrinsically-driven incentives than extrinsically-driven incentives, NC might be stronger in the public sector than in the private sector. Given, these prior assumptions, the following hypotheses can be stipulated: H2: Public sector employees’ AAC > Private sector employees’ AAC. H3: Private sector employees’ CCC > Public sector employees’ CCC. H4: Public sector employees’ NC > Private sector employees’ NC. 2. Exploring and Comparing Commitment Antecedents Across Sectors To simplify the attempt to explain how potential antecedents might contribute to organizational commitment, two theoretical frameworks - rational choice and humanistic - were adopted and various antecedents were classified according to which of the two frameworks they were most relevant.8 The rationale for classification of these antecedents is based on a review of relevant literature and previous research on commitment antecedents (Robertson et al, 2002). Availability of opportunities or perceived opportunities, representing the cost of leaving (Becker, 1960), and extrinsic compensations-inducements are clearly the major themes espoused by the rational-choice 8 These potential commitment antecedents were first identified empirically, based on the data. After these antecedents were identified, they were classified under the appropriate theoretical frameworks. The analytical and statistical processes used to derive these commitment antecedents are discussed in detail in Chapter 4. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 74 theorists (March and Simon, 1958; Becker, 1960; Cyert and March, 1963). These two antecedents clearly show the underlying individualistic rational assumption. Thus, they are categorized as rational-choice antecedents in this study. The other antecedents - intrinsic rewards (satisfaction and fulfillment intrinsically derived from the job), perception that one can contribute to the organization and have impact on others, and belief in the organization’s mission - can be considered value- oriented and are often espoused by scholars in the humanistic tradition. While some rational-choice scholars have attempted to stretch the notion of rationality to include the value-oriented antecedents, such a stretch has been severely criticized as over-extending the concept of rationality into “virtual rationality” (Pettit, 1996). These antecedents clearly show the internally driven, intangible and moral assumption of human nature (Etzioni, 1961, Selznick, 1992; Agyris, 1973; Block, 1993) and thus remain under the humanistic tradition. Thus, these three antecedents are categorized as humanistic antecedents in this study. Several antecedents - categorized as extra and control antecedents in this study - cannot be easily categorized; they do not clearly belong to either framework and some seem to be explained by both frameworks. These antecedents include work-job experience, organizational features, relationships with people in the organizations, and individual features and demographic-occupational antecedents. The link between work- job experience and organizational commitment, in contrast, can be explained by both the rational-choice and humanistic frameworks. It is rational for individual employees who have positive experiences at the work place to want to give more commitment in Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 75 exchange and it is equally true that an employee who has fulfilling and meaningful experiences would place higher value on commitment. Moreover, it might even be argued that intrinsically-driven and morally-driven motives of commitment are simply another manifestation of rationality (although this is certainly a very broad conceptualization of rationality). These complications make it impossible to clearly categorize several antecedents, which are then labeled as extras in this study. These extra antecedents are explored not as a part of the hypothesis testing, but for their potentially interesting insights. Furthermore, demographic and occupational antecedents such as gender, education, managerial position and time spent at organization may be better explained by theories (e.g., attribution theory) other than the rational-choice and humanistic frameworks, or may simply have independent effects on commitment. Gender for example, does not represent either the rational-choice or humanistic explanation but is simply an individual characteristic that may be related to different levels or types of commitment. Since these relationships are not the focus of this study, they are categorized and included in this study as the control variables. Industry is also included as control variable. Table 3.2: Theoretical Framework and Potential Antecedents T heoretical F ram ew ork C ategory o f A n tec ed e n ts V ariables R ational-choice (R-C) Opportunity and other choice Extrinsic rewards and com pensation Other_Opportunity Extrinsic rewards H um anistic (H) Intrinsic rewards Perception of self-importance and impact Belief in organization’s mission lntrinsic_rewards Impact Mission Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 76 Table 3.2: Theoretical Framework and Potential Antecedents (Continued) T heoretical Fram ew ork C ategory o f A n tec ed e n ts V ariables E xtras (O verlapping o r not falling in to R-C o r H) Individual attributes and personal values Work-job experience Leadership Feeling regarding organization Relationships with others at organization lnd_attributes W orkjob_experience Leadership Feelings Relationships C o n tro ls (D em ographic an d O ccupational) G ender Education Managerial position Time spent at organization Industry G ender_new Education M ngt_positionnew Tim e_spent Transportl Transport2 Table 3.2 shows the theoretical frameworks and subsequent theory-based categories of the organizational antecedents explored in this study. These antecedents are used as independent variables in exploring what contributes to organizational commitment, including the three types of commitment and subsequent sector comparisons. Specific testable hypotheses are developed as follows. Private sector employees are traditionally thought to be driven by economic motives more than public sector employees, who are thought to be driven by value motives (Perry and Wise, 1990). Thus, the hypothesis to be tested in this study is that: H5: Humanistic antecedents are positively related to overall commitment in the public sector. H6: Rational-choice antecedents are positively related to overall commitment in the private sector. When looking at the three different types of commitment, humanistic antecedents are hypothesized to be the major driver of AAC and NC, regardless of sector. On the other hand, CCC is hypothesized to be driven primarily by rational choice antecedents, Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 77 again regardless of sector. The rationale for these hypotheses is that AAC is conceptualized as emotional attachment and value-oriented, and therefore it is logical to associate this dimension of commitment with humanistic value-oriented antecedents. In contrast, CCC is conceptualized as the dimension of commitment related to costs and economic concerns, and therefore it is reasonable to associate this dimension of commitment with rational-choice antecedents. NC has not been clearly theorized and conceptualized. However, as it seems reasonable to argue that a sense of obligation and duty could be related to the emotional and value-oriented motives rather than pure economic reasoning, for exploratory purposes, humanistic antecedents are hypothesized to be positively related to NC. The testable hypotheses are as follows: H7: Humanistic, not rational-choice, antecedents are positively related to AAC in both sectors. H8: Rational-choice, not humanistic, antecedents are positively related to CCC in both sectors. H9: Humanistic, not rational-choice, antecedents are positively related to NC in both sectors. The last hypothesis to be explored in this study is also exploratory, addressing the question, which among the three types of commitment contributes the most to the ultimate commitment feeling? CCC is dismissed as the candidate since previous studies have found that employees with high CCC tend to be poor performers who stay with their organization because of necessity rather than out of not true commitment (Seligman, 1975; Konovsky and Cropanzano, 1991; Shore and Wayne, 1993). Not much is known Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 78 about NC because of little research on this dimension, while a large body of research has confirmed positive linkages between AAC and various positive commitment outcomes. The last hypothesis is, therefore, developed as follows: H10: AAC is most related to commitment feeling.9 9 “Commitment feeling” is an exploratory concept. In this study, it is measured through the question o f whether or not respondents feel committed to their organizations (yes or no). This is an attempt to gauge respondents’ ultimate feeling regarding their commitment. Details on this measure and operationalization o f the variable are discussed in Chapter 4. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 79 CHAPTER 4 Methods This chapter discusses the methodological processes and tools used in this research in the following order. Section A provides details regarding the sample and sampling techniques. Section B discusses the design of the questionnaire and creation of the measures. Section C discusses the data collection process including implementation of the survey, coding and formatting the data. Lastly, section D discusses data analysis plans including statistical models and methods. A. Sample Organizations in the transportation industry in Thailand were chosen to participate in this study because this industry offers an ideal and interesting focus for the research sample. Continuously invested in and developed by both public and private organizations, the transportation industry has been a high priority on the national development agenda of Thailand. It is an industry where public and private organizations have been integrating and closely collaborating. Some public and private organizations have been performing very similar operations and providing very comparable services, and they face very similar market conditions and environments. For example, the expressway system in Thailand is operated by a public organization (Expressway and Rapid Transit Authority of Thailand) as well as a privately owned concessionaire (Bangkok Expressway Company Limited). This means that both organizations provide similar services to the same clientele and face the exact same market conditions (namely, Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 80 competition from other means of public transportation, effects of gas price on use of private vehicles, inflation rate vs. pricing for expressway fees, etc.). Aside from a certain degree of comparability, several characteristics inherent to the two sectors can also be noted. For instance, the public sector in Thailand is often associated with an honorable career (albeit for lower pay), job stability and long-term benefits (health insurance, tenure, pension funds, etc.). Therefore, public officials and employees of state-owned enterprises tend to stay at their organizations for a long period of time if not for life. In the private sector, on the other hand, the pay is generally higher (for the comparable position and industry) but long-term employment and additional benefits are not always guaranteed. Private organizations are not required by law to provide health insurance and pension to their employees unless they are registered in Thailand’s Stock Exchange. Thus, job mobility is relatively more prevalent. Private sector employees would be more likely move around in response to job opportunities and market conditions. Given these unique conditions, the transportation industry showed great promise to provide a sample that both controls for industry and allows the comparison of sector specific aspects. A total of six organizations comprise this sample. They were selected according to: ♦ Representation of industry and sectors - targeted organizations represent the transportation industry in both the public and private sectors. ♦ Diversity - targeted organizations represent the various areas of the transportation industry: A) riverway system; B) expressway system; and C) subway system. Since Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 81 each type of transportation system might have unique inherent characteristics, including various areas of transportation could provide interesting system-specific insights. Also, including organizations from various types of transportation systems helps increase the generalizability of the sample. ♦ Voluntariness - organizations included in this sample participated on a voluntary basis with no compensation. Three of these organizations are governmental or public and the other three are private organizations. All six are located in Bangkok, Thailand. Three public and three private organizations were chosen in order to provide pair-wise representation of these transportation agencies. The six organizations are identified below. Table 4.1: Six Organizations Comprising the Sample Type of T ran sp o rtatio n Nam e S ecto r Type of O rganization No. Of S taff A. Riverway Harbor Department Public Ministry of Transportation 750 Chao Phraya Express Boat Co., Ltd. Private Privately owned com pany 300 B. E xpressw ay Expressway and Rapid Transit Authority of Thailand (ERTA) Public State-owned enterprise 5000 Bangkok Expressway Public Co., Ltd. (BECL) Private Privately owned company, listed in the stock market 600 C. S ubw ay M ass Rapid Transit Authority of Thailand (MRTA) Public State-owned enterprise 300 Bangkok Metro Co., Ltd. (BMCL) Private Privately owned com pany 800 A stratified sampling method was employed; an equal number of questionnaires was distributed to each organization and respondents from all departments at each organization were randomly chosen to participate in the survey. This sampling method allows for equal representation of all organizations comprising the sample as well as Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 82 appropriate representation of various departments within each organization.1 0 While simple random sampling is generally considered to be the ideal method to best minimize sampling error (Kalton, 1983; Henry, 1990; Fowler, 1993), stratified sampling was chosen due to time and resource limitations. A stratified sampling method, is however, also widely acceptable and offers a number of advantages (Kalton, 1983). The expected sample size can be pre-determined (150 questionnaires for each of the six organizations) and stratification helps insure proportional representation of the sample. The random selection of the sample was achieved as respondents were chosen on a random and voluntary basis. It must be noted that the participating organizations insisted on distributing the questionnaires to their employees themselves rather than allowing the researcher to administer the questionnaire distribution. While the organization representatives were instructed to distribute the questionnaires to all departments and the employees’ participation to be on a random and voluntary basis, potential biases by these representatives could have influenced the questionnaire distribution.1 1 Nevertheless, any such biases are not expected to be significant since the respondents were informed on the questionnaire that their responses would remain anonymous. The sample is comprised of the responses actually gathered from the six organizations. The total number of responses is 614 - 303 from the public organizations and 311 from the private organizations. This number is large enough to meet the 1 0 This also helps prevent potential over-representation o f certain organizations or respondents from certain departments or o f certain positions, which could result in biases in the sample. 1 ' For example, the organization representatives might have distributed questionnaires to employees who were likely to response more positively. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 83 acceptable sample size rule of 20:1 cases to variables ratio for multiple regression or 40:1 for step-wise regression (Tabachnick and Fidell, 1983; De Vaus, 2002). More specific information regarding the sample profile is provided in Chapter 5. B. Design of Questionnaire and Measures Organizational commitment is known to be a very abstract and complex construct and therefore difficult to define and measure (Becker, 1992; Morrow, 1993; Meyer and Allen, 1997; Cohen, 2003). There is no single measure that can adequately capture this construct. However, since organizational commitment is believed to be pivotal for organizational performance and survival in any industry and sector, an attempt to empirically measure and study commitment is warranted. The questionnaire used in this research study was consequently designed to: i) quantitatively measure various dimensions and proxies of commitment and its potential antecedents in order to ii) provide appropriate variables with which the proposed hypotheses can be statistically tested. The questions included in the final version of the questionnaire were derived from the review of the organizational commitment literature, previous research (Robertson et al, 2002)1 2 and additional exploratory ideas. The questionnaire consists of three main sections - Section 1, 2 and 3. Refer to the questionnaire - English and Thai versions - in Appendix I and Appendix II. 1 2 More details are provided in Section 2: Measuring Commitment Antecedents. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 84 1. Three Sections of the Questionnaire 1.1 Section 1 Section 1 of the questionnaire consists of eight either-or and multiple-choice questions that require a choice of either yes or no or a choice from among listed items in response to hypothetical situation statements. The questions in this section attempt to gauge the respondents’ attitudes regarding their collectivism and self-interest value. They were asked whether, in given situations, they would usually choose to pursue their own interest first or to pursue their organization’s interest first. Furthermore, the questions also probe into the respondents’ feeling of commitment to their organization. By asking them whether or not they feel committed to their organizations in general, the question forces the respondents into the simple binary choice of whether they do or do not feel committed to their organization. This question enables the researcher to gauge the respondents’ ultimate feeling regarding their commitment. While it can be argued that this yes or no choice is uni-dimensional and does not provide a comprehensive measure of a multi-dimensional construct like organizational commitment (Davis, 2000), the answer to this question can reveal the overall or ultimate commitment feeling that respondents have toward their organizations. Other aspects relevant to commitment, namely, the commitment base (what they feel most committed to) and intention to leave the organization, are also explored in this section in order to offer additional perspectives on the nature of their commitment. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 85 1.2 Section 2 Section 2 of the questionnaire consists of 54 constructed scale questions. The questions in this section attempt to measure the different dimensions of organizational commitment as well as potential commitment antecedents. Respondents were asked to respond to each specific statement, using a 7-point scale with 1 indicating strong disagreement and 7 indicating strong agreement. The questions in section 2 can be divided into two major parts: the first part measures organizational commitment and the second part measures the potential antecedents of organizational commitment. The actual measures for organizational commitment and potential antecedents are discussed in detail in the next section. 1.3 Section 3 Section 3 consists of 13 questions regarding the respondents’ demographic information (e.g., age, gender, marital status), educational background, and occupational information (e.g., full-time vs. part-time, management vs. non-management, time spent at the organization, department, etc.). These questions are fill-in-the-blank (e.g., age, time spent at the organization, department) and multiple-choice types (e.g., levels of education, hold management position or not, etc.). It should be noted that not all items on the original questionnaire and data derived from them were used in this particular study. Only the information relevant to testing the hypotheses for this study was coded, formatted, operationalized, and included in the statistical analyses and discussion of results. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 86 2. Measures Questions asked in the survey are designed to provide “responses provoked in an artificial situation” that measure the concepts of interests (Fowler, 1993). The key concepts of interest1 3 for this study include: i) commitment feeling (whether or not respondents feel committed to their organizations at all); ii) commitment scores (the three dimensions or types of commitment and overall commitment); and iii) commitment antecedents. 2.1 Measuring Commitment Feeling The question “do you feel committed to your organization?” was asked in order to gauge the respondents’ overall or ultimate commitment feeling toward their organizations. The answer “yes” signifies commitment and the answer “no” signifies the lack of commitment. Some scholars have argued that organizational commitment cannot be adequately measured as a total condition whereby a yes or no choice would imply such a condition (Davis, 2000). This argument is justifiable, as a yes or no choice seems to overly simplify commitment. Nonetheless, this measure was included because it might provide a useful measure - especially when employees are forced to think about whether or not they feel committed to their organization at all. Without the choices of commitment in different degrees or commitment in different ways, their answer is expected to convey the ultimate or overall commitment feeling they have toward their current organization. 1 3 Only those measures that are operationalized and used as variables in statistical analyses are discussed. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 87 2.2 Measuring Three Dimensions of Commitment Recognizing that the commitment feeling (yes or no choice) might not adequately measure the complex concept of commitment, the well-established scales for organizational commitment developed by Meyer and Allen (1997) were adopted as more comprehensive measures. Meyer and Allen’s organizational commitment scale comprises 18 questions that gauge the three dimensions of commitment - AAC, CCC and NC. Questions 1 to 18 were based on Meyer and Allen’s revised version of their organizational commitment scale. This scale was chosen as the measurement tool, not only because it offers a more comprehensive and statistically sound measure but also because their conceptualization of the multiple dimensions of commitment is consistent with the theoretical framework of this research. Recall from the theory section that the present research integrates the two- dimensional framework (Morrow, 1993), which includes attitudinal-affective commitment (AAC) and calculative-continuance commitment (CCC), and Meyer and Allen’s three-component organizational commitment measure. Meyer and Allen commented on their commitment measurement scales that “the construct validity is of course an on-going process” (Meyer and Allen, 1997, p. 123), but they also argued that a number of empirical studies have shown positive support for the distinction between their three dimensions (McGee and Ford, 1987; Allen and Meyer, 1990; Reilly and Orsak, 1991; Meyer et al, 1991; Shore and Tetrick, 1991; Vendenberghe and Self, 1993; Blau, Paul and St. John, 1993; Moorman et al, 1993; Dunham et al, 1994; Hackett et al, 1994; Vendenberghe et al, 2001). Furthermore, Meyer and Allen’s three- Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 88 component scale has also been demonstrated through a number of empirical studies to have cross-cultural validity (Wasti, 2003). Allen and Meyer’s revised version of their organizational commitment scale measures: i) affective commitment (attitudinal-affective commitment or AAC in this study), ii) continuance commitment (calculative-continuance commitment or CCC in this study) and iii) normative commitment (normative commitment or NC). Each dimension of commitment is measured by a series of six questions requiring responses on a 7-point scale. The six scores on each dimension were averaged for each respondent to derive the final scores for the three dimensions of commitment. Table 4.2 illustrates the link between the theoretical framework and Allen and Meyer’s commitment scale. Table 4.3 provides details regarding the specific items developed by Meyer and Allen. Table 4.2: Linking Theoretical Framework to Measurement Framework Theoretical Framework (M orrow , 1993) Conceptual M easurement (M eyer and Allen, 1997) M easurem ent Tool (M eyer and A llen, 1997) Affective-attitudinal commitment Affective commitment 6 items (1-7 scale) Calculative-continuance commitment Continuance commitment 6 items (1-7 scale) N/A Normative commitment 6 items (1-7 scale) Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 89 Table 4.3: Meyer and Allen’s Commitment Three-Component Measurement Source: Meyer and Allen, 1997 (Note: R = Reverse scored questions) Affective (measuring AAC in this study) 1. I would be very happy to spend the rest of my career in this organization. 2 . 1 really feel a s if this organization's problem s are my own. 3 . 1 do not feel like “part of the family” at my organization. (R) 4. I do not feel “emotionally attached” to this organization. (R) 5. This organization h as a great deal of personal m eaning for me. 6 . 1 do not feel a strong se n se of belonging to my organization. (R)______ ____________________________ Continuance (measuring CCC in this study) 1. It would be very hard for m e to leave my organization right now, even if I w anted to. 2. Too much of my life would be disrupted if I decided I wanted to leave my organization right now. 3. Right now, staying with my organization is a m atter of necessity a s much a s desire. 4. I believe that I have too few options to consider leaving this organization. 5. One of the few negative consequences of leaving this organization would be the scarcity of available alternatives. 6. One of the major reasons I continue to work for this organization is that leaving would require considerable personal sacrifice; another organization may not match the overall benefits I have here. Normative (measuring NC in this study) 1. I do not feel any obligation to remain with my current employer. (R) 2. Even if it w ere to my advantage, I do not feel it would be right to leave my organization now. 3. I would feel guilty if I left my organization now. 4. This organization deserves my loyalty. 5 . 1 would not leave my organization right now b ecau se I have a se n se of obligation to the people in it. 6. I owe a great deal to my organization.___________________________________________________________ For this research, the three commitment scores were averaged in order to derive an “overall commitment score.” The creation of this new overall commitment score is an addition to Allen and Meyer’s organizational commitment scale. At first glance, this “overall commitment score” might sound contradictory to the raison d'etre of adopting Allen and Meyer’s scale; they attempted to establish the three distinct dimensions of organizational commitment, so why should these three dimensions be combined? The justification for creating the “overall commitment score” is that each and every individual employee’s commitment encompasses all these dimensions. Therefore, understanding the overall commitment is also valuable. Furthermore, the ultimate purpose of this research is not simply to distinguish the dimensions of organizational commitment but to comprehensively explore it and what factors encourage it. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 90 2.3 Measuring Commitment Antecedents Questions 19 to 54 were designed to capture various potential antecedents of organizational commitment. Potential antecedents were determined based on a review of existing organizational commitment antecedents literature (refer to the discussion of organizational commitment antecedents in Chapter 2) as well as the results from previous research on commitment antecedents1 4 (Robertson et al, 2002). The initial ideas for potential antecedents were derived theoretically because it is important to have an expansive list that encompasses antecedents already found to be empirically related to organizational commitment. The research by Robertson et al (2002) confirms that the inclusive list established in previous research contains essentially the same range of likely antecedents as those were indicated as important by young people interested in public sector careers. Thirty-six items were therefore designed as hypothetical statements asking for respondents’ perception of various factors likely to serve as antecedents to commitment (for more details, refer to questions 19-54 in the questionnaire in Appendix I and II and the list of all original antecedents from the questionnaire in Appendix III). For instance: “Working hard is my personal value” and “Loyalty to the organization is my personal 1 4 Some initial ideas regarding potential commitment antecedents were derived from the results o f previous research with Dr. Peter Robertson and fellow doctoral student Feng Wang at the University o f Southern California. The research was based on data collected from Master o f Public Policy, Public Administration and Health Administration students from 1994 to 2002 at the University o f Southern California. The 182 respondents in this sample represent people that we can safely presume want to pursue a career in the public sector. The research utilized a series o f open-ended questions asking respondents to explain what factors contributed to their commitment. Based on the answers, thirteen coding categories o f commitment determinants were identified, with inter-rating reliability o f 87.8% between the two coders. These categories include leadership, belief in mission/goals, extrinsic rewards, job satisfaction, autonomy, growth, organizational features, treatment by organization, climate/relationships, working conditions, personal attributes, equity/fairness, and external factors. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 91 value” convey personal values or attributes; “My organization provides me with adequate salary” and “My organization provides me with adequate rewards other than pay” address extrinsic rewards and compensation; “I feel that what I do is meaningful” and “I enjoy my work” focus on intrinsic satisfaction, etc. Exploratory factor analysis was later performed in order to empirically derive the final set of antecedent variables. More details on this analysis are discussed in the next section. Demographic and occupational information derived from section 3 of the questionnaire are used as control variables. Although these variables could also be considered as antecedents, they are not of primary interest in this study and thus are better used to control extraneous variance in the dependent variables. These controls include gender, educational level, time spent at organizations, and managerial position. C. Data Collection 1. Implementation of the Survey The first draft questionnaire was piloted at one private organization in Thailand (Ch. Kamchang Public Co., Ltd.). Forty copies were distributed and collected in October 2003. The pilot phase was carried out in order to determine whether the questions were clear in the Thai language and consistent to the English version (in terms of linguistic and cultural details and nuances) and how long respondents took in order to complete the questionnaire. The results and feedback were incorporated and the questionnaire was revised. Data were then collected through the questionnaire survey during January to March 2004 in Thailand. The organizations were given explanations about the research Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 92 project and then asked to participate in the survey. Though participation was voluntary, the respondents were informed that no compensation was to be provided and that their responses were to be used by the researcher only and to be kept confidential. One hundred and fifty sets of questionnaires were given to each organization. The questionnaires were randomly distributed by the organizations’ staff to employees in all departments in each organization. By the end of March 2004, 762 questionnaires of the total 900 questionnaires initially distributed were collected, giving a response rate of 85%. The response rate of each organization is shown in Table 4.4. The returned surveys were reviewed and screened for major problems. Thirty-seven questionnaires were subsequently excluded, as they were deemed inappropriate for research use. These include surveys where the respondents did not answer any questions, chose the same answers for all questions, or where patterns of inappropriate answers were detected. For instance, it was obvious that some respondents intentionally chose the answers to create patterns of 7-6-5-4-3-2-1 and/or 1-2-3-4-5-6-7. In the end, a total of 725 usable responses, or 80.5% of the total distributed questionnaires, were entered into the database. Note that questionnaires containing a few missing responses were considered usable. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 93 Table 4.4: Response Rates Type of T ran sp o rtatio n N am e S e c to r Type of O rganization N um ber of R e s p o n s e s A. Riverway Harbor Department Public Ministry of Transportation 127 (84.7%) Chao Phraya Express Boat Co., Ltd. Private Privately owned com pany 115(76.6% ) B. E xpressw ay Expressway and Rapid Transit Authority of Thailand (ERTA) Public State-owned enterprise 128(85.3% ) Bangkok Expressway Public Co., Ltd. (BECL) Private Privately owned company, listed in the stock market 150 (100% )1 5 C. S ubw ay M ass Rapid Transit Authority of Thailand (MRTA) Public State-owned enterprise 121 (80.6%) Bangkok Metro Co., Ltd. (BMCL) Private Privately owned com pany 122(81.3% ) 2. Coding and Formatting the Data Based on this dataset, the variables needed for the various statistical analyses were coded and formatted. This process included the following steps: ♦ Format raw data into a SAS-compatible data file. ♦ Designate the variables. Dependent variables (Y) were chosen for relevant statistical models. Control variables were assigned. Then, the list of independent variables was derived by identifying factor clusters among the items measuring potential antecedent variables. By identifying factor clusters to use as antecedent variables, parsimonious statistical models can be achieved. ♦ Perform step-wise regression analysis to determine the final list of variables to include in the model used for hypothesis testing. This allows for an optimum balance between parsimony and statistical explanatory power. 1 5 The 100% response rate is due to the exception that BECL requested extra questionnaire copies to be distributed to all employees. They then returned 150 copies randomly selected to represent the departmental structure o f their organization (hence the 100% response rate). Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 94 ♦ Perform statistical diagnostics to test for potential variable problems such as multicollinearity among potential independent variables. 2.1 Formatting the Raw Data Raw data - the answers from all usable questionnaires - were entered into Excel spreadsheets. The data entries were double checked for potential manual errors. Missing values or cases with item non-responses were identified. These missing values are not avoidable in most questionnaire surveys and could hamper statistical accuracy (Fowler, 1993). Missing values were treated in two ways. First, the imputation method was adopted in order to compensate for these missing cases (Kalton, 1983), while not having to omit them entirely from the dataset. Imputation was done for the questionnaire missing responses that are part of multiple-scale items, namely, the items that comprise the AAC, CCC and NC. The available values1 6 for each respondent were averaged and the average value was used to replace the missing response. Cases missing responses on single-item variables’ were omitted from the analysis.1 7 After these omissions, the final sample size without missing cases is 614 (15.31% decrease from the total sample of usable questionnaires). The coding and formatting were done through the statistical software Stat/Transfer,1 8 which transfers raw data from the Excel file into a SAS1 9 compatible data 1 6 Answers that the respondents provided o f the group o f six items for each o f the commitment dimensions. 1 7 Omitting the entire case as missing values cannot be imputed based on case means. 1 8 Stat/Transfer version 6, Circle System Inc., Seattle, Washington. 1 9 SAS version 8.2, SAS Institute Inc., Cary, North Carolina. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 95 file. Additional coding and formatting for dummy and categorical variables were also done in the data step (SAS commands to code variables) in the SAS program. 2.2 Designating Variables Dependent Variables Dependent variables represent the two measures of overall organizational commitment and the three dimensions of commitment. These include: i) overall organizational commitment score (combining Meyer and Allen’s three commitment scores); ii) attitudinal-affective commitment score (AAC); iii) calculative-continuance commitment score (CCC); iv) normative commitment score (NC); and v) commitment feeling to organization in general (OC). Since Meyer and Allen’s three commitment scores are multiple-item type variables, reliability analysis was performed to confirm their internal consistency.2 0 Since the best method to test the reliability or internal consistency of multiple-item measures is the Cronbach alpha (De Vaus, 2002), this test was used on all three commitment scores. Standardized Cronbach alphas for the AAC, CCC and NC are 0.795, 0.817 and 0.763, respectively. These Cronbach alphas show that, based on this dataset, Meyer and Allen’s scores are statistically reliable. Control Variables A number of variables other than the antecedent variables, namely, demographic variables, occupational variables, and industry might have effects on organizational 2 0 Factor analysis was not performed on Meyer and Allen’s three-component scale because this measurement tool has been widely tested and used in commitment research. Thus, for this study, Meyer and Allen’s scale is treated as empirically grounded. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 96 commitment. However, the effects of these variables on commitment are not the primary interest of this study nor are they part of the hypotheses to be tested. Thus, these variables are included in statistical models as control variables in order to allow for their effects to be accounted for while not necessarily to be explored or discussed in detail. Control variables include gender, education, time spent at organizations, managerial position, and industry. Age, although measured, is not included as a control variable because it is highly correlated with time spent at the organization. The Pearson correlation coefficient between age and time is 0.8 with P < 0.0001. Older respondents are more likely to spend more time at their current organizations. Time at organization rather than age is included as a control since this variable provides more interesting insights and implications than does age. Industry variable was included to control for the transportation industry sub system variance across the sample. Type of transportation industry is denoted by: “Transport 1” where 1 = Expressway and 0 = Else “Transport2” where 1 = Riverway and 0 = Else Subway coefficient can be derived by intercept - PTransportationl - p Transportation Independent Variables As sector comparison is of primary interest in this study, sector variable was included as one of the predicting or independent variables. Sector is denoted by: “O rgsector” where 1 = Public sector and 0 = Private sector Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 97 To assess the independent antecedent variables, 36 items measuring potential commitment antecedents were included on the questionnaire. Since “a general principle of explanation is to seek the simplest powerful model or parsimony” (De Vaus, 2002, p. 356), it was statistically justified to create a reduced list of independent variables. Thus, exploratory factor analysis was utilized to create a shorter list of antecedent variables. This analysis was used to empirically determine the number of groups or clusters among the 36 items of potential antecedents and to determine which specific items load onto which factors. This analysis reduces the number of variables by identifying appropriate latent variables. Eight factors were extracted from the 36 questionnaire items. Table 4.5 shows the eigenvalues for these eight factors and the varimax orthogonal rotation factor loading values, indicating which items load onto which factors. The general rule of thumb for interpreting eigenvalues is that the eigenvalue should exceed one in order to indicate the presence of a factor. In this case, since iterated principal factor analysis indicates eight eigenvalues with values > 1, eight factors are statistically identified. Table 4.5: Factor Loading Patterns Note: Refer to Appendix IV for details o f variables F actor Loading /C luster F actor L oading V alues C o n stru ct/ V ariable E igenvalue L oaded V ariables 31 of total 36 V arim ax O rthogonal R otation F actor L oadings FACTOR 1 Work-job Experience (Extras) 13.3366392 Job_agreem ent Participation Autonomy Communication Work conditions 0.64694 0.77128 0.71396 0.70469 0.55780 FACTOR 2 Leadership (Extras) 3.2966374 Leader_respect L ead erjn sp ire Leader leadership 0.74028 0.66239 0.78312 Note: Information in parentheses shows the theoretically derived categories o f the variables. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 98 Table 4.5: Factor Loading Patterns (Continued) Note: Refer to Appendix III for details o f variables Factor Loading/Cluster Factor Loading Values Construct/ Eigenvalue Loaded Variables Varimax Variable 31 of total 36 Orthogonal Rotation Factor Loadings FACTOR 3 Intrinsic Rewards 2.7085005 Satisfaction 0.66151 (H) Meaning 0.75416 Enjoyment 0.69703 Challenge 0.74041 Growth 0.57421 FACTOR 4 Other 1.6334586 Difficultjob 0.85385 Opportunities R isk jo b 0.88172 (R-C) Difficult goodjob 0.85122 Risk goodjob 0.83163 FACTOR 5 Individual 1.4306571 Value loyalty 0.61736 Attributes Value workethics 0.69269 (Extras) Skill confidence 0.72359 Contribute confidence 0.47741 FACTOR 6 Extrinsic Rewards 1.2465890 Pay 0.80852 (R-C) Rewards 0.74299 Advancement 0.50893 FACTOR 7 Impact 1.1189061 lmpact_people 0.84463 (H) Impact soc 0.86570 FACTOR 8 Feelings 1.0902682 Fairness 0.37379 (Extras) Feeling_respect 0.56190 Feeling_appreciated 0.51176 Org team 0.31066 Work climate 0.28045 Note: Information in parentheses shows the theoretically derived categories o f the variables. The loaded items are grouped and labeled as variables. Note that some of the factor loading values for the variable “feelings,” are rather low (e.g., 0.28 for work climate, 0.31 for organization’s team). Nonetheless, compared to the loading values of these items on the other factors, it is clear that these items load onto this eighth factor. This suggests that the degree o f clustering or grouping for this last factor might be weaker than for other factors, but it is still an observable factor. Communality estimates were also checked. These statistics indicate whether an item is a part of the factor model or not. In this case, the communality values range from Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 99 the lowest of 0.273 (Goal) to the highest of 0.859 (Leaderleadership). The majority of the items possess high communality values, ranging around 0.5 to 0.8. (See Appendix V for more details.) This means that most of the items load onto a factor. For each of the factors, the mean scores on the items loading onto that factor were calculated for each respondent, thus creating eight new empirically-derived antecedent variables. For example, for FACTOR 1, work-job experience, the scores for the five items were added together and then divided by five. As these eight antecedent variables are multiple-item variables, reliability analysis was also performed to confirm their reliability. The Cronbach alphas are: 0.871 for Work-job Experience, 0.934 for Leadership, 0.903 for Intrinsic Rewards, 0.926 for Other Opportunities, 0.774 for Individual Attributes, 0.840 for Extrinsic Rewards, 0.878 for Impact, and 0.890 for Feelings. The Cronbach alphas of all eight antecedent variables suggest that they are statistically reliable and valid. These eight antecedent variables were thus used as independent variables in the statistical analyses. The items that did not load onto any factor were further examined by including them as individual independent variables in a step-wise regression analysis and deleted if they did not significantly contribute to the model or had no statistically significant relationship with the dependent variables. These items include: mission, goal, organization’s respect, organization’s success, and relationships. A preliminary step-wise regression analysis was performed to explore the contribution and significance level of these five items and to determine if any of them should be retained in the analyses used to test the hypotheses. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 100 2.3 Step-Wise Regressions The purpose of a preliminary step-wise regression is to identify the most parsimonious model with optimum explanatory power. As a preliminary list of antecedent variables was already identified through exploratory factor analysis and verified by reliability analysis, the step-wise regression was used at this stage in order to determine whether any additional antecedent variables from the set of antecedent items that did not load onto any factor should be included in the final set of independent variables on the basis of their statistical contribution to the model. The control variables (demographic, occupational, and industry variables), sector comparison variable, and the eight antecedent variables (determined previously by factor analysis) were added to the regression model first with the overall commitment score as dependent variable. The first regression model yields an adjusted R-square of 0.5889 (P < 0.0001), indicating that this model explains about 59% of the variation and is statistically significant. The five individual antecedent variables that did not load in the factor analysis - mission, goal, organization’s respect, organization’s success, and relationships - were then added individually to the regression model. The regression results show that only mission (P = 0.0057) and relationships (P = 0.0001) were found to be significant. The other three variables were therefore excluded from the final model on the basis that they did not contribute to the model. Mission and relationships, on the other hand, were retained for the hypothesis-testing analyses. The final model was thus developed with the final set of independent variables (controls + sector comparison + 8 factor antecedent variables + mission + relationships). Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 101 The adjusted R-square of this model is 0.5988 (P < 0.0001). Adding these two extra antecedent variables results in only about a 1% increase in adjusted R-square. Nevertheless, as these two variables showed strong statistical significance, they were retained in the hope that they might show a significant effect in statistical analyses. 2.4 Statistical Diagnostic Tests Several statistical diagnostic tests were introduced to further assure the validity of the final set of independent variables to be included in the hypothesis-testing phase of the research. The key validity problem is that of multicollinearity, or inter-correlations among independent variables. The presence of multicollinearity means that the core regression assumption - the independent variables are correlated with the dependent variable but not with eachother - is undermined. If multicollinearity is present, the regression estimates could be unstable and unreliable (De Vaus, 2002). To detect potential multicollinearity, a correlational analysis was first adopted. The guideline, that Pearson correlation coefficients of 0.8 to 1.0 indicate strong correlations between variables and correlation coefficients of 0.4 to 0.6 indicate moderate correlations, was followed (Weinberg and Goldberg, 1990). According to this guideline, moderate correlation coefficients were found among the work-job experience, leadership, and feelings variables, all of which are in the range of 0.6 to 0.7 with the p-values < 0.0001. Nevertheless, a certain degree of correlation is generally observed among variables, and these moderate correlations do not pose a tremendous threat to the models. The correlation coefficient matrix for this set of variables is presented in Appendix VI. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 102 Table 4.6: Results of the Tolerance Test X Variable Tolerance X Variable Tolerance G ender 0.92501 Extrinsic Rewards 0.45674 Education 0.54979 Intrinsic Rewards 0.49177 Time Spent 0.54265 Mission 0.40358 Managerial Position 0.82503 Impact 0.83109 Organizational Sector 0.54518 Individual Attributes 0.57573 Transportation 1 0.54228 W ork-Job Experience 0.39304 Transportation 2 0.47899 Leadership 0.39853 Other Opportunities 0.69432 Feelings 0.29806 Relationships 0.66201 The test of tolerance was also performed to further determine whether a multicollinearity problem exists and threatens to undermine the statistical validity of the model. Since a tolerance test value below 0.2 indicates the problematic presence of multicollinearity (De Vaus, 2002), the results of the tolerance test (shown in Table 4.6) for this set of variables indicate that no problem of multicollinearity is present. As these diagnostic tests yielded satisfactory results - no unacceptable correlations and multicollinearity problems among variables included in the analyses - the final list of variables (total 5 Y and 17 X variables) is shown in Table 4.7. Table 4.7: Final List of Operationalized Variables Note: For more details regarding variables, refer to Appendix III and IV Variable Type Variable Label Description from Questionnaire I. Dependent Organizational Commitment Overall Commitment Y-Binary 1= Yes 0 = No Y-Continuous Org_commitment Allcommit_mean Do you feel committed or not? AAC+CCC+NC score AAC Y-Continuous AAC_mean AAC score (6 of the 1 -7 scale items) CCC Y-Continuous C C C jn e a n CCC Score (6 of the 1 -7 scale items) NC Y-Continuous NC_mean NC Score (6 of the 1 -7 scale items) Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 103 Table 4.7: Final List of Operationalized Variables (Continued) Note: For more details regarding variables, refer to Appendix III and IV V ariable Type V ariable Label D escription from Q u estio n n aire II. C ontrols G ender X-Binary 1 = Female 0 = Male G ender_new G ender Education X-Categorical E ducationjevel Education level: secondary/below; certificate/vocational; college; m aster Time S pent at Organization X-Continuous Tim e_spent How many years/m onths sp en t at the current organization? Managerial Position X-Binary 1 = Yes 0 = No Mngt_positionnew Do you hold m anagerial position? Type of Transportation2 1 X-Binary 1 = Expressway 0 = Else Transportl Transportation type of organization Type of Transportation X-Binary 1 = Riverway 0 = Else Transport2 Transportation type of organization III. S e c to r Type of Sector X-Binary 1 = Public 0 = Private O rg jy p e Organizational sector IV. R-C a n d H Other Opportunities X-Continuous Other_opportunities Difficulty in finding job Risk in finding job Difficulty in finding equally good job Risk in finding equally good job Extrinsic Rewards X-Continuous Extrinsic_rewards Adequate pay A dequate rew ards other than pay Opportunity for promotion and advancem ent Intrinsic Rew ards X-Continuous lntrinsic_rewards Job provides satisfaction Job is meaningful Job provides enjoyment Job is challenging Job provides personal/professional growth Mission X-Continuous Mission Agree and believe in organization’s mission Impact X-Continuous Impact Impact on people around me Impact on society in general 2 1 The three types o f transportation - expressway, subway and riverway - are operationalized as two binary or dummy variables; Transportl and Transport2. Transport 1 denotes l=expressway and 0=else. Transport2 denotes l=riverway and 0=else. Subway’s coefficient is derived by intercept - coefficient o f Transportl - coefficient o f Transport2. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 104 Table 4.7: Final List of Operationalized Variables (Continued) Note: For more details regarding variables, refer to Appendix 1 1 1 and IV V ariable Type V ariable Label D escription from Q u estio n n aire V. E xtras Individual Attributes X-Continuous lnd_attributes Personal value of being loyal to the organization Personal value of having good work ethics Confidence in work skills Confidence in ability to contribute to organization W ork-Job Experience X-Continuous W orkjob_experience Agree with job and how things work Em ployees can participate in decision making Employees have autonom y in their work Communication and information system is good Work conditions at organization are good Leadership X-Continuous Leadership R espect for the leaders/top m anagem ent Leaders provide inspiration to work hard Leaders provide good direction/ strategies Feelings X-Continuous Feelings Feel that policies/processes are fair Feel respected Feel appreciated Organization has good team spirit Working climate is good Relationships X-Continuous Relationships Relationships with people at work are important D. Data Analysis 1. Analytical Framework - Answering Key Questions and Testing Hypotheses The analytical plan was designed to answer the following key questions: ♦ Are there any differences between the public and private sectors in terms of the levels and types of organizational commitment among employees? * Are there any differences in terms of which antecedents are related toe the different types of commitment? Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 105 ♦ Are there differences between the two sectors in terms of the pattern of relationships between antecedents and commitment types? ♦ How are the three types of commitment related to one another? Which of the three contributes to the overall commitment feeling and how? ♦ Are there any cultural effects on organizational commitment among employees in public and private sector organizations as well as the levels and types of commitment in the case of Thailand? Recall the hypotheses developed earlier in Chapter 3: H I: Private sector employees’ overall commitment score > Public sector employees’ overall commitment score. H2: Public sector employees’ AAC > Private sector employees’ AAC. H3: Private sector employees’ CCC > Public sector employees’ CCC. H4: Public sector employees’ NC > Private sector employees’ NC. H5: Humanistic antecedents are positively related to overall commitment in the public sector. H6: Rational-choice antecedents are positively related to overall commitment in the private sector. H7: Humanistic, not rational-choice, antecedents are positively related to AAC in both sectors. H8: Rational-choice, not humanistic, antecedents are positively related to CCC in both sectors. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 106 H9: Humanistic, not rational-choice, antecedents are positively related to NC in both sectors. H10: AAC is most related to the ultimate commitment feeling. Hypotheses 1-4 help answer question 1. Hypotheses 5-9 help answer question 2 and 3. Hypothesis 10 helps answer question 4. The implications from this research also shed lights on question 5. 2. Statistical Methods 2.1 Analysis Phase I Statistical analyses were designed to empirically test these hypotheses and ultimately to provide answers to the key five questions posed here. The analysis plan can be divided into two phases. In phase I, descriptive statistics are summarized first in order to provide a basic understanding of the sample profile. Then the analysis in the first phase aims to investigate the levels and types of commitment and to provide empirical answers to question 1, by testing Hypotheses 1-4. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was employed to test these hypotheses. Specifically, ANOVA was designed to determine whether there are statistically significant differences in various commitment scores between the public and private sectors. In addition, exploratory analyses of key demographic and occupational variables were also included in an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) to explore whether sector effects on the levels and types of organizational commitment can be observed when controlling for demographic and occupational variables. The results of this phase of analysis are provided in Chapter 5: Results Phase I. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 107 Table 4.8: Statistical Methods for Analysis Part I Hypothesis Analysis Statistical M ethods H 1: Public OC > Private OC Compare overall commitment score ANOVA/ ANCOVA H2: Public AAC > Private AAC Compare AAC ANOVA/ ANCOVA H3: Private CCC > Public CCC Compare CCC ANOVA/ ANCOVA H4: Public NC > Private NC Compare NC ANOVA/ ANCOVA 2.2 Analysis Phase II Phase II of the analysis plan investigates the pattern of relationships between commitment antecedents and various types of commitment, as well as the relationships among the three types of commitment themselves. Causal-relation models were developed, using the previously-determined dependent and independent variables as shown in Table 4.9. Selected demographic and occupational factors were designated as controls since they are not of primary interest of this study. Antecedent variables were classified (as previously discussed in Chapter 3) as rational-choice, humanistic and extras based on the theoretical framework. This classification allows for the test of hypotheses 5-9 regarding the relationships between the two types of antecedents (rational choice vs. humanistic) and the three types of organizational commitment. Table: 4.9: List of Variables for Statistical Analyses Type of Variable Type of Operationalization Label of Variables C ontrol C ontrols G ender (1=female, 0=male) E ducationjevel Mngt_position (1 =mngt, 0=non mngt) Tim e_spent Transportl (1=expressway, 0=else) Transport2 (1=riverway, 0=else) In d ep e n d en t S e c to r C om parison Org_sector (1=public, 0=private) In d ep e n d en t R ational-C hoice A n tec ed e n ts Other_opportunities Extrinsic_rewards Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 108 Table: 4.9: List of Variables for Statistical Analyses (Continued) T ype o f V ariab le Type o f O peratio n alizatio n Label o f V ariab les Independent Humanistic Antecedents lntrinsic_rewards Mission Impact Independent Extras lndividual_attributes W orkjob_experience Leadership Feelings Relationships Dependent Commitment Measurements Allcommit m ean AAC m ean CCC m ean NC m ean Org_commitment/ com mitm ent feeling (1=yes, 0=no) Those antecedents classified as extras were statistically determined (through the step-wise regression) to have significant effects on commitment in this sample. While these extras variables are not part of the hypotheses being tested in this study, they were included in the analyses as it was anticipated that they may provide additional interesting information relevant to understanding the nature and pattern of commitment in this sample. Multivariate regression analysis was adopted as the main statistical tool. The overall organizational commitment score and three dimensions of organizational commitment (AAC, CCC, and NC) were used as dependent variables in separate multivariate regression models. This enables a comparison of the significant antecedent variables for measures of commitment. The regressions were carried out on the entire sample, and on the public sector and the private sector sub-samples separately. The results of these analyses are reported in Chapter 5: Results Phase II. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 109 Multivariate Regression Models: A) Allcommit_mean = a + px1 + px2 + PX3 , ... + px 1 7 + s B) AAC mean = a + pX1 + pX2 + pX3, ... + px 1 7 + s C) CCCmean = a + pX1 + pX2 + px3, ... + PX1 7 + s D) NC mean = a + p x 1 + pX2 + pX3, ... + pX1 7 + s Lastly, to address the question of how the three types of organizational commitment (AAC, CCC and NC) are related to one another, and which of the three is most related to the overall commitment feeling, correlation analysis and logistic regression were employed. As a number of scholars have argued (Morrow, 1993; Allen and Meyer, 1994; Cohen, 2002), normative commitment is expected to have a strong correlation to affective-attitudinal commitment. The correlations among the three commitment scores provide initial empirical evidence of the correlation patterns among the three commitment scores. To explore which of the three types of commitment is most related to the overall commitment feeling (and to test hypothesis 10 that AAC has the strongest relationship), another regression model was designed. Organizational commitment (whether or not respondents feel committed to their organizations) was used as the dependent variable. While this measure might be subject to criticism, it was used on an exploratory basis. Lacking the multi-dimensional measurement power for organizational commitment, compared to Meyer and Allen’s three-component commitment scores, this variable does Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 110 force the respondents into the fundamental choice of whether or not they feel committed to their current employer, and thus probing into their ultimate feeling of commitment. Three commitment scores (AAC, CCC, NC) were used as independent variables to represent the three types of commitment. A logistic regression model was then developed to test the relationships between commitment feeling (Orgcommitment) and the three commitment types (AAC mean, CCC mean and NC mean). The logistic regression analyses were carried out on the entire sample, the public sector sub-sample and the private sector sub-sample. The results of these analyses are also provided in Chapter 5: Results Phase II. Logistic Regression Model: E) Org commitment = a + (3ACC_mean + pCCCm ean + pN Cm ean + s Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. I l l CHAPTER 5 Results Section A (Results Phase I) first provides descriptive statistical information on key demographic-occupational variables for a better understanding of the entire sample (N=614) as well as the public sector (N=303) and the private sector (N=311) sub samples. Also in Section A, results are provided from the test of the developed hypotheses regarding levels and types of commitment in the public and private sectors (hypotheses 1-4). Section B (Results Phase II) provides the results of multivariate as well as logistic regression analyses. These results are used to test the hypotheses regarding commitment antecedents (hypotheses 5- 9) and the relationships among commitment types and commitment feeling (hypothesis 10). Note that the correlation matrix reporting Pearson correlation coefficients for all variables is provided in Appendix VI. A. Results Phase I 1. Descriptive Statistics The average age for the entire sample is 34.81 with the standard deviation (SD) of 8.32. The youngest in the sample is 19 and the oldest is 59. The public sector’s average age (37.89) is higher than that of private sector (31.68), about 6 years difference. In terms of gender, the entire sample is rather equally distributed - 49.19% male vs. 50.81 female. Gender composition is relatively equal in the two sectors as well - 47.85% male vs. 52.15% female in the public sector and 50.48% male vs. 49.52% female in the private Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 112 sector. There are a few more females in the public sector and a few more males in the private sector. Descriptive statistic results are reported in Table 5.1 and Table 5.2. Table 5.1: Key Demographic and Occupational Variables (Age and Time) All Sample N -6 1 4 Public Sector N =303/ Private Sector N = 311 V ariab le S am ple M ean SD M in M ax A ge All Sam ple 34.81 8.32 19 59 (Y ears) Public Sector 37.89 8.36 22 59 Private Sector 31.68 7.04 19 59 T im e S p e n t at All Sam ple 7.82 7.55 0.5 month 38 O rgan izatio n Public Sector 11.01 8.03 0.5 month 38 (Y ears) Private Sector 4.71 5.49 0.5 month 38 Table 5.2: Key Demographic and Occupational Variables (Gender, Education and Managerial Position) All Sample N=614 Public Sector N =303/ Private Sector N = 3 11 V ariab le S am ple Item C ou n t P ercen t G en d er All Sam ple Male 302 49.19 Fem ale 312 50.81 Public Sector Male 145 47.85 Fem ale 158 52.15 Private Sector Male 157 50.48 Fem ale 154 49.52 E ducation Level All Sam ple Secondary or lower 70 11.40 Certificate/Vocational 121 19.71 College 320 52.12 M aster 103 16.78 Public Sector Secondary or lower 5 1.65 Certificate/Vocational 33 10.89 College 188 62.05 M aster 77 25.41 Private Sector Secondary or lower 65 20.90 Certificate/Vocational 88 28.30 College 132 42.44 M aster 26 8.36 M anagerial P osition All Sam ple Y es 139 22.64 No 475 77.36 Public Sector Y es 91 30.03 No 212 69.97 Private Sector Y es 48 15.43 No 263 84.57 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 113 Educational attainment for the sample is quite high (11.40% secondary or lower, 19.71% certificate and/or vocational education, 52.12% college and 16.78% master-level education). Educational attainment among the public sector respondents is considerably higher than that of the private sector respondents. Almost 90% of the public sector respondents have college education or higher, while only about half of private sector respondents have comparable educational attainment. Also, one-fourth of the public sector respondents have master-level education, compared to only 8.36% of respondents in the private sector. For the entire sample, the average time that respondents have spent at their organization is 7.82 years. The minimum time spent for the entire sample is 0.5 month and the longest time spent is 38 years. The same is true in both sectors as well. On average, the respondents in the public sector have spent more than twice as much time at their organization than their private sector counterparts - 11.01 years among public employees and only 4.71 years among private employees. This may reflect the fact that job security is one of the key occupational benefits of public organizations with the result that employees on average, tend to stay with their organization for a longer time while their private counterparts might be more likely to change jobs. Moreover, public sector employees, on average, possess considerably higher education, in turn providing valuable human capital for their organization. This reason might encourage organizations in the public sector to want to keep these employees longer. In terms of managerial position, 22.64% of the entire sample reported that they hold a managerial position, while the remaining 77.36% indicated that they do not. For Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 114 the two sectors, many more public sector respondents (30.03%) reported holding a managerial position, compared to about half as many (15.43%) of the private sector respondents. This discrepancy in the number of managerial positions could very well be due to the fact that public sector respondents are, on average, older and have spent more time at their organizations. Thus, it is likely that there would be more management-level employees in the public sector sub-sample. In sum, this sample (N=614) represents an equally distributed male-female ratio of respondents who are in the prime of their productive career years (mean age is approximately 35 years old), with rather high education (about 50% of the entire sample holds a college degree, 17% of the sample have a master degree, and only 11% have at most, secondary education). The public sector sub-sample represents an older, more educated group of respondents who have spent a longer time and hold more managerial positions in their organizations than the private sector sub-sample. 2. ANOVA/ANCOVA Analyses for Hypothesis Testing Statistical analyses were performed to explore whether and how differences exist for commitment levels and types between the public and private sectors. The statistical results in this section provide empirical evidence to test the hypotheses regarding different levels and types of organizational commitment between the two sectors. Recall the hypotheses specified in Chapter 3: H I: Private sector employees’ overall commitment score > Public sector employees’ overall commitment score. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 115 H2: Public sector employees’ AAC > Private sector employees’ AAC. H3: Private sector employees’ CCC > Public sector employees’ CCC. H4: Public sector employees’ NC > Private sector employees’ NC. The statistical analyses used in this phase include: i) analysis of variance (ANOVA) to analyze the potential effects of categorical independent variables on the means of the continuous dependent variables, as well as ii) analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) to analyze the effects of sector on the dependent variables while controlling for the effects of the demographic and occupational variables. 2.1 Overall Organizational Commitment As seen in Table 5.3, the average overall commitment score for the entire sample is 14.18 (highest score = 21) with SD of 2.79. The average score is 14.04 with SD of 2.61 for the public sector and 14.31 with SD of 2.94 for the private sector. The private sector score is slightly higher than that of the public sector. However, the differences in the average scores are not statistically significant, given the F = 1.60 (P = 0.21). Table 5.3: ANOVA - Overall Commitment Scores, Sector Comparison All Sample N=614 Public Sector N =303/ Private Sector N = 3 11 S ource M ean SD DF SS M S F P All S am p le 14.18 2.79 O rganization S e c to r P ublic P rivate 14.31 14.04 2.94 2.61 1 12.44 12.44 1.60 0.21 Error Total 612 613 4747.72 4760.16 7.76 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 116 Since the ANOVA results show that there is no significant difference between the sectors in the overall organizational commitment scores, various demographic and occupational variables might play a role as covariates that obscure the sector effects. Thus, the relevance of key demographic and occupational variables was explored with analysis of covariance (ANCOVA). Table 5.4 presents the average overall commitment scores for the entire sample and the two sectors by demographic and occupational variables. Table 5.5 reports the ANCOVA results. Table 5.4: Mean Overall Commitment Scores All Sample N=614 Public Sector N =303/ Private Sector N = 311 S ource Item All S am ple Public S ec to r P rivate S ec to r Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD C o v ariates G en d er Female 14.17 2.72 14.13 2.47 14.22 2.97 Male 14.19 2.86 13.94 2.76 14.42 2.93 E ducation Level Secondary 15.07 2.72 15.00 2.53 15.08 2.75 Voc/Certificate 14.83 2.92 14.81 2.67 14.84 3.03 College 14.12 2.62 14.18 2.49 14.03 2.79 Master 13.00 2.77 13.29 2.74 12.15 2.76 Tim e S p e n t < 5 yrs 13.67 2.85 13.06 2.58 13.88 2.92 5-20 yrs 14.61 2.68 14.33 2.58 15.16 2.80 > 20 yrs 14.63 2.56 14.42 2.46 15.98 2.95 M anagerial P osition Yes 13.91 2.60 13.88 2.77 13.95 2.28 No 14.26 2.84 14.10 2.54 14.39 3.05 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 117 Table 5.5: ANCOVA - Overall Commitment Scores S o u rc e DF S S M S F P Main Effect (O rganizational S ector) 1 12.44 12.44 1.68 0.20 C o v ariates G en d er 1 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.91 E ducation Level 1 164.43 164.43 22.20 < 0.0001 Tim e S p en t 1 76.81 76.81 10.37 0.001 M anagerial P osition 1 3.49 3.49 0.47 0.49 Error 608 4502.96 7.41 Total 613 4760.16 Education and time spent are the covariates that have a significant effect on overall commitment, while gender and managerial position do not. When all the covariates are controlled for, sector (main effect) still has no significant effect on overall commitment, with an F = 1.68 (P = 0.20). ANCOVA results suggest that sector does not have a significant effect on overall commitment even when the covariate effects of demographic and occupational variables are accounted for. 2.2 Three Dimensions of Commitment As the overall commitment score represents the combination of the three commitment types, we now turn to an exploration of the three commitment types separately - attitudinal-affective commitment (AAC), calculative-continuance commitment (CCC) and normative commitment (NC). The average AAC, CCC and NC scores for the entire sample and the two sectors and the ANOVA results are provided in Table 5.6. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 118 Table 5.6: ANOVA - Three Commitment Scores, Sector Comparison All Sample N=614 Public Sector N =303/ Private Sector N = 311 S o u r c e M ean SD DF S S M S F P AAC All S am ple 5.02 1.16 O rganizational S ecto r 1 1.92 1.92 1.42 0.23 P ublic 4.96 1.13 Private 5.08 1.19 E rror 612 825.78 1.35 Total 613 827.70 C C C All S am p le 4.21 1.45 O rganizational S ecto r 1 0.65 0.65 0.31 0.58 Public 4.24 1.50 Private 4.18 1.40 Error 612 1290.63 2.11 Total 613 1291.28 NC All S am ple 4.95 1.20 O rganizational S ecto r 1 8.69 8.69 6.12 0.01 Public 4.83 1.12 Private 5.07 1.25 Error 612 869.31 1.42 Total 613 878.05 A general pattern can be observed - calculative-continuance commitment is consistently lower than both attitudinal-affective commitment and normative commitment for the entire sample as well as in both sectors. At a glance, the AAC score and NC score are not substantially different for the entire sample or in either sector. Public sector respondents do score slightly higher on CCC score but this difference is not statistically significant. Private sector respondents score higher on both AAC and NC scores. While the sector difference for AAC is not statistically significant, the sector difference for NC is significant with an F = 6.12 (P = 0.01). The ANCOVA was performed on AAC, CCC and NC, respectively, to further explore sector effects while controlling for the demographic and occupational variables. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 119 Table 5.7 presents average AAC scores for the entire sample and the two sectors. Table 5.8 provides the ANCOVA results for AAC. The ANCOVA results show that, even when demographic and occupational variables are controlled for, there is not a statistically significant difference between the sectors in their level of AAC. The absence of any significant results indicates that other antecedents besides sector may better explain differences in AAC. Table 5.7: Mean AAC All Sample N=614 Public Sector N =303/ Private Sector N = 311 S ource Item All S am ple Public S ec to r P rivate S ec to r Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD C o v ariates G en d er Fem ale 5.02 1.13 4.99 1.07 5.06 1.20 Male 5.02 1.19 4.94 1.20 5.09 1.18 E ducation Level Secondary 4.90 1.24 4.50 1.54 4.93 1.22 Voc/Certificate 5.20 1.21 5.19 1.04 5.21 1.27 College 5.05 1.10 5.00 1.09 5.12 1.12 Master 4.79 1.20 4.80 1.22 4.78 1.14 Tim e S p e n t < 5 yrs 4.96 1.16 4.74 1.06 5.04 1.18 5-20 yrs 5.10 1.18 5.06 1.17 5.16 1.21 > 20 yrs 4.97 1.07 4.95 1.05 5.08 1.27 M ngr P osition Yes 5.02 1.17 5.04 1.19 4.98 1.15 No 5.02 1.16 4.93 1.11 5.09 1.20 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 120 Table 5.8: ANCOVA - AAC S ource DF SS M S F P Main Effect (O rganizational Type) 1 1.92 1.92 1.42 0.23 C o v ariates G en d er 1 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.90 E ducation Level 1 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.87 Tim e S p e n t 1 4.56 4.56 3.38 0.07 M anagerial P osition 1 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.87 E rror 608 821.13 1.35 Total 316 827.70 Table 5.9 presents average CCC scores, for the entire sample and the two sectors. Table 5.10 provides the ANCOVA results for CCC. Table 5.9: Mean CCC All Sample N=614 Public Sector N =303/ Private Sector N = 311 S ource Item All S am ple Public S ec to r P rivate S e c to r Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD C o v ariates G en d er Female 4.23 1.43 4.32 1.44 4.14 1.41 Male 4.19 1.48 4.16 1.56 4.21 1.40 E ducation Level Secondary 4.90 1.13 5.13 0.75 4.88 1.15 Voc/Certificate 4.41 1.38 4.38 1.39 4.43 1.40 College 4.19 1.48 4.40 1.53 3.91 1.36 Master 3.55 1.38 3.75 1.42 2.96 1.08 Tim e S p e n t < 5 yrs 3.82 1.38 3.55 1.37 3.91 1.37 5-20 yrs 4.49 1.42 4.41 1.48 4.65 1.29 > 20 yrs 4.80 1.45 4.66 1.46 5.69 1.15 M anagerial P osition Yes 4.10 1.46 4.20 1.60 3.92 1.15 No 4.24 1.45 4.26 1.46 4.22 1.44 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 121 Table 5.10: ANCOVA - CCC S o u r c e DF S S MS F P Main Effect (O rganizational Type) 1 0.65 0.65 0.34 0.56 C o v ariates G en d er 1 0.32 0.32 0.16 0.69 E ducation Level 1 89.65 89.65 46.18 < 0.0001 Tim e S p e n t 1 19.94 19.94 10.27 0.001 M anagerial P osition 1 0.28 0.28 0.15 0.70 Error 608 1180.44 1.94 Total 613 1291.28 The analysis of covariance for CCC shows that education and time spent are the covariates that have a significant effect on CCC while gender and managerial position do not. When all covariates are controlled for, the result suggests that sector does not have a significant effect on CCC with an F = 0.34 (P = 0.56). The average NC scores for the entire sample and the two sectors are provided in Table 5.11. The ANCOVA results for NC are reported in Table 5.12. Education is the only covariate that has a significant effect on NC. When all covariates are controlled for, sector effect on NC remains significant with an F = 6.20 (P = 0.01). Recall that the ANOVA results, discussed previously, show that sector difference for NC is statistically significant (private sector employees’ NC is significantly higher than that of the public sector employees’). The ANCOVA results show that sector effects also remain strong even when demographic and occupational variables are controlled for. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 122 Table 5.11: Mean NC All Sample N=614 Public Sector N =303/ Private Sector N = 311 Source Item All S am ple Public S e c to r P rivate S e c to r Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD C o v ariates G en d er Fem ale 4.91 1.16 4.81 1.08 5.01 1.23 Male 4.99 1.23 4.84 1.18 5.12 1.27 E ducation Level Secondary 5.28 1.14 5.37 0.98 5.27 1.15 Voc/Certificate 5.21 1.26 5.24 1.09 5.20 1.33 College 4.87 1.15 4.78 1.09 5.01 1.21 Master 4.65 1.22 4.73 1.20 4.41 1.27 Time S p e n t < 5 yrs 4.89 1.25 4.76 1.13 4.94 1.29 5-20 yrs 5.03 1.13 4.86 1.11 5.34 1.12 > 20 yrs 4.86 1.20 4.80 1.19 5.21 1.29 M anagerial P osition Yes 4.78 1.16 4.64 1.20 5.05 1.06 No 4.99 1.20 4.91 1.08 5.07 1.29 Table 5.12: ANCOVA - NC S ource DF SS MS F P Main Effect (O rganizational Type) 1 8.69 8 6 9 6.20 0.01 C o v ariates G en d er 1 0.71 0.71 0.51 0.48 E ducation Level 1 10.03 10.03 7.17 0.01 Tim e S p e n t 1 4.68 4.68 3.34 0.07 M anagerial P osition 1 2.33 2.33 1.66 0.20 E rror 608 851.60 1.40 Total 613 878.05 3. Conclusion Regarding Hypothesis 1-4 The statistical results discussed above provide empirical evidence regarding the levels and types of organizational commitment in the two sectors, and more importantly, test the key hypotheses developed earlier regarding the types and levels of organizational commitment. The results of the hypothesis testing are provided in Table 5.13. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 123 Table 5.13: Summary of Hypothesis Testing Results H ypothesis R esult H1: Private sector em ployees’ overall commitment score > Public sector em ployees' overall commitment Cannot confirm hypothesis Private overall commitment =22 Public overall commitment No significant difference (P = 0.21) H2: Public sector em ployees’ AAC > Private sector em ployees’ AAC Cannot confirm hypothesis Private sector em ployees’ AAC = Public sector em ployees’ AAC No significant difference (P = 0.23) H3: Private sector em ployees’ CCC > Public sector em ployees’ CCC Cannot confirm hypothesis Public sector em ployees’ CCC = Private sector em ployees’ CCC No significant difference (P = 0.58) H4: Public sector em ployees’ NC > Private sector em ployees’ NC Hypothesis rejected Private sector em ployees’ NC > Public sector em ployees’ NC Statistically significant difference (P = 0.01) A consistent pattern can be observed among the three types of commitment in the entire sample as well as in the two sectors. CCC is consistently the type of commitment with the lowest scores. With AAC demonstrating the highest level across sectors and in the two sectors separately, AAC and NC are also consistently higher than CCC. The implication of this finding is that most respondents across sectors see their commitment in terms of emotional attachment, indicating that they “want” to stay with their organizations. Compared to AAC and NC, respondents in this sample are less likely to see their commitment in terms of economic reasons or that they “need” to remain at their organizations. The analysis of variance showed that the private sector employees’ overall commitment score is not significantly higher than public sector employees’ and therefore, hypothesis 1 (private sector employees’ overall commitment > public sector 2 2 The equal signs shown here do not indicate that the actual mean scores are the same. The equal signs are used here when the mean differences are not statistically significant and it cannot be confirmed whether one sector mean is higher or lower. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 124 employees’ overall commitment) is not empirically confirmed by this study. The ANOVA results regarding the three commitment dimensions also suggest the following: ♦ Private sector employees’ AAC is not significantly different from that of public sector employees’. Thus, hypothesis 2 (public sector employees’ AAC > private sector employees’ AAC) is not confirmed. ♦ Private sector employees’ CCC is not significantly different from that of public sector employees’. Thus, hypothesis 3 (private sector employees’ CCC > public sector employees’ CCC) is not confirmed. ♦ Private sector employees’ NC is significantly higher than that of public sector employees’. Thus, hypothesis 4 (public sector employees’ NC > private sector employees NC) is rejected. The ANOVA results suggest no significant sector differences for overall commitment, AAC, and CCC, and a significant sector difference for NC. The ANCOVA results reveal that when demographic and occupational variables are accounted for as covariates, sector differences are not significant for any of the commitment scores except for NC. NC remains strong even when all covariates are controlled for. B. Results Phase II In Phase II, results from the regression analyses are presented - first the multivariate regression analyses are discussed and then the logistic regression. These regression analyses are designed to test the remaining hypotheses, using the variables shown in Table 5.14. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 125 H5: Humanistic antecedents are positively related to overall commitment in the public sector. H6: Rational-choice antecedents are positively related to overall commitment in the private sector. H7: Humanistic, not rational-choice, antecedents are positively related to AAC in both sectors. H8: Rational-choice, not humanistic, antecedents are positively related to CCC in both sectors. H9: Humanistic, not rational-choice, antecedents are positively related to NC in both sectors. H10: AAC is most related to the commitment feeling. Table 5.14: Theoretical Framework and Potential Antecedents T h eo retical Fram ew ork C ateg ory o f A ntecedents V ariab les C o n tro ls (D em ographic an d O ccupational) G ender Education Managerial position Time spent at organization Industry G ender_new Education Mngt_positionnew Tim e_spent Transport 1 Transport 2 S e c to r C om p ariso n Sector Org type R ational-choice (R-C) Opportunity and other choice Extrinsic rew ards and com pensation Other_Opportunity Extrinsic rew ards H um anistic (H) Intrinsic rewards Perception of self-importance and impact Belief in organization’s mission* lntrinsic_rewards Impact Mission* E xtras (O verlapped betw een or n o t falling into R-C o r H) Individual attributes and personal values Work-job experience Leadership Feeling regarding organization Relationships with others at organization* lnd_attributes W orkjob_experience Leadership Feelings Relationships* * Denote survey items that were not grouped or loaded onto other variables by factor analysis but were included due to their statistical contribution to the model. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 126 1. Overall Commitment The first regression model explores overall commitment for the entire sample. The regression results are reported in Table 5.15. Table 5.15: Overall Commitment Score for Entire Sample Entire Sample N=614 In d ep en d en t V ariable C oefficien t23 SE T -valu e C ontrols G ender -0.017 0.148 -0.66 Educational Level 0.031 0.108 0.90 Time Spent 0.088* 0.001 2.53 Managerial Position -0.075** 0.187 -2.65 Transportl 0.069* 0.198 1.99 Transport2 -0.026 0.222 -0.70 S ec to r C om p ariso n Sector 0.024 0.193 0.71 R ational-C hoice A n tec ed e n ts Other Opportunities 0.424*** 0.045 13.80 Extrinsic Rewards -0.016 0.061 -0.45 H um anistic A n tec ed e n ts Intrinsic Rewards 0.085* 0.081 2.25 Impact 0.004 0.049 0.13 Mission 0.054 0.072 1.35 E xtras Individual Attributes 0.184*** 0.093 5.46 W ork-Job Experience 0.092* 0.078 2.27 Leadership 0.101* 0.069 2.49 Feelings 0.078 0.092 1.66 Relationships 0.118** 0.062 3.75 * P < 0.05 ** P < 0.01 *** P < 0.0001 Adjusted R-Square = 0.5988 F = 54.82, P < 0.0001 2 3 Standardized coefficient estimates are reported in all regression results so that the coefficients o f the various control and antecedent variables and their effects on the dependent variables can be validly compared. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 127 The adjusted R-square for this model is 0.5988 (P < 0.0001), indicating that about 60% of the variation in the dependent variable can be explained by the model and the model is statistically significant. Among the control variables, time spent and managerial position are statistically significant. Among transportation systems, the significant coefficient of the first dummy variable (transport 1) suggests that organizations in the expressway system (Expressway Company Limited and Expressway and Rapid Transportation Authority) have, on average, employees with higher commitment scores than the organizations in the subway system. The coefficient for sector (1= public sector) is positive but not statistically significant. Among the antecedents, the variables that are statistically significant include: other opportunities, intrinsic rewards, individual attributes, work-job experience, leadership and relationships. The other opportunities variable, which is a rational choice antecedent, has the largest coefficient. Following other opportunities are individual attributes, relationships, leadership, and work-job experience, which are extras antecedents (overlapping the rational-choice and humanistic frameworks or not falling into either category) and intrinsic rewards, which is a humanistic antecedent. The same regression model exploring overall commitment is repeated in the public and private sector sub-samples separately. The regression results are reported in Table 5.16. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 128 Table 5.16: Overall Commitment Score, Sector Comparison Public Sector N =303/ Private Sector N = 311 In d ep en d en t V ariab le C oefficient SE T -valu e Public P rivate Public P rivate P ublic P rivate C ontrols G ender -0.002 -0.052 0.209 0.217 -0.04 -1.41 Educational Level 0.001 0.016 0.184 0.165 0.02 0.32 Time Spent 0.044 0.110* 0.001 0.002 0.88 2.53 Managerial Position -0.081 -0.065 0.251 0.286 -1.84 -1.85 Transportl 0.186** -0.044 0.298 0.289 3.37 -0.97 Transport2 0.030 -0.055 0.308 0.386 0.53 -0.91 R-C A n tec ed e n ts Other Opportunities 0.461*** 0.357*** 0.063 0.067 10.46 8.12 Extrinsic Rewards -0.021 0.008 0.083 0.092 -0.41 0.16 H A n tec ed e n ts Intrinsic Rewards 0.158** 0.010 0.112 0.120 2.76 0.20 Impact 0.039 -0.015 0.075 0.066 0.93 -0.41 Mission -0.040 0.096 0.098 0.108 -0.68 1.74 E xtras Individual Attributes 0.171** 0.202*** 0.129 0.139 3.59 4.09 W ork-Job Experience 0.044 0.142* 0.112 0.113 0.74 2.48 Leadership 0.059 0.203** 0.095 0.100 1.00 3.67 Feelings 0.155* 0.009 0.131 0.132 2.32 0.14 Relationships 0.110* 0.098* 0.089 0.089 2.38 2.25 * P < 0.05 ** P < 0.01 *** P < 0.0001 Adjusted R-Square for Public Sector = 0.5509 Adjust R-square for Private S ector = 0.6497 F = 24.15, P < 0.0001 F = 36.94, P < 0.0001 The adjusted R-square for the public sector model is 0.5509 (P < 0.0001), indicating that the model explains about 55% of the variation in the overall commitment score and is statistically significant. The adjusted R-square for the private model is 0.6497 (P < 0.0001), indicating that the model explains about 65% of the variation in commitment score and is also statistically significant. In terms of control variables, time is the only variable that is statistically significant, and it is significant only in the private sector. Industry variable - transport 1 - is significant only in the public sector. This Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 129 means that the organization in the expressway system in the public sector (Expressway and Rapid Transit Authority) has employees with significantly higher commitment scores than the other public sector organizations. Industry comparison variables show no significant effects in the private sector. As for the antecedent variables, the rational choice antecedent, other opportunities, is statistically significant with positive coefficients in both sectors. Individual attributes and relationships (extras antecedents) are also positive and statistically significant in both sectors. Intrinsic rewards and feelings are statistically significant in the public sector. Work-job experience and leadership are statistically significant in the private sector. Only one of the humanistic antecedents - intrinsic rewards - is statistically significant, and only in the public sector. Most of the variables that are significantly related to the overall commitment score in both sectors fall into the extras antecedents category. Selected interaction terms were then added to the regression model for the entire sample. These interaction terms were created by multiplying sector times the antecedents that were found to be statistically significant in the sector comparison model, thus incorporating potential interaction effects. (For more details on the results from the regressions using these interaction terms, refer to Appendix VII.) Interaction terms were created for other opportunities, intrinsic rewards, individual attributes, work-job experience, leadership, feelings and relationships. The only interaction term found to be statistically significant is sector*leadership. The coefficient is -0.272 (P = 0.02), Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 130 suggesting that the effect of leadership on overall commitment in the public sector is significantly lower than that in the private sector. 2. Attitudinal-Affective Commitment For this regression model, AAC is used as the dependent variable. The regression results are reported in Table 5.17. Table 5.17: Attitudinal-Affective Commitment Score for Entire Sample Entire Sample N=614 In d ep en d en t V ariable C oefficient SE T -valu e C o n tro ls G ender 0.002 0.072 0.06 Educational Level 0.059 0.053 1.48 Time Spent 0.098* 0.000 2.41 M anagerial Position -0.039 0.091 -1.18 Transportl 0.076 0.096 1.86 T ransport2 -0.053 . 0.108 -1.23 S ec to r C om p ariso n Sector 0.055 0.094 1.37 R ational-C hoice A n tec ed e n ts Other Opportunities -0.047 0.022 -1.31 Extrinsic Rewards -0.046 0.030 -1.10 H um anistic A n tec ed e n ts Intrinsic Rewards 0.217*** 0.040 4.91 Impact 0.004 0.024 0.13 Mission 0.109* 0.035 2.32 E xtras Individual Attributes 0.101* 0.045 2.57 W ork-Job Experience 0.173** 0.038 3.63 Leadership 0.193*** 0.033 4.08 Feelings 0.076 0.045 1.39 Relationships 0.032 0.030 0.87 * P < 0.05 ** P < 0.01 *** P < 0.0001 Adjusted R-Square = 0.4526 F = 30.81, P < 0.0001 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 131 The adjusted R-square for this model is 0.4526 (P < 0.0001), indicating that about 45% of the variation in the dependent variable can be explained by the model and the model is statistically significant. In terms of control variables, only time spent is statistically significant with a positive coefficient. None of the sector and industry dummy variables have statistically significant coefficients. In terms of antecedent variables, none of the rational choice antecedents has a significant relationship with AAC score, although it is interesting to note that both rational choice antecedents - other opportunities and extrinsic rewards - possess negative coefficients. Humanistic and extras antecedents - intrinsic rewards, mission, individual attributes, work-job experience and leadership - have statistically significant coefficients, indicating positive relationships with AAC. Among the statistically significant antecedents, intrinsic rewards has the largest coefficient, suggesting that this humanistic antecedent has the strongest positive effect on AAC, compared to the other antecedents. Following intrinsic rewards are leadership, work-job experience, mission and individual attributes. A similar regression model exploring AAC is repeated for the public and private sector sub-samples separately. These regression results are reported in Table 5.18. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 132 Table 5.18: Attitudinal-Affective Commitment Score, Sector Comparison Public Sector N=303/ Private Sector N =311 I n d e p e n d e n t V a ria b le C o e ffic ie n t S E T -v a lu e Public P rivate Public P rivate P ublic Private C ontrols G ender 0.031 -0.042 0.099 0.106 0.71 -0.94 Educational Level -0.008 0.040 0.088 0.081 -0.17 0.65 Time Spent 0.011 0.142** 0.001 0.001 0.20 2.67 Managerial Position 0.007 -0.069 0.119 0.141 0.14 -1.62 Transportl 0.243*** -0.066 0.142 0.142 4.01 -1.12 Transport2 0.084 -0.128 0.147 0.190 1.33 -1.87 R-C A n tec ed e n ts Other Opportunities -0.012 -0.116* 0.030 0.033 -0.26 -2.16 Extrinsic Rewards -0.003 -0.055 0.039 0.045 -0.05 -0.89 H A n tec ed e n ts Intrinsic Rew ards 0.344*** 0.051 0.053 0.059 5.60 0.83 Impact 0.050 -0.021 0.036 0.032 1.08 -0.46 Mission 0.025 0.106 0.047 0.053 0.38 1.59 E xtras Individual Attributes 0.057 0.175** 0.061 0.068 1.09 2.90 W ork-Job Experience 0.099 0.237** 0.053 0.055 1.53 3.41 Leadership 0.205** 0.267*** 0.045 0.049 3.15 3.97 Feelings 0.094 0.076 0.062 0.065 1.28 0.97 Relationships -0.010 0.042 0.043 0.013 -0.20 0.80 * P < 0.05 ** P < 0.01 *** P < 0.0001 Adjusted R-Square for Public Sector = 0.4571 Adjust R-square for Private S ector = 0.4821 F = 16.89, P < 0.0001 F = 19.04, P < 0.0001 The adjusted R-square for the public sector model is 0.04571 (P < 0.0001), indicating that the model explains about 46% of the variation in the AAC score and is statistically significant. The adjusted R-square for the private sector model is 0.4821 (P < 0.0001), suggesting that the model explains about 48% of the variation in the AAC score and is also statistically significant. Among control variables, time spent is statistically significant, but only for the private sector. Transport 1 is also statistically significant, but Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 133 only in the public sector, suggesting that employees in the public sector expressway organization have higher AAC than those in the subway organization. As for the other antecedents, leadership is found to be positively related to AAC score in both sectors. It is interesting to note that all the rational choice antecedents possess negative coefficients, in both sectors, suggesting potential negative relationships with AAC. However, none of these coefficients, except for other opportunities in the private sector, are statistically significant, indicating that having other opportunities is negatively related to AAC in the private sector. The humanistic antecedent - intrinsic rewards - is statistically significant and positive in the public sector but not in the private sector. Individual attributes and work-job experience are positive and statistically significant in the private sector but not in the public sector. The feelings and relationships variables are not statistically significant in either sector. Interaction terms were included in the regression for the antecedents found to be statistically significant in the sector comparison model. These include interaction terms for other opportunities, intrinsic rewards, individual attributes, work-job experience, and leadership. Among these five interaction terms, sector*opportunities, sector*intrinsic rewards and sector*individual attributes are statistically significant. (Refer to Appendix VII for more details on these results.) These results indicate that the effects of other opportunities and intrinsic rewards on AAC are significantly higher in the public sector than in the private sector, while the effect of individual attributes on AAC is significantly lower in the public sector than in the private sector. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 134 3. Calculative-Continuance Commitment Table 5.19 reports regression results for the regression model with CCC as dependent variable for the entire sample. Table 5.19: Calculative-Continuance Commitment Score for Entire Sample Entire Sample N=614 In d ep en d en t V ariable C oefficient SE T -valu e Controls G ender -0.019 0.087 -0.64 Educational Level -0.006 0.064 -0.16 Time Spent 0.075* 0.001 1.90 Managerial Position -0.033 0.110 -1.03 Transportl 0.078* 0.116 1.98 Transport2 0.002 0.131 0.06 Sector Comparison Sector -0.016 0.114 0.41 Rational-Choice Antecedents Other Opportunities 0.684*** 0.027 19.70 Extrinsic Rewards -0.061 0.036 -1.50 Humanistic Antecedents Intrinsic Rewards -0.112** 0.048 -2.62 Impact -0.003 0.029 -0.09 Mission 0.020 0.042 0.44 Extras Individual Attributes 0.055 0.055 1.45 W ork-Job Experience -0.024 0.046 -0.52 Leadership -0.030 0.040 -0.65 Feelings -0.031 0.054 -0.58 Relationships 0.099** 0.037 2.78 T P < 0.05 * * P < 0.01 *** P < 0.0001 Adjusted R-Square = 0.4863 F = 35.13, P < 0.0001 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 135 The adjusted R-square is 0.4863 (P < 0.0001), indicating that the model explains about 49% of the variation in CCC and is statistically significant. Among control variables, time spent is statistically significant, suggesting a positive relationship with CCC. In terms of sector and industry, transportl is the only variable that is statistically significant. With a positive coefficient, this indicates that employees in the expressway system have significantly higher CCC score than those in the subway system. Among the antecedent variables, one each of the rational choice, humanistic and extras antecedents are found to be statistically significant - other opportunities, intrinsic rewards, and relationships. The other antecedent variables are not statistically significant. Among the statistically significant antecedents, other opportunities has the largest coefficient, suggesting that this rational-choice antecedent has a substantial positive relationship with the CCC score. Compared to other opportunities, intrinsic rewards and relationships have more moderate relationships with the CCC score. The relationships variable is positively related to CCC. Interestingly, the humanistic antecedent - intrinsic rewards - is found to be negatively related to CCC. A similar regression model exploring CCC is repeated on the public and private sector sub-samples separately. The regression results are reported in Table 5.20. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 136 Table 5.20: Calculative-Continuance Commitment Score, Sector Comparison Public Sector N=303/ Private Sector N=311 In d ep end en t V ariable C oefficient SE T -valu e Public Private Public Private Public P rivate C ontrols G ender 0.004 -0.047 0.125 0.126 0.10 -1.05 Educational Level 0.003 -0.060 0.110 0.096 0.06 -0.96 Time Spent 0.023 0.129** 0.001 0.001 0.45 2.42 Managerial Position -0.013 -0.046 0.150 0.167 -0.29 -1.07 Transportl 0.109* 0.005 0.178 0.169 1.90 0.08 Transport2 0.049 -0.075 0.184 0.226 0.83 -1.09 R-C A n tec ed e n ts O ther Opportunities 0.702*** 0.622*** 0.038 0.039 15.30 11.56 Extrinsic Rewards -0.068 -0.023 0.050 0.054 -1.27 -0.36 H A n tec ed e n ts Intrinsic Rewards -0.110 -0.110 0.067 0.070 -1.84 -1.76 Impact -0.039 0.041 0.045 0.039 -0.89 0.89 Mission -0.051 0.102 0.059 0.063 -0.84 1.52 E xtras Individual Attributes 0.046 0.067 0.077 0.081 0.92 1.11 W ork-Job Experience -0.054 -0.011 0.067 0.066 -0.87 -0.15 Leadership -0.088 0.077 0.057 0.059 -1.43 1.14 Feelings 0.067 -0.147 0.078 0.077 0.97 -1.86 Relationships 0.098* 0.052 0.053 0.052 2.03 0.98 * P < 0.05 ** P < 0.01 *** P < 0.0001 Adjusted R-Square for Public Sector = 0.5131 Adjust R-square for Private S ector = 0.4748 F = 20.89, P < 0.0001 F = 18.51, P < 0.0001 The adjusted R-square for the public sector model is 0.5131 (P < 0.0001), indicating the model explains about 51% of the variation in the CCC score and is statistically significant. The adjusted R-square for the private sector model is 0.4748 (P < 0.0001), suggesting that the model explains about 47% of the variation in the CCC score and is also statistically significant. Among the control variables, time spent is found to be positive and statistically significant (but only in the private sector) and transportl is found to be positive and Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 137 statistically significant (but only in the public sector). Among the antecedents, the rational choice antecedent - other opportunities - is found to be statistically significant in both the public and private sectors, suggesting that other opportunities are positively related to CCC in both sectors. None of the humanistic antecedents are found to be statistically significant. It is interesting to note, however, that all of the coefficients for the humanistic antecedents are negative in the public sector, while only one is negative in the private sector. These variables are, nonetheless, not statistically significant. Extras antecedents have both positive and negative coefficients in the two sectors. None of them are found to be statistically significant except, however, for the relationships variable in the public sector, which is found to be positive and significant. Interaction terms for other opportunities and relationships were added to further compare the effect of these antecedents on CCC in the two sectors. Neither interaction term is found to be significant. (Refer to Appendix VII for more details.) 4. Normative Commitment Table 5.21 reports regression results for the regression model with NC score as dependent variable for the entire sample. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 138 Table 5.21: Normative Commitment Score for Entire Sample Entire Sample N=614 In d ep en d en t V ariable C oefficient SE T -valu e Controls G ender -0.019 0.069 -0.68 Educational Level 0.022 0.050 0.59 Time Spent 0.019 0.001 0.52 Managerial Position -0.096** 0.087 -3.16 Transportl -0.007 0.092 -0.19 Transport2 -0.012 0.103 -0.30 Sector Comparison Sector 0.022 0.090 0.60 Rational-Choice Antecedents Other Opportunities 0.202*** 0.021 6.08 Extrinsic Rewards 0.080* 0.028 2.08 Humanistic Antecedents Intrinsic Rewards 0.124** 0.037 3.03 Impact 0.008 0.023 0.26 Mission -0.003 0.033 -0.08 Extras Individual Attributes 0.263*** 0.043 7.22 W ork-Job Experience 0.076 0.036 1.73 Leadership 0.084* 0.031 1.92 Feelings 0.144** 0.043 2.84 Relationships 0.124** 0.029 3.64 * P < 0.05 ** P < 0.01 *** P < 0.0001 Adjusted R-Square = 0.5298 F = 41.63, P < 0.0001 The adjusted R-square is 0.5298 (P < 0.0001), indicating that the model explains about 53% of the variation in the NC score and is statistically significant. Among the control variables, only managerial position is found to be statistically significant. This variable has a negative coefficient, suggesting that holding managerial position is significantly and negatively related to the NC score. Sector is not found to be statistically significant. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 139 As for antecedent variables, both rational-choice antecedents - other opportunities and extrinsic rewards - are found to be significantly and positively related to the NC score, with other opportunities having a larger effect. The intrinsic rewards variable is the only humanistic antecedent found to be positive and statistically significant. All of the extras antecedent variables, except for work-job experience are found to be statistically significant. Among these extras antecedents, individual attributes has the largest positive effect on the NC score, followed by feelings, relationships and leadership. Note that the individual attributes variable has a larger coefficient than other opportunities as well. A similar regression model exploring NC is repeated for the public and private sector sub-samples separately. The regression results are reported in Table 5.22. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 140 Table 5.22: Normative Commitment Score, Sector Comparison Public Sector N=303/ Private Sector N =31 1 Independent Variable Coefficient S E T-value Public P rivate Public Private P ublic P rivate C ontrols G ender -0.040 -0.029 0.098 0.100 -0.93 -0.73 Educational Level 0.006 0.067 0.086 0.076 0.13 1.22 Time Spent 0.059 -0.020 0.001 0.001 1.09 -0.42 Managerial Position -0.177** -0.036 0.118 0.132 -3.68 -0.94 T ransportl 0.041 -0.046 0.140 0.134 0.68 -0.88 Transport2 -0.080 0.077 0.144 0.179 -1.28 1.26 R-C A n tec ed e n ts Other Opportunities 0.147** 0.251*** 0.030 0.031 3.05 5.25 Extrinsic Rewards 0.045 0.096 0.039 0.042 0.79 1.74 H A n tec ed e n ts Intrinsic Rew ards 0.159** 0.098 0.052 0.056 2.54 1.77 Impact 0.093* -0.062 0.035 0.031 2.01 -1.51 Mission -0.050 0.009 0.046 0.050 -0.77 0.15 E xtras Individual Attributes 0.278*** 0.234*** 0.060 0.064 5.36 4.35 W ork-Job Experience 0.073 0.120* 0.053 0.052 1.14 1.93 Leadership 0.050 0.136* 0.044 0.046 0.77 2.26 Feelings 0.174* 0.115 0.061 0.061 2.40 1.63 Relationships 0.136** 0.131** 0.042 0.041 2.68 2.77 * P < 0.05 ** P < 0.01 *** P < 0.0001 Adjusted R-Square for Public Sector = 0.4668 Adjust R-square for Private S ector = 0.5859 F = 17.53, P < 0.0001 F = 28.41, P < 0.0001 The adjusted R-square for the public sector model is 0.4668 (P < 0.0001), indicating that the model explains about 47% of the variation in the NC score and is statistically significant. The adjusted R-square for the private sector is model is 0.5859 (P < 0.0001), suggesting that the model explains about 59% of the variation in the NC score and is statistically significant. Among the control variables, managerial position in the public sector is the only variable found to be statistically significant, and it has a Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 141 negative relationship to NC in the public sector. With regards to industry comparisons, none of the coefficients are found to be statistically significant. In terms of the antecedents, the other opportunities variable is the rational-choice antecedent found to be statistically significant in both sectors, suggesting that having other opportunities has a positive effect on NC in both sectors (with a larger effect in the private sector than in the public sector). Two of the humanistic antecedents - intrinsic rewards and impact - are found to be statistically significant and positive in the public sector. None of the humanistic antecedents are statistically significant in the private sector. All of the extras antecedents are found to be significantly and positively related to the NC score in one or both of the sectors. In the public sector, individual attributes, feelings and relationships are found to be statistically significant. In the private sector, individual attributes, work-job experience, leadership and relationships are statistically significant. Among these antecedents, individual attributes variable has the largest coefficient in both sectors. Note that the effect of individual attributes is also the largest among all the antecedents in the public sector, while its effect is only slightly second to other opportunities in the private sector. Eight interaction terms for those antecedents found to be statistically significant (other opportunities, intrinsic rewards, impact, individual attributes, work-job experience, leadership, feelings and relationships) were added to a third regression to explore the sector*antecedent effects on NC. Only sector*impact is found to be statistically significant. The coefficient is 0.19 (P = 0.0192), suggesting that the effect of impact on Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 142 NC in the public sector is significantly higher than in the private sector.2 4 (Refer to Appendix VII for more details.) 5. Commitment Types and Commitment Feeling A logistic regression model is used to explore the relationships between the three commitment scores and commitment feeling. Commitment feeling is a binary dependent variable (do you feel committed to the organization or not: yes or no) and the three types of commitment are the independent variables. Table 5.23 reports the logistic regression results for the entire sample. Table 5.23: Commitment Feeling for Entire Sample Entire Sample N=614 Independent Variable Coefficient SE Wald x C ontrols G ender -0.080 0.294 0.073 Educational Level -0.257 0.211 1.481 Time Spent -0.003 0.002 2.556 Managerial Position 0.420 0.382 1.209 T ransportl 0.415 0.399 1.080 Transport2 0.210 0.411 0.261 S e c to r C om p ariso n Sector 0.109 0.387 0.080 T hree T ypes o f C om m itm ent Attitudinal-Affective Commitment (AAC) 0.368** 0.138 8.849 Calculative-Continuance Commitment (CCC) -0.364** 0.104 11.161 Normative Commitment (NC) 0.683*** 0.146 21.970 * P < 0.05 ** P < 0.01 *** P < 0.0001 Entire Sam ple Model: Likelihood ratio Chi-square {%) = 75.0200, DF = 10 P < 0.0001 24 Note that there is also a difference in direction o f the effect o f impact between the two sectors - positive effect in the public sector and negative in the private sector. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 143 The Chi-square of the model is 75.0200 (P < 0.0001), indicating that the model is statistically significant in explaining commitment feeling. None of the control variables or sector comparison are statistically significant. The coefficients of the three commitment scores suggest that both AAC and NC are significantly and positively related to commitment feeling while CCC is significantly and negatively related to commitment feeling. It should be noted that the NC coefficient is twice the size of the AAC coefficient. These coefficients indicate that one point increase in AAC score leads to a 37% increase in the likelihood that the respondent reports feeling committed and a one point increase in the NC score leads to a 68% increase in the likelihood that the respondent reports feeling committed. The CCC score is significantly and negatively related to commitment feeling. Specifically, the coefficient indicates that a one point increase in CCC score leads to a 36% decrease in the likelihood of feeling committed. Table 5.24 reports the logistic regression results for the sector comparison model. The Chi-square of the public sector model is 73.2034 (P < 0.0001), suggesting that this model is statistically significant in explaining commitment feeling in the public sector. The Chi-square of the private sector model is 21.6967 (P = 0.0099), indicating that this model is statistically significant in explaining commitment feeling in the private sector as well. Interestingly, this model explains commitment feeling in the public sector much better than in the private sector. This might suggest that the variation in commitment feeling among private sector employees is not explained by the three types of commitment as well as in the public sector. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 144 Table 5.24: Commitment Feeling, Sector Comparison Public Sector N=303/ Private Sector N=311 Independent Variable Coefficient SE Wald % Public Private Public Private Public Private Controls G ender -0.530 0.452 0.449 0.457 1.394 0.980 Education -0.410 -0.494 0.377 0.333 1.183 2.206 Time Spent -0.004 -0.004 0.003 0.003 2.530 1.365 M anagerial Position 0.894 -0.213 0.549 0.559 2.655 0.145 T ransportl -0.107 0.790 0.595 0.638 0.032 1.533 Transport2 0.481 -0.640 0.603 0.737 0.636 0.753 T hree T ypes of C om m itm ent AAC 0.793** 0.098 0.240 0.222 10.936 0.194 CCC -0.404** -0.287 0.164 0.187 6.076 2.346 NC 0.977** 0.515** 0.252 0.210 14.999 6.019 * P < 0.05 ** P < 0.01 *** P < 0.0001 Public Sector Model: Likelihood ratio x = 73.2034, DF = 9 P < 0.0001 None of the controls are statistically significant in either sector. All commitment scores are found to be statistically significant in the public sector. The coefficients of three scores in the public sector are as follows: 0.79 with a significance level of 0.01 for the AAC score, -0.40 with a significance level of 0.01 for the CCC and 0.98 with a significance level of 0.01 for the NC score. These coefficients suggest that a point unit increase in the AAC score leads to a 79% increase in the likelihood of feeling committed and a one point increase in the NC score leads to a 98% increase in the likelihood of feeling committed. A one point increase in the CCC score, on the other hand, leads to a 40% decrease in the likelihood of feeling committed in the public sector. In the private sector, the pattern of coefficients is similar in that the AAC and NC scores are positive while the CCC score is negative. However, only the NC score is Private Sector Model: Likelihood ratio x = 21.6967, DF= 9 P = 0.0099 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 145 found to be statistically significant. The NC score coefficient suggests that a one point increase in the NC leads to a 51% increase in the likelihood of feeling committed in the private sector. 6. Conclusion Regarding Hypothesis 5-9 In this section, conclusions regarding the statistical results are summarized. The results relevant to the hypothesis testing - primarily testing rational-choice (R-C) and humanistic (H) antecedents - are provided in Table 5.25. Also, interesting results and insights regarding the extras antecedents included in this analysis are discussed as well. Table 5.25: Summary of Hypothesis Testing Results Hypothesis Result H5: H antecedents are positively related to overall commitment in public sector Hypothesis confirmed H antecedent is related to overall com mitm ent in public sector but not in private sector H6: R-C antecedents are positively related to overall commitment in private sector Cannot confirm hypothesis R-C and H antecedents both have effects H7: H, not R-C, antecedents are positively related to AAC Hypothesis confirmed H has positive effect while R-C d o es not H8: R-C, not H, antecedents are positively related to CCC Hypothesis confirmed R-C has positive effect while H does not H9: H, not R-C, antecedents are positively related to NC Cannot confirm hypothesis H and R-C both have positive effects H10: AAC is most related to commitment feeling Hypothesis rejected NC is most related to com mitm ent feeling Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 146 6.1 Overall Commitment Regression results show that both rational-choice (R-C) and humanistic (H) antecedents contribute to overall commitment, indicating that overall commitment is driven both extrinsically and intrinsically, although the results suggest that the extrinsic drive is much larger. In addition to the R-C and H antecedents, most of the extras antecedents are also found to be significantly related to overall commitment. Among all antecedents, having other opportunities has the strongest effect, followed by individual attributes, relationships, leadership, work-job experience, and lastly intrinsic rewards. The patterns and magnitude of these antecedents suggest that the most important factor contributing to overall commitment is the employees’ belief that they have to stay at their organizations since it would be difficult or risky to find another job or a job that is equally desirable in the job market. This R-C antecedent represents economic safety net or necessity. It is interesting to note that another R-C antecedent - extrinsic rewards - which represents economic inducement, is not related to overall commitment at all. Relationships, leadership, work-job experience and intrinsic rewards have comparable positive effects on overall commitment. This result is consistent with previous empirical research, which found that the factors that make employees feel good about their job or organizations (for example, they like people that they work with, they respect their leaders, they have good experience with the job, work and organizational structures and processes, and they are intrinsically satisfied with their work) are positively related to organizational commitment. One interesting result that is Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 147 contradictory to previous research is the role of individual attributes. Individual attributes are found to be the second strongest antecedent with a positive effect on overall commitment in this study, while previous studies found that it has no significant effect on commitment (Balfour and Wechsler, 1996). In this study, employees who have strong work values and ethic have significantly higher overall commitment. One of the humanistic antecedents - intrinsic rewards - is found to have a significantly positive effect on the public sector only. It is interesting to note that none of the humanistic antecedent has any effect on overall commitment in the private sector. With these results, Hypothesis 5 (H antecedents are positively related to overall commitment in the public sector) is confirmed. Hypothesis 6 (R-C antecedents are positively related to overall commitment in the private sector) is not confirmed as one of the R-C antecedents has a strong effect in both sectors. Looking across the list of antecedents, interesting sector-specific patterns can be observed. While having other opportunities is the strongest antecedent for overall commitment in both sectors, the antecedents that come after can tell different stories. In the public sector, the second most important antecedent is individual attributes or having the right work values and work ethics, followed by intrinsic rewards, feelings and relationships respectively. These results suggest that aside from the economic safety net of having a job, which is the most fundamental commitment antecedent, what drives the overall commitment among employees in the public sector are their own values, the intrinsically derived satisfaction with work, the positive feelings about their organizations Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 148 (they feel that their organization respects and appreciates them, that the organization is good and fair, etc.) and the appreciation for people they work with at the organizations. In the private sector, the economic safety net of having a job is also the most important drive of commitment, but to a lesser extent than in the public sector. Aside from this antecedent, leadership is the second strongest antecedent for overall commitment. Interestingly, leadership is important in the private sector and not in the public sector. This suggests that in addition to having economic safety net, employees in the private sector are driven by good leadership - leaders that they respect, leaders that inspire and provide good directions and strategies. Overall commitment among private sector employees is also driven by individual attributes or work values or work ethics, work-job experience and relationships. The patterns that emerge here reveal that the economic safety net of having a job or a good job as well as individual work values/ethic are consistently the most important factors in determining the overall commitment regardless of sectors. Valuing and appreciating people in the work place is also consistently important across sectors. The key differences are that intrinsic rewards, the feelings that the organization respects and appreciates their work, and the belief that organization is good and fair, have a significant effect on public sector employees’ overall commitment. On the other hand, for private sector employees, employees derive higher commitment from good leadership and good work-job experience (autonomy, job agreement, good participative system and good communication system). Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 149 Time and managerial position are the two significant control variables. Time is positive and managerial position is negative, suggesting that employees who spend longer time tend to have slightly higher overall commitment and those who hold a managerial position tend to have slightly lower overall commitment. The negative effect of managerial position, although small, is rather surprising. Intuitively, holding a managerial position could be thought to be related to longer time and/or higher pay (than non-management), more responsibility, and more vested interests. All these things are intuitively likely to contribute to higher commitment. Possible speculation for the negative effect of managerial position could be that employees with a managerial position might have more confidence and perceived career alternatives. These employees might feel that they do not need to remain at their organizations and hence are less committed. When looking at the two sectors separately, interesting patterns or relationships involving these two variables can be observed. The negative effect of managerial position becomes insignificant in both sectors while time remains positive only in the private sector. This suggests that, only in the private sector, employees who spend longer time at their organizations tend to have higher overall commitment. In the public sector, time has no significant effect on employees’ overall commitment. In terms of industry comparison, the expressway system is found to have significant and positive relationship to overall commitment while transportation has a negative coefficient. This suggests that organizations in the expressway system - the Expressway and Rapid Transit Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 150 Authority and the Expressway Company Limited - have significantly higher overall commitment, compared to organizations in other two systems.2 5 6.2 AAC Regression results for AAC show that, for the entire sample, none of the R-C antecedents are found to be significantly related to AAC. It is interesting to note that the coefficients of both R-C antecedents are negative albeit small. Negative coefficients do suggest reverse relationships between these two R-C antecedents and AAC. Nonetheless, since both variables are not statistically significant, empirical evidence does not validate these potential reverse relationships. Two of the H antecedents - intrinsic rewards and mission - are found to be significantly and positively related to AAC. As the results show, R-C antecedents have no significant effect (if not even negative) on AAC while two out of three H antecedents are significantly and positively related to AAC. Hypothesis 7 (H, not R-C, antecedents are positively related to AAC) is confirmed. As hypothesized, AAC signifies the emotional attachment dimension of commitment and therefore, it is not surprising that the regression result confirms this hypothesis. In addition to intrinsic rewards, some extras antecedents also have significant and positive effects on AAC. Leadership and work-job experience show strong positive effects on AAC, followed by individual attributes and mission. These results suggest that 2 5 Transportation! (l=expressway system, 0=else) has significantly positive coefficient meaning expressway has higher commitment than subway and riverway. Transportation2 (l=riverway, 0=else) has negative although not significant coefficient meaning riverway system has lower commitment than expressway and subway. The effect o f subway is by: Intercept - pTransportationl - pTransportation2. With this calculation, subway’s P is consistently lower than expressway. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 151 AAC is primarily driven by intrinsically-derived satisfaction with work and the job. Leadership and work-job experience also play a very important role in determining AAC. Belief in the organization’s mission and individual work values/ethic are also important, although to a lesser extent compared to other antecedents. The results on antecedents also show fascinating patterns across sectors. For the public sector, only two antecedents - intrinsic rewards and leadership - are found to be significant. Public sector employees tend to develop an emotional attachment to their organization if they find their work to be intrinsically satisfying and the leadership to be respectable, inspiring and effective. For the private sector, the R-C antecedent - other opportunities - is found to be negative and statistically significant, suggesting employees who value the economic safety net tend to have lower emotional attachment to their organizations. Leadership is also found to be significant and positive in the private sector, as it is in the public sector. Work-job experience and individual attributes are also found to be significantly and positively related to AAC in the private sector. However, unlike in the public sector, H antecedents have no significant effect on AAC among private sector employees. These observable sector differences might suggest that employees in the two sectors identify their AAC or emotional attachment in different ways. In the public sector, employees seem to associate their emotional attachment to the organization with the intrinsically derived satisfaction with the work - whether they find their work satisfying, rewarding, challenging and so on. Public sector employees also seem to associate this type of commitment with organization’s leadership - whether they respect Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 152 their leaders and find leaders to inspire them. In the private sector, employees seem to show that their emotional attachment is not driven by their desire to have an economic safety net. Moreover, private sector employees tend to associate their emotional attachment with good leadership, good experiences they have at work, and their work values and work ethic. In terms of the control variables, time is the only one to have a statistically significant effect on AAC, indicating that the employees in this sample who spend a longer time at their organizations are more likely to have higher AAC. Sector comparisons of AAC show some interesting patterns. The effect of time is only significant in the private sector and not in the public sector. Public sector employees who spend a longer time at their organizations do not tend to have higher AAC. On the contrary, private sector employees who spend a longer time at their organizations tend to have significantly higher AAC. With regards to industry sub-systems, transportl is found to be statistically significant in the public sector while none of the industry variables are statistically significant in the private sector. This suggests that the public sector expressway system (Expressway and Rapid Transit Authority) has significantly higher AAC compared to organizations in the other systems. 6.3 CCC Regression results for the entire sample show that, among antecedents, an R-C antecedent - other opportunities - has a very large, significant and positive effect on CCC. With this statistical result, Hypothesis 8 (R-C, not H, antecedents are positively Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 153 related to CCC) is confirmed. This suggests that employees who view their organization or current job as an economic safety net tend to have significantly higher CCC or the need to remain at their organizations. Interestingly, an H antecedent - intrinsic rewards - is found to be significantly and negatively related to CCC. This negative coefficient indicates the reverse relationship between intrinsic rewards and CCC. Employees who value the intrinsically- driven satisfaction with their work tend to feel less need to remain at their organization primarily for economic reasons. In addition, relationships also have a significant and positive effect on CCC, suggesting that relationships with people at work also contribute to the need or the necessity to remain at the organizations. For the public sector, other opportunities and relationships are found to be significantly and positively related to CCC. These result suggest that in the public sector, employees who value the organization as an economic safety net and value people they work with are more likely to have more need to remain at their organization. Note, however, that the effect of other opportunities is much larger than the effect of relationships. This is no surprise as CCC is primarily driven by an economic rationale. It is also interesting to note that all H antecedents - intrinsic rewards, impact and mission - have negative coefficients. These negative coefficients indicate potential reverse relationships. However, as statistical results do not validate these relationships, it cannot be concluded that H antecedents are inversely related to CCC. For the private sector, only other opportunities is a significant antecedent. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 154 In short, CCC seems to be primarily driven by the R-C antecedent “other opportunities” regardless of sectors. In both sectors, employees who consider their organizations as the economic safety net (it would be difficult or risky for them to find another job or equally desirable job in the job market if they would consider leaving their current organizations), have significantly higher CCC or the “need” to remain at their organizations. However, one difference can be observed. Relationships also have a positive effective on CCC, although small. This might suggest that for the public sector employees, the need to remain at their organizations could also depend on whether or not they value the relationships they have with people at their organization. In terms of control variables, time has a positive effect on CCC, indicating that as employees stay with their organizations longer, they incur more sunk costs, physical and emotional investment, and hence they are likely to have higher CCC or the need to remain with their organizations. Of the two industry variables, transportion 1 is found to be statistically significant. This indicates that organizations in the expressway system (Expressway and Rapid Transit Authority and Expressway Company Limited) demonstrate higher CCC than organizations in the other transportation systems. When looking at the two sectors separately, transportl is found to be significant only in the public sector. This indicates that the public organization in the expressway system (Expressway and Rapid Transit Authority) has significantly higher CCC than the other public sector organizations. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 155 6.4 NC Regression results show that a lot of antecedents are significantly and positively related to NC. Both R-C antecedents - other opportunities and extrinsic rewards - have significant and positive effects on NC. One of the H antecedents - intrinsic rewards - is also found to have a significant and positive effect on NC. All of the extras antecedents except for work-job experience are found to be significantly and positively related to NC. With these results, Hypothesis 9 (H, not R-C, antecedents are positively related to NC) cannot be confirmed as antecedents of all categories are related to NC. Statistical results suggest that a lot of factors simultaneously affect the development of NC. Among various antecedents, individual attributes has the strongest effect on NC, followed by other opportunities, feelings, intrinsic rewards, relationships, leadership, and lastly extrinsic rewards. While a lot of factors seem to explain NC, distinct patterns can be observed as follows. Individual attributes is the strongest antecedent and seems to have an effect that is much stronger than other antecedents. This is reasonable as one can assume that employees with the work values and work ethic to be committed to their organizations are naturally more likely to develop a sense of obligation and duty for their organizations. Aside from the strong effect of individual attributes, employees who value their organization as an economic safety net also tend to have higher NC. They develop a sense of obligation and duty as they feel that they owe it to their organization for providing them with the economic safety of having a job or good job. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 156 In addition to these two strong antecedents, feelings, intrinsic rewards and relationships also have moderate effects on NC. These results suggest that employees who feel that their organizations respect and appreciate them and are good and fair, who find their work intrinsically satisfying, and find the relationships with people valuable, are more likely to have a higher sense of obligation and duty to their organizations. Leadership and extrinsic rewards also have small but positive effect on NC. The fact that a lot of antecedents contribute to NC might in fact indicate that NC is a very complicated construct or that people identify this dimension of commitment in many different ways. Recall that the ANOVA and ANCOVA results indicate a significant sector effect on NC. The regression results indicate that the sector effect is not significant, suggesting that as other independent variables are introduced, the sector effect is washed out. Variables other than sector are found to be stronger, thus eliminating the previously observed sector effect. For public sector, NC seems to be driven by many antecedents simultaneously: extrinsically-driven, intrinsically-driven as well as other emotionally driven factors such as feelings about their organizations and the people there. This might suggest that public sector NC is very complicated and multi-dimensional. For the private sector, in addition to individual attributes, only two other factors matter - other opportunities and relationships. It is interesting to note that while two of the H antecedents are found to be significantly related to NC in the public sector, none of the H antecedents is found to have any significant effect on NC in the private sector. Private sector employees seem to Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 157 see their NC as their work values/ethic and obligation to their organization as provider of economic safety net as well as obligation to people there. For the control variables, managerial position is the only one to have a statistically significant effect on NC. The effect is negative, indicating an inverse relationship between managerial position and NC. Employees who hold managerial positions are likely to have lower NC. Sector comparisons show that this negative effect of managerial position is present only in the public sector. This result might be rather counter-intuitive, as one may hypothesize that public managers would have higher commitment, especially the normative type. One explanation for this negative effect could be that these managers have a higher level of self-confidence and responsibility and feel that they can contribute a lot to their organizations. They might not necessarily have lower commitment. Their lower NC might instead suggest that public managers identify their commitment differently, and do not see it as an obligation or that they owe it to their organization. In fact, public managers do have higher AAC and CCC than private managers (although the differences in the mean scores are not statistically significant). 6.5 Three Commitment Types and the Ultimate Commitment Feeling? It is hypothesized in this study that among the three types of commitment - attitudinal-affective commitment (AAC), calculative-continuance commitment (CCC) and normative commitment (NC) - AAC or the emotional attachment that employees have for their organizations should be most related to the ultimate commitment feeling. This hypothesis is based on the reasoning that employees who feel the need to remain Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 158 with the organization for economic reasons (CCC) or feel that it is an obligation or that they owe it to their organizations (NC) in the end should have less commitment feeling than those who actually feel emotionally attached and want to stay with their organization. Logistic regression results for the entire sample show that all three commitment types are significantly related to commitment feeling. To no surprise, AAC and NC are positively related to commitment feeling while CCC is negatively related to commitment feeling. The results suggest that employees with a strong emotional attachment to their organization and those who have a strong sense of obligation and duty to their organization are more likely to ultimately feel committed to their organization. On the contrary, employees who have a strong need to remain with the organization due to economic reasons or necessity, are more likely to ultimately not feel committed. In other words, employees with high CCC might have commitment to remain with the organization but such commitment does not really translate into the sort of commitment feeling where they want to contribute more to their organization. An intriguing insight also emerges from the logistic regression results. NC is found to have a much larger effect (almost twice the size) than AAC on commitment feeling. This indicates that the sense of obligation and duty is also likely to translate into the commitment feeling. Employees who have a stronger sense of obligation and duty to their organization are significantly more likely to say that, ultimately, they do feel committed to their organizations. With these results, therefore, Hypothesis 10 (AAC is most related to commitment feeling) is rejected. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 159 When sectors are controlled for, the general pattern of relationships between the three types of commitment and commitment feeling remain the same across sectors. AAC and NC are positively related to the commitment feeling while CCC is negatively related to the commitment feeling and NC is most related to commitment feeling. In the public sector, all these effects are statistically significant. In the private sector, however, only the NC effect is statistically significant. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 160 CHAPTER 6 Discussion and Conclusion Section A of this chapter highlights important observations and insights drawn from the statistical results. Section B presents key implications of these findings. Section C concludes this study by discussing limitations of the research and ideas for future research. A. Key Observations and Insights 1. Sector Has no Effect on Levels and Types of Organizational Commitment The first key observation drawn from the results of this study is that there is no significant difference in the level of overall organizational commitment between the two sectors. The lack of a sector difference also holds for attitudinal-affective commitment (AAC) and calculative-continuance commitment (CCC). The ANOVA and ANCOVA results suggest that normative commitment (NC) is significantly higher in the private sector than in the public sector. While these results suggest a statistically significant difference in this type of commitment in the two sectors, they do not necessarily demonstrate the causality or predictive power of the sector variable. When sector is treated as one of many predictors of NC in a multivariate regression model, the sector effect is washed out by other determinants. The conclusion drawn from this observation is that sector by itself does not seem to have a statistically significant predicting effect on the levels of commitment. In other words, public and private sector employees are likely to have similar levels of commitment. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 161 As mentioned earlier, the general view is that private sector commitment is higher than that in the public sector. This finding, contradictory to the general view, suggests that sector might not have any effect on how much employees feel committed to their organization. Furthermore, while a number of empirical studies on Western cultures found that public sector has higher AAC while private sector has higher CCC, the findings in this study indicate that the commitment level and types are very similar. Could these findings suggest that in Thailand, public and private sector employees tend to have the same levels and types of commitment? This absence of sectoral effects might in fact reveal the overriding cultural effect of the Thai sample; public and private sector employees demonstrate comparable commitment and share a similar overall pattern of commitment types. While the statistical results show that sector does not have a significant effect on the levels and types of commitment, sector effects can be consistently observed in the patterns of commitment antecedents. In other words, the observable distinct patterns of commitment antecedents between the two sectors suggest that how commitment is developed differs between the two sectors, suggesting sector-specific effects that transcend cultural effects. The discussion provided below highlights key insights derived from this study. Some of these insights indicate sector implications while others indicate the potential overriding cultural effects, which are unique to the sample of Thailand. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 162 2. The Pattern of Antecedents Explaining Commitment When sectors are not considered separately, some patterns can be observed regarding the antecedents of overall commitment and the three types of commitment. For overall commitment, R-C, H and extras antecedents all help explain the level of commitment. For AAC, H and extras antecedents make a significant contribution while R-C antecedents do not. For CCC, both R-C and one of the extras (relationships) have a positive effect while H, interestingly, has a negative effect. For NC, all antecedents except for impact and mission have a statistically significant and positive effect. Among the three commitment types, individual attributes, work-job experience, leadership, feelings and relationships (variables that do not clearly fall under R-C or H or have some overlapping qualities), consistently have positive effects on all types of commitment. This is to be expected as many previous empirical studies have confirmed the positive effects of these antecedents. It is not unexpected then, that, AAC and CCC share a number of antecedents; scholars have observed that these two dimensions are adequately but not entirely distinct (Morrow, 1993). A new insight, however, can be observed from the very significant and clear distinction between AAC antecedents and CCC antecedents. In addition to the consistent effects of the extras antecedents, only H antecedents are very strongly and positively related to AAC. Specifically, intrinsic rewards is found to have the strongest effect among all the antecedents that contribute to explaining AAC. The R-C antecedents even have negative effects, although they are not statistically significant. For CCC, in addition to a small effect of the extras antecedents, an R-C antecedent (other Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 163 opportunities) has a very large and significant positive effect on CCC. In contrast, an H antecedent (intrinsic rewards) has a significant and negative effect on CCC. These distinct patterns confirm the hypotheses that R-C antecedents play the dominant role in determining higher CCC while H antecedents play the dominant role in determining higher AAC. Consistent with common sense, economically or extrinsically- driven antecedents affect the economic and instrumental dimension of commitment. In contrast, intrinsically-driven antecedents affect the emotional and intrinsic dimension of commitment. Yet, the interesting insight derived from this study is that R-C antecedents also have a negative or reverse effect on AAC (although not significant) while H antecedents have a negative or reverse effect on CCC. The insight that the R-C and H antecedents and the behaviors driven by them seem to have an inverse and contradictory relationship is compatible with the “cognitive evaluation theory” (Salancick, 1975; Robbins, 2004), which stipulates that the introduction of extrinsic rewards can negatively affect the intrinsically-driven motivations and the reduction of extrinsic rewards can increase intrinsically-driven behavior. In this case, economic or extrinsically-driven motivation may potentially decrease the intrinsically-motivated behavior. By the same token, intrinsically-driven motivation can result in lower economically- or instrumentally -motivated behavior among employees. Based on this insight, a management implication is that, the use of extrinsic rewards as compensation tool might in fact reduce the intrinsic and internal attachment to the organization. It is worth noting, again, that NC was included in this study for exploratory purposes since it has not been studied much and thus its theoretical explanation and Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 164 empirical investigation can benefit from better research. As Morrow (1993, p. 106) has pointed out, “studies furthering delineating the nature of this concept are desirable.” The hypothesis regarding NC antecedents was developed on this exploratory basis. H antecedents were hypothesized to contribute to NC, but the results of this study cannot confirm this hypothesis. In fact, the analysis shows that NC is a very complicated dimension of commitment, in fact the most complicated among the three commitment types. Many antecedents - R-C, H and extras - simultaneously contribute to this type of commitment, making it difficult to draw any concrete conclusions regarding the pattern of NC antecedents. Additional effort to better define and measure this type of commitment and to assess its antecedents is still warranted. 3. Commitment Antecedents in the Two Sectors 3.1 R-C and H Antecedents It is interesting to find that one R-C antecedent (other opportunities) and none of the H antecedents drive all commitment types - AAC, CCC and NC - in the private sector. In the public sector, in contrast, none of the R-C antecedents, but one of the H antecedents (intrinsic rewards), is consistently the primary driver of AAC and NC but not CCC. This finding reveals an interesting implication. Regardless of commitment type, private sector employees are primarily driven by rational-choice type motivation and not at all by the humanistic type motivation. Public sector employees, on the other hand, seem to be primarily driven by humanistic motivation in all types of commitment except for CCC, which by definition is economically driven. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 165 3.2 Extras Antecedents The antecedents that are categorized as “extras” in this study are those that do not clearly fall into either the rational-choice (R-C) or the humanistic (H) category or that possess overlapping qualities. These antecedents encompass individual characteristics, organization characteristics, and those antecedents that have to do with interactions between individuals and organizations (i.e., experience, feelings and relationships). Many of the extras antecedents are found to have significant and positive relationships with all types of commitment (although less effect on CCC). This is expected as the literature review also indicates that a number of studies have empirically identified these variables as commitment antecedents. Among these extras antecedents, individual attributes variable is found to have rather strong and positive effect on AAC and NC but not CCC in both sectors. This finding is contradictory to the previous empirical study by Balfour and Wechsler (1996) that found that individual predisposition does not have any effect on organizational commitment. In this study, employees in both sectors who have conducive personal work values (being loyal and committed to their organizations) and work ethic (working hard) are consistently likely to have higher commitment, except for the calculative- continuance type. This contradictory result might illustrate a potential cultural effect in this particular sample. As Asian culture is often associated with a very collectivistic ideology and work values/work ethic (James and Kalleberg, 1990; Downs et al, 1996), this finding might offer empirical evidence that this cultural effect is present. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 166 The other opportunities variable is consistently found to have the strongest and significant effect on CCC and NC but not AAC, in the entire sample as well as in the two separate sectors. Except for the absence of its effect on AAC, the statistical results in this study reveal that other opportunities has the largest effect (largest standardized coefficient, compared to other antecedents) across commitment types and across sectors. This finding does not mean that we can readily conclude that rational-choice type motivation is the strongest commitment antecedent. The important role of this antecedent suggests that the primary motive that keeps employees committed to their organization is the realization that their current job is the best available to them. It should be noted that while this antecedent is categorized as R- C, it represents the basic economic need and safety net rather than an economic stimulus or inducement such as pay, bonus, or other extrinsic rewards. Interestingly, extrinsic rewards, which is also categorized in this study as an R-C antecedent, is consistently found to have a negative (but not significant) effect on all types of commitment except for NC, in both sectors. This finding suggests that employees who value extrinsic rewards (pay, promotion and other rewards) tend to demonstrate lower AAC and CCC. Nevertheless, this reverse relationship between extrinsic rewards and commitment (AAC and CCC) is not statistically confirmed. While leadership has been enthusiastically embraced by popular management literature, its effects on organizations have been rather inconclusive. The finding in this study provides additional empirical evidence that leadership does play an important role in creating organizational commitment across sectors, although more so in the private Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 167 sector. When sectors are not considered separately, leadership is found to have a significant and positive effect on overall commitment, AAC as well as NC (but not CCC). This suggests that, across sectors, overall commitment, the emotional attachment as well as the sense of obligation and duty to organizations, can be enhanced if employees respect their leaders and find their leaders to be both inspiring and effective. When sectors are controlled for, the positive effect of leadership on AAC and NC remains in the private sector. For the public sector, however, the effect of leadership is found to be statistically significant only for AAC. The implication from this finding is that good leadership has a strong and positive effect on various types of commitment in the private sector. For the public sector, on the other hand, good leadership only affects employees’ emotional attachment to the organization. What makes leadership so strong in the private sector and not as strong in the public sector could be the issue of identification. Since being a “public” organization signifies being owned by the public or serving the public, the concept of identification might be rather abstract among public employees. Public sector employees might be more likely to identify with the organization as a whole or the organization’s mission. Private sector employees, on the other hand, might be more likely to identify with the owner or certain leaders of their organization. Specifically, if leaders are very assertive and effective, leaders can represent the whole organization itself and can play a pivotal role in determining and increasing organizational commitment. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 168 3.3 Controls One of the control variables that has shown a significant effect is managerial position. An interesting insight is the negative effect of managerial position on NC. Managerial position is found to have a negative effect on NC for the entire sample. However, when sectors are controlled for, this effect only remains in the public sector. This finding is intriguing and is rather counter-intuitive. One might assume that managers have more skills, confidence, responsibility and ability to have an impact. Subsequently, these qualities should result in higher commitment, particularly the normative type of commitment. The finding contradicts this logic. Why are public managers likely to have lower NC? One potential explanation might be their perceived self-importance. Public managers might see themselves as key contributors to their organization - taking on a lot of responsibilities while their pay might be low (this is generally true when compared to what managers earn in the private sector). Public managers might not see their commitment as an obligation and duty or might not think that they owe it to their organizations. They might in fact think that they provide a valuable contribution and sacrifice and thus their commitment is not something that they owe. It should be noted that, even though managerial position is found to have a negative relationship with NC, this does not necessarily mean that all public managers are less committed. For example, public managers have higher AAC and CCC than private managers, although these differences are not statistically significant and managerial position is also not a Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 169 significant predictor of AAC or CCC. Rather, it simply may indicate that public managers view their commitment not as the normative type. Industry is another control variable that also yielded interesting insights. The industry comparison variable consistently indicates that the two organizations in the expressway system - Expressway and Rapid Transit Authority and the Expressway Company Limited - compared to organizations in other systems, show a higher level of commitment (except for AAC and NC). When looking at each sector separately, the Expressway and Rapid Transit Authority has a significantly higher level of commitment (except for NC) than the other two public organizations. The Expressway Company does not have a significantly higher commitment when compared to the other two private organizations. The positive effect of the expressway system seems to be limited only to the public sector. This significantly higher commitment might be explained by several conditions unique to the public sector expressway system. One potential explanation is that the expressway recently became a very popular (if not necessary) means of transportation among Bangkokians, and thus the organization’s performance and profitability can be assumed to improve with such favorable market conditions. The Expressway and Rapid Transit Authority is a state- owned enterprise, which means that even though it is a public organization, it can practice more of the market strategies and incentives than other strictly governmental organizations and might be able to enjoy the benefits of favorable market. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 170 The subway system, on the other hand, is in its infancy stage. The subway has only been officially open for public use since July 2004. Given the early stage of operation, employees in these two organizations might face some market uncertainty - whether their organizations would do well or not. Also, compared to the expressway system, the subway system is certainly newer, and thus the positive effect of time - time inculcates loyalty and commitment - might not be at work to the same extent that it might in the expressway system. The riverway system seems to have a lower commitment level than the other two systems. The riverway system has been one of the major transportation means for Bangkokians for a very long time, and the two organizations in this system have been in existence for many decades - much longer than the organizations in the expressway and subway systems. This suggests that the “time effect” does not survive other potentially negative conditions, which apparently have reduced the level of commitment in the riverway system. One such condition is the declining popularity of the riverway or boats as a means of transportation among Bangkokians. This trend can create negative market conditions - loss of profitability, reputation and image - that could then hamper commitment among employees in the riverway system. 4. Commitment Types and the Ultimate Commitment Feeling Employees were asked: do you feel committed to your organization? This question might ignore the multi-dimensionality of commitment, but, as argued earlier in 2 6 Although the relevant organizations - The Mass Rapid Transport Authority and the Bangkok Metro Company Limited - have been in operation for several years. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 171 this study, this question forces an employee into choosing between two ultimate choices - they are either committed or they are not. This question assesses another facet of commitment. Employees might define or possess different types of commitment. Some might have high AAC and high NC and low CCC while some might have high CCC and low AAC. However, ultimately, do they feel committed or not? AAC and NC are found in this study to be significantly and positively related to commitment feeling. CCC is found to be significantly and negatively related to commitment feeling. When sectors are compared, this pattern remains the same and significant for the public sector. For the private sector, the pattern remains the same except that only the positive relationship between NC and commitment feeling is statistically significant. These findings suggest that emotional attachment and a sense of obligation and duty are more likely to lead to the ultimate commitment feeling. The economically driven commitment, however, is likely to result in the lack of commitment feeling. These implications are very significant in the public sector. Do these findings suggest that there is good and bad commitment? We might be able to say that attitudinal-affective and normative commitments are the more desirable types of commitment or the types of commitment that are likely to result in the overall or ultimate commitment feeling, while calculative-continuance commitment is the less desirable type of commitment or the type of commitment with which employees choose to stay with the organization because they need to and not necessarily because they have an ultimate commitment feeling for their organization. As scholars have suggested, employees with CCC stay with their organizations not because Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 172 they are committed but because they have no choice. Such commitment can result in “learned helplessness” (Seligman, 1975), which could subsequently lead to mediocre or poor performance and lack of real commitment or the kind of commitment that translates into the willingness to perform and contribute. Recall from the previous discussion that CCC is found to be consistently the lowest among the three types of commitment and much lower than AAC and NC in the full sample. This might suggest that respondents in this sample - regardless of sector - have the desirable types of commitment (AAC is highest followed closely by NC) and low CCC or the type of commitment that is less desirable. This finding might reveal a potential cultural implication. Could this mean that Thai people - regardless of sector - identify their commitment primarily in terms of emotional attachment and moral obligation or a sense of duty and not in terms of an economically-driven response? Another insight can be observed from the relationships among the three commitment types and the ultimate commitment feeling. Employees can possess more than one type of commitment with differing degrees at any point of time.2 7 This means that the effect of commitment types can interact and affect the commitment feeling. For instance, employees might have high AAC and NC at the same time, meaning they have a strong emotional attachment and sense of obligation to the organization. In this case, the two commitment types - AAC and NC - may have a reciprocal and positive reinforcing effect. In contrast, some employees might have high CCC, meaning they stay at the organization because they do not have other choices. In such a case, though, it is 2 7 The combination o f commitment types and the degree or level o f each commitment type that an individual employee possesses at one point o f time is subject to change. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 173 possible that these employees also develop AAC. Even if staying with the organization is a necessity, these employees might develop an emotional attachment to the organization over time. Moreover, in some cases, employees might have a strong sense of obligation independent of whether or not other opportunities are available. For these employees, the positive effect of AAC and NC can outweigh or mitigate the negative effect of CCC. Table 6.1 presents the potential relationships and interactions between the three commitment types and their effects on the ultimate commitment feeling. Table 6.1: Commitment Types and Commitment Feeling Commitment Type Ultimate Commitment Feeling CCC No AAC Yes NC Yes CCC+AAC ? CCC+NC ? AAC+NC Yes B. Implications and Practical Strategies In short, the results obtained in this study suggest that there is no significant sectoral difference in terms of the levels and types of commitment among the employees studied. The finding suggests that public sector employees are not any less committed to their organization than their private sector counterparts. Among various interesting findings from this study, three very important messages can be summarized. First, sector seems to have its impact on the “patterns of relationships” between various antecedents and the three types of commitment. Second, although there are some antecedents that are related to all three types of commitment, there are also distinct patterns of relationships Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 174 between antecedents and each of the three commitment types: AAC is primarily driven by H antecedents, CCC by R-C antecedents and NC by a mix of antecedents. Third, NC is most positively related to the ultimate commitment feeling. Once a better understanding about organizational commitment and commitment antecedents is obtained, it is possible to develop practical management strategies to enhance commitment among employees and to design specific strategies that are appropriate to each sector. Based on empirical insights garnered in this study, some valuable practical management strategies are suggested. These include strategies to increase the overall commitment and specific types of commitment as well as some sector-specific strategies. It should be noted that detailed management strategies and action plans are beyond the scope of this study. In this study, only the initial strategic ideas are suggested. 1. Using Antecedents to Increase Commitment Since the results of this study suggest that AAC and NC can lead to higher commitment feeling and CCC can decrease it, the most valuable implication from this finding is that organizations should try to encourage AAC and NC and to discourage CCC. As the pattern of antecedents for the three types of commitment has already been outlined, it is possible to emphasize key variables known to have positive effects on the specific types of commitment. First, across the two sectors, there are some antecedents that are rather consistently positively related to most of the three types of commitment, such as work-job experience, leadership, feelings and relationships. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 175 These antecedents are the basic all-encompassing variables to be considered in order to increase commitment. Organizations that attempt to increase commitment of any kinds should consider strategies that enhance employees’ work-job experience (autonomy, participation, agreement with the job, good work conditions, good communication system, etc.), instill good leadership (leadership that is respected, inspires, and is effective), improve organizational features and processes (fairness, respect and appreciation for employees, teamwork, etc.) to make employees feel good about their work place. As relationships is also another antecedent frequently found to have positive effects on most types of commitment, organizations should try to enhance relationships among people in the work place by providing enabling conditions - open and interactive communications, feedback systems between supervisors and subordinates as well as among peers, activities that involve people, etc. Other opportunities and individual attributes are also strongly related to most of the commitment types in both sectors. These two things might prove to be rather difficult to turn into practical strategies. Organizations can try to make sure that employees see their current employer as providing an adequate economic safety net. This might be a little easier to achieve in the public sector as a public career is often seen as a life-time job, not with high pay but with honor. Employees in the public sector might already be self-selected into the idea of a life-time career, and thus are not likely to seek other jobs. This might be more difficult to accomplish in the private sector since the job market is much more competitive and employees more mobile. While it is impossible to affect the external labor market (for instance, whether or not particular employees would Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 176 receive other job offers or feel like re-entering the job market, etc.), organizations can try to make sure that the current pay and benefits are suitable to employees’ qualifications and competitive enough compared to other comparable jobs in the market. It should be noted however, that, while other opportunities is positively related to overall commitment and NC, it is also the key determinant of CCC, which is linked to lower ultimate commitment feeling. The combined effect of NC and CCC is beyond the scope of this study. Therefore, it is suggested that organizations address other opportunities with caution and place more emphasis on other antecedents for AAC and NC (since AAC and NC could possibly replace or reduce CCC). For individual attributes, it might be rather difficult for organizations - both public and private - to try to encourage particular personal values and work ethic, which need to be instilled and socialized over a period of time. Nevertheless, organizations can try to attract employees with conducive values and work ethic. Screening mechanisms such as interviews and surveys can be employed to gauge prospective employees’ personal values and work ethic. Moreover, organizations can try to create an organization culture that values and rewards loyal, committed and hard working employees. As discussed earlier, Thailand might already have a collectivistic culture that is conducive to commitment, and organizations can take advantage of this collectivistic culture by exemplifying it through “observed artifacts” (Schein, 1990) with examples of desirable behaviors, rewarding such behaviors, and reinforcing the culture through socialization processes such as in-house training, meetings, etc. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 177 2. Targeting AAC and NC In addition to these all-encompassing commitment antecedents, several key antecedents can be especially targeted to encourage the types of commitment that lead to the ultimate commitment feeling - AAC and NC. As the most important AAC antecedent is intrinsic rewards, which has a stronger effect in the public sector than the private sector, organizations that want to increase this type of commitment should assure that their employees feel intrinsically satisfied with their job. This intrinsic satisfaction includes the feeling that the job is meaningful and challenging, enjoyable, and provides professional and personal growth. To encourage such intrinsic satisfaction, organizations should identify a mission and goals that are meaningful and that employees can identify with and feel proud of. Feedback from employees should be regularly sought in order to determine whether and to make sure that job is challenging, enjoyable and providing personal and professional growth. This feedback should then be incorporated into job-related strategies. The significance of intrinsic rewards rest upon the notion, supported by empirical evidence from this study, that happy employees tend to perform better and be more committed. Thus, organizations can benefit tremendously by making sure that their employees are intrinsically satisfied. For the private sector, the key to higher AAC is leadership and work-job experience. This study shows that private sector employees develop emotional attachments to their organizations through respect and identification with the organization’s leadership and if they have good experiences at work. To enhance AAC, Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 178 private organizations will want to have good leaders or to create an image of good leadership. Leaders might want to establish stronger connections with employees by communicating with them regularly and by providing access to leaders. Work-job experience - autonomy, job agreement, work condition, good communication - can be achieved through organizational and job design. For NC, which is the strongest type of commitment that translates into commitment feeling, many antecedents seem to affect this type of commitment in both sectors. The strongest antecedents to target seem to be other opportunities, individual attributes and, in the public sector, intrinsic rewards. Strategies regarding these antecedents were discussed earlier. Organizations should try to assure that appropriate conditions, informed by these important antecedents, are met so that employees would have a stronger sense of obligation and duty to their organizations. One issue that might arise regarding NC is the negative effect of managerial position on this commitment type. Recall that one of the interesting findings in this study indicates that managerial position in the public sector has a significant and negative effect on NC. Does this mean that public managers would be more likely to have lower NC, which in turn, is empirically shown to be the most desirable form of commitment? As discussed earlier, this negative effect might suggest that public managers do not see their commitment as an obligation or duty or that they owe it to their organizations. This does not necessarily mean that public managers will not be committed or that they are less likely to have the desirable type of commitment. Rather, this insight might suggest that, since public managers might not identify their commitment in normative terms, Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 179 organizations might want to emphasize the attitudinal-affective type of commitment if they want to encourage higher commitment among public managers. Organizations can benefit from targeting these commitment types in two ways. First, by providing appropriate conditions and using the right strategies, organizations can help encourage the development of AAC and NC among employees, especially new employees. Second, by continuously targeting AAC and NC, organizations can also affect employees who have high CCC, and thus possibly reduce it or replace it with AAC and/or NC. C. Conclusion 1. Concluding Notes This study accomplishes four important tasks. First it provides empirical evidence on an important research topic, organizational commitment, with valuable sector-comparisons. Second, this study is comprehensive, empirically exploring the levels of commitment, types of commitment, as well as commitment antecedents. Third, an exploratory inclusion of normative commitment provides an opportunity to study this oftentimes ignored commitment dimension. Lastly, by using a Thai sample, this study extends organizational commitment theories and applications to non-Westem countries and suggests potential cultural implications. The key hypothesis testing results are summarized in Table 6.2. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 180 Table 6.2: Summary Hypothesis Testing H ypothesis R esult H1: Private sector em ployees’ overall commitment > Public sector em ployees’ overall commitment Cannot confirm hypothesis Private overall commitment = Public overall commitment No significant difference H2: Public sector em ployees' AAC > Private sector em ployees’ AAC Cannot confirm hypothesis Private AAC = Public AAC Not significant difference H3: Private sector em ployees' CCC > Public sector em ployees’ CCC Cannot confirm hypothesis Public CCC = Private CCC Not significant difference H4: Public sector em ployees’ NC > Private sector em ployees’ NC Hypothesis rejected Private NC > Public NC Statistically significant H5: H antecedents are positively related to overall commitment in public sector Hypothesis confirmed H antecedent is related to public overall commitment H6: R-C antecedents are positively related to overall commitment in private sector Cannot confirm hypothesis R-C and H antecedents have effects H7: H, not R-C, antecedents are positively related to AAC Hypothesis confirmed H has positive effect while R-C does not H8: R-C, not H, antecedents are positively related to CCC Hypothesis confirmed R-C has positive effect while does not H9: H, not R-C, antecedents are positively related to NC Cannot confirm hypothesis H and R-C both have effects H10: AAC is m ost related to commitment feeling Hypothesis rejected NC is most related to com mitm ent feeling Investigation of various commitment antecedents also yields several interesting insights. While the type of commitment dictates the specific effects and strengths of various commitment antecedents, sector also seems to have some effect. Some antecedents for each of the three commitment types are consistent across sectors. However, for the public sector, humanistic antecedents seem to be the over-riding theme while it is rational choice antecedents for the private sector. With this knowledge, ideas for management strategies are also proposed in this study. Several antecedents have strong effects across all types of commitment and across sectors. This suggests that these antecedents - namely, other opportunities, individual attributes, work-job experience, leadership, feelings, and relationships - are the Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 181 fundamental commitment antecedents. These findings confirm the previous conjecture that the three types of commitment are adequately but not entirely independent and therefore are likely to share some antecedents (Morrow, 1993). Organizations - public and private alike - can benefit from trying to assure that these conditions and motivations are satisfied. Among these primary antecedents, other opportunities and individual attributes consistently show a strong and positive effect on commitment. This suggests that the most fundamental drivers of commitment across all types and sectors are the employees’ perception that the current job provides an economic safety net and the employees’ own personal work values and work ethic. Another key implication derived from this study is that, aside from focusing on the primary all-encompassing antecedents, public and private organizations should focus on different strategies in order to enhance the desirable commitment types (AAC and NC). Statistical results show that humanistic antecedents have a positive effect on AAC and NC in the public sector but not at all in the private sector. Therefore, to increase AAC and NC, public sector organizations should put more emphasis on humanistic type antecedents, especially intrinsic rewards and impact. On the other hand, as statistical results indicate that these antecedents have less effect on private sector AAC and none on NC, private sector organizations do not need to equally emphasize these two antecedents but should focus on other antecedents such as leadership, work-job experience, individual attributes, etc. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 182 2. Limitations Despite these accomplishments, some limitations of this study should be noted. 2.1 Potential Problems with Use of a Questionnaire The most common problem with the use of questionnaires is the potential for bias in the answers provided by respondents. In this study, the answers are self-reported. Respondents might feel social pressure to answer in an overly favorable way to their organization. Anonymity and confidentiality are the key mechanisms to lessen self- reporting biases. Also, the use of several multi-item variables also helps to mitigate potential bias or inaccurate answers that might occur more frequently with single-item variables. Even with these measures, though, the potential for inaccurate answers remains. 2.2 Potential Problems with the Distribution of the Questionnaires The participating organizations insisted on distributing the questionnaires themselves. While the response rate is satisfactory (85% initial response rate and 80.5% usable responses), biases might have occurred during the distribution and administration of the questionnaires. The organization staff might have chosen to distribute the questionnaires to employees who have favorable views toward the organization. Again, anonymity and confidentiality might lessen this potential bias. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 183 2.3 Subjective Measurement This study relies on subjective measurement scales - the Likert-type 7-point agree-disagree scales. The advantages of this method are that it conforms all answers into measurable and comparable scales and it allows for quantitative analyses using statistical methods on the data. The disadvantages of this method are that using such scales might omit relevant information, especially information that respondents cannot provide in terms of numerical ratings. Moreover, since these scales can be rather subjective, each respondent’s answers might not be comparable to others’. The measurement for commitment feeling also poses a potential measurement problem. As Allen and Meyer’s well-established commitment scales are adopted in an attempt to best measure three dimensions of commitment, one yes-no type of question is used to measure the ultimate feeling of commitment. As discussed in this study, the yes-no type of question might be problematic as it forces the multi-dimensional construct into an either-or choice. This measure is included for exploratory reasons - to come up with a more general or encompassing measure of commitment feeling to use as a dependent variable and to explore how the three commitment types are related to this commitment measure. 2.4 Generalizability Industry - First, the six organizations participating in this study represent Thailand’s transportation industry. The study focused on three of the four sub-systems of the transportation industry - infrastructure (expressway), railroad (subway), and riverway Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 184 (riverway) - but the aviation system was not a part of this study. While it is hoped that the sample provides adequate industry diversity and representativeness, the results from the sample of six organizations must be interpreted with care. Culture - A key contribution of this study is to conduct an empirical study on a non-Westem culture where research has been lacking. However, using Thailand as a sample also potentially limits the generalizability of the findings. The results might be due to some characteristics or conditions inherent to Thailand or Thai culture, and thus less pertinent to other cultures. 3. Ideas for Future Research While this study offers a number of contributions to the on-going inquiry about organizational commitment, a lot can be done to improve the understanding in this area. First, this study provides knowledge regarding organizational and sector implications in a non-Westem culture, but it is not meant to be cross-cultural. This means that, in this study, it is not possible to identify, analyze and compare the potential effects of culture. Potential effects of culture are noted in this study (for example, the absence of sectoral effects on levels and types of commitment and the very strong positive effects of normative commitment might be related to culture), but without cultural comparison, these effects cannot be validated. A cross-cultural repetition and extension of this study could be conducted using the same theory and methods on two or more countries/ cultures. Such a study can try to explore further the nature of commitment in the public Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 185 and private sectors in different countries/cultures and identify whether there are distinct sector-specific and culture-specific characteristics. Another repetition and extension study can be done using a different industry. While this study used the transportation industry because of its appropriateness for comparative analysis, access, and voluntariness, other industries (e.g., health care and education) can be identified and adopted as a sample. Research on different industries can offer an opportunity for a sector-comparison as well as an industry-comparison. Aside from potential repetitions and extensions, more studies are warranted in the area of normative commitment. While this type of commitment has been generally disregarded because it is correlated with attitudinal-affective commitment, this study finds that normative commitment might have the strongest link to the ultimate commitment feeling. Is this type of commitment really important or is it due to the cultural effect of the Thai sample? If normative commitment proves to be important across cultures, this would be a valuable insight to know. More research that explores normative commitment in-depth and compares this type of commitment to the other two types will greatly contribute to our current knowledge of multiple commitments. Lastly, as this study constitutes an exploratory attempt to determine which commitment type is likely to be the most desirable to organizations, more research in the area of desirable commitment types and the interactions among various commitment types would also be valuable. Future research can try to measure multiple desirable behaviors and empirically explore whether and how the three types of commitment are related to these behaviors, as well as how the three types of commitment affect one Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 186 another. For example, if ultimate commitment feeling is used as the more general measure of commitment, future research can further specify this concept in terms of observable behaviors such as the willingness to put forth extra effort, to work extra hours, to sacrifice some personal benefits for the benefit of the organization. Such research could also investigate whether employees would leave their organization if another organization offered more pay or a more challenging position. Would employees with strong attitudinal-affective commitment be more likely to put forth extra effort for the good of the organization? Would employees with strong calculative-continuance want to leave when offered higher pay by another organization? Would they develop more attitudinal-affective and normative commitment if their organization provided different incentives and treated them differently? Would employees with strong normative commitment sacrifice personal benefits for the good of the organization or would they leave the organization for higher pay? The answers to these questions will provide very interesting information relevant to the basic understanding of the multiple dimensions of organizational commitment. In the end, while knowledge for the sake of knowing and understanding is valuable, the knowledge that can be used in real life to affect positive changes is undeniably more valuable. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 187 BIBLIOGRAPHY Adam, Gerald F. and Vernon, Heidi. Comparing Business Cultures: Thailand and the U.S. Sasin Journal of Management, 7, 2001. Adler, Paul S. and Kwon, Seok-Woo. Social Capital: Prospect for a New Concept. Academy of Management Review, 27, 2002. Albanese, R. A. Dacin, M. T. and Harris, I. C. Agent as Stewards. Academy of Management Review, 223, 609-611, 1997. Allen, N. J. and Meyer, J. P. Organizational Socialization Tactics: A Longitudinal Analysis of Links to Newcomers’ Commitment and Role Orientation. Academy of Management Journal, 33, 847-858, 1990a. ________ . The Measurement and Antecedents of Affective, Continuance, and Normative commitment to the Organization. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 63, 1-18, 1990. Alutto, J. A., Hrebiniak, L. G. and Alonso, R. C. On Operating the Concept of Commitment. Social Forces, 51, 448-454, 1973. Angle, H. L. and Lawson, M. B. Organizational Commitment and Employee’s Performance Ratings: Both Types of Commitment and Type of Performance Count. Psychological Reports, 75, 1539-1551, 1994. Angle, H. L. and Perry J. L. An Empirical Assessment of Organizational Commitment and Organizational Effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 26, 1-13, 1981. Argyris, Chris. The Individual and the Organizations: Some Problems of Mutual Adjustment. Administrative Science Quarterly, 2, 1-24, 1957. Barnard, Chester. Functions of the Executive. Harvard Press, 1938. Barney J. and Hesterley W. Organizational Economics: Understanding the Relationship between Organizations and Economic Analysis. In Clegg, Hardy and Nord (eds), Handbook of Organization Studies, Sage Publications, 1996. Balfour, D. L. and Wechsler, B. The Theory of Public Sector Commitment: Towards a Reciprocal Model of Person and Organization. In Perry, J. L (ed.), Research in Public Administration, 3, 281-314, 1994. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 188 ________ . New Approaches to Public Sector Commitment, Public Productivity and Management Review, 19, 3, 253-255, 1996. ________ . Organizational Commitment: Antecedents and Outcomes in the Public Organizations. Public Productivity and Management Review, 19, 3, 256-277, 1996. Becker, Thomas E. Foci and Bases of Commitment: Are The Distinctions Worth Making? Academy of Management Journal, March 1992. Bellah, Robert N., Madsen, Richard., Sullivan, William M., Swidler, Ann., and Tipton, Steven M. Habits of the Heart: Individualism and Commitment in American Life. University of California Press, 1985. Benkhoff, Birgit. Ignoring Commitment is Costly: New Approaches Establish the Missing Link Between Commitment and Performance, Human Relations, June 1997. Bennis, Warren. Managing the Dream: Reflections on Leadership and Change. Perseus Publishing, Massachusetts, 2000. Black, Boyd. National Culture and High Commitment Management. Employee Relations, 21,4,389-404, 1999. Blau, G., Paul, A., and St. John, N. On Developing a General Index of Work Commitment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 42, 298-314, 1993. Block, P. Stewardship: Choosing Service over Self-Interest. Berrett-Koehler Publishers, San Francisco, 1993. Boyd, Charles. Individual Commitment and Organizational Change: A Guide for Human Resource and Organization Development Specialist. Quorum Book, New York, 1992. Bozeman, B. All Organizations are Public. Jossey-Bass Publishers, San Francisco, 1987. Brown, Steven R. and Melamed, Lawrence E. Experimental Design and Analysis. Series: Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences, Sage University Paper, Sage Publications Inc., 1990. Buchanan, B. Building Organizational Commitment: the Socialization of Managers in Work Organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 19, 533-546, 1974. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 189 ________ . Government Managers, Business Executives, and Organizational Commitment. Public Administration Review, 35, 339-347, 1974. Byrne, David. Interpreting Quantitative Data. Sage Publications Inc., 2002. Capra, Fritjof. The Turning Point: Science, Society and the Rising Culture. Bantam Books, New York, 1983. ________ . The Hidden Connections: Integrating the Biological, Cognitive, and Social Dimension of Life into a Science of Sustainability. Doubleday, Random House, 2002. Cohen, Aaron. Multiple Commitment in the Workplace: An Integrative Approach. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Publishers, New Jersey, 2003. Cooley, Charles H. Social Organization: A Study of the Larger Mind. Transaction Books, 1983. Chongsawang, Tuanchai. Leadership and Fringe Benefit Affecting the Commitment in Expressway and Rapid Transit Authority of Thailand, Unpublished Master of Business Administration Thesis, Saint John University, Thailand, 1998. Cyert, Richard M. and March, James G. A Behavioral Theory of the Firm. Blackwell Publishers Inc., 1963. Davis, Larry N. Pioneering Organizations: The Convergence of Individualism, Teamwork and Leadership. Executive Excellence Publishing, Utah, 2000. De Geus, Arie. The Living Company. Harvard Business School Press, Massachusetts, 1997. Dennard, Linda F. The New Paradigm in Science and Public Administration (Book Review) Public Administration Review, 56, 495-499, September-October 1996. De Vaus, Davis. Analyzing Social Science Data: Fifty Key Problems in Data Analysis. Sage Publications Inc., 2002. Donaldson, Lex. American Anti-Management Theories of Organization: A Critique of Paradigm Proliferation. Cambridge University Press, 1995. Dore, Ronald. British Factor-Japanese Factory: The Origins of Diversity in Industrial Relations. University of California Press, Berkeley, 1973. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 190 Downs, Cal W., Adrian, Allyson D., Ticehurt, William, and Yarona, Federico. Cultural Comparisons of the Relationships Among Communication and Organizational Commitment. Presented at the Pan-Pacific Conference XIII Proceedings, Japan, 1996. Dunham, R. B., Grube, J. A., and Castaneda, M. B. Organizational Commitment: the Utility of an Integrative Definition. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 370-380, 1994. Etzioni, Amitai. A Comparative Analysis of Complex Organizations: On Power, Involvement and Their Correlates. The Free Press, New York, 1961. ________ . The Moral Dimension: Toward a New Economics. The Free Press, 1988. Fayol, Henri. General and Industrial Management, (trans). Pitman Publishing, Ltd., 1949. Foa, U. G. and Foa, E. B. Societal Structures of the Mind. Charles C. Thomas, Springfield, Illinois, 1974. Fowler, Floyd J. Jr. Survey Research Methods, Second Edition. Applied Social Research Methods Series, 1, Sage Publications Inc., 1993. Gibson, K. The Moral Basis of Stakeholder Theory. Journal of Business Ethics, 19, 245- 257, 2000. Granovetter, Mark. Economic Action and Social Structure: The Problem of Embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology, 91, November 1985. Green, B., Linley, H. and Bambacas, M. Organizational Commitment: A Multi Method Scale Analysis and Test of Effects. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 2000. Griffeth, R. W., Horn, P. W. and Gaertner, S. A Meta-Analysis of Antecedents and Correlates of Employee Turnover: Update, Moderator Tests, and Research Implications for the Next Millennium. Journal of Management, 26, 463-488, 2000. Gulick, Luther, and Urwick, Lyndall. (eds). Papers on the Science of Administration. Institute of Public Administration, 1937. Gunz, H. P. and Gunz, S. P. Professional/Organizational Commitment and Job Satisfaction for Employed Lawyers. Human Relations, 47, 801-828, 1994. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 191 Hackett, R. D., Bycio, P. and Hausdorf, P. A. Further Assessments of Meyer and Allen’s (1991) Three-Component Model of Organizational Commitment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 15-23, 1994. Henry, Gary T. Practical Sampling. Applied Social Research Method Series, 21, Sage Publications, Inc., 1990. Hock, D. Birth of Chaotic Age. Berrett-Koehler Publishers, San Francisco, 1999. Hrebiniak, L. G. and Alutto, J. A. Personal and Role-Related Factors in the Development of Organizational Commitment. Administrative Science Quarterly, 18, 555-573, 1972. Hunt, Shelby. D. and Morgan, Robert M. Organizational Commitment: One of Many Commitments or Key Mediating Construct. Academy of Management Journal. December 1994. Jae Moon, M. Organizational Commitment Revisited in New Public Management: Motivation, Organizational Culture, Sector and Managerial Level. Public Performance and Management Review, December 2000. Kalton, Graham. Introduction to Survey Sampling. Series: Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences, Sage University Paper, Sage Publications Inc., 1983. Kalleberg, Arne L. and Reve, Torger. Contracts and Commitment: Economic and Sociological Perspective on Employment Relations. Human Relations, September 1993. Kanter, R. M. Commitment and Social Organization: A Study of Commitment Mechanisms in Utopian Communities. American Sociological Review, 33, 499-517, 1968. Konovsky, M. A. and Cropanzano, R. Perceived Fairness of Employee Drug Testing as a Predictor of Employee Attitudes and Job Performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 698-707, 1991. Lawler, E. J. Affective Attachment to Nested Group: A Choice Process Theory. American Sociological Review, 57, 327-339, 1992. Lifton, R. J. The Protean Self: Human Resilience in an Age of Fragmentation. Basic Books Publishers, New York, 1993. Likert, R. L. The Human Organization. McGraw-Hill, New York, 1961. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 192 Lincoln, James R. and Kalleberg, Ame L. Culture, Control and Commitment: A Study of Work Organization and Work Attitudes in the United States and Japan. Cambridge University Press, 1990. Liou, Kuo-Tsai and Nyhan, Ronald C. Dimensions of Organizational Commitment in the Public Sector: An Empirical Assessment. Public Administration Quarterly, Spring, 1994. March, James G. and Simon, Herbert A. Organizations. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1958. Mathieu, J. E. and Zajac, D. M. A Review and Meta-Analysis of the Antecedents, Correlates, and Consequences of Organizational Commitment. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 171-194, 1990. Maslow, Abraham H. A Theory of Human Motivation. Psychological Review, 50, 1943. Mayer, Roger C. and Schoorman, F. David. Predicting Participation and Production Outcomes through a Two-Dimensional Model of Organizational Commitment. The Academy o f Management Journal, 35, 671-684, 1992. McCaffrey, David P., Faerman, Sue R., and Hart, David W. The Appeal and Difficulties of Participative Systems, Organization Science, 6, November-December 1995. McGee, G. W., and Ford, R. C. Two (or More?) Dimensions of Organizational Commitment: Reexamination of the Affective and Continuance Commitment Scales. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 638-642, 1987. McGregor, Douglas M. The Human Side of Enterprise. Management Review, November 1957. Meyer, J. P. and Allen, N. J. A Three-Component Conceptualization of Organizational Commitment, Human Resource Management Review, 1,61-89, 1991. _______ . Commitment in the Workplace: Theory, Research and Application. Sage Publications, Inc., California, 1997. Meyer, Marshall W. “Bureaucratic” Versus “Profit” Organization. Research in Organizational Behavior, 4, 89-125, 1982. Miller, G. Above Politics: Credible Commitment and Efficiency in the Design of Public Agencies. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 10, 289-327, 2000. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 193 Mintzberg, Henry. Mintzberg on Management: Inside our Strange World of Organizations. The Free Press, A Division of Macmillan, Inc., New York, 1989. Moorman, R. H., Niehoff, B. P., and Organ, D. W. Treating Employees Fairly and Organizational Citizenship Behavior: Sorting the Effects of Job Satisfaction, Organizational Commitment, and Procedural Justice. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 6, 209-225, 1993. Morrow, Paula C. The Theory of Measurement of Work Commitment. Jai Press Inc., Connecticut, 1993. Morrow, Paula C. and McElroy, James C. (eds). Introduction: Understanding and Managing Loyalty in a Multi-Commitment World. Journal o f Business Research, 26, 1993. Mowday, R. T., Steers, R. M., and Porter, L. W. The Measurement of Organizational Commitment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 14, 224-247, 1979. Mowday, R. T., Porter, L. W., and Steers, R. M. Organizational Linkages: The Psychology of Commitment, Absenteeism, and Turnover. Academic Press, San Diego, 1982. Near, J. P. Organizational Commitment Among Japanese and U.S. Workers. Organization Studies, 10, 281-300, 1989. Newman, Karen L. and Nollen, Stanley D. Culture and Congruence: the Fit between Management Practices and National Culture. Journal of International Business Studies, 27, 4, 753-779, 1996. North, Douglas. Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance, Cambridge University Press, New York, 1990. ________ . Institutions, Journal of Economic Perspective, 5, 1991. ________ . Economic Performance Through Time. American Economic Review, 84, 1994. Olson, Mancur. The Logic of Collective Action. Harvard University Press, 1965. O’Reilly, C. A. and Chatman, J. Organizational Commitment and Psychological Attachment: The Effects of Compliance, Identification, and Internalization on Prosocial Behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 492-499, 1986. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 194 Organ, D. W. A Reappraisal and Reinterpretation of the Satisfaction-Cause-Performance Hypothesis. Academy of Management Review, 2, 46-53, 1977. Ostroff, C. The Relationships between Satisfaction, Attitudes, and Performance: An Organizational Level Analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 963-974, 1992. Ostrom, Eleanor. Coping with Tragedies of the Commons. Annual Review of Political Science, 2, 493-535, 1999. ________ . Collective Action and the Evolution of Social Norms. Journal o f Economic Perspectives, 14, 137-158, 2000. Pettit, Philip. Institutional Design and Rational Choice. Goodin, Robert (ed), The Theory of Institutional Design. Cambridge University Press, 1996. Perrow, Charles. Complex Organizations: A Critical Essay. McGraw-Hill Inc., 1986. Perry, J. L. and Porter, L. W. Factors Affecting the Context for Motivation in Public Organizations. Academy of Management Review, 7, 89-98, 1982. Perry, J. L. and Rainey, H. G. The Public-Private Distinction in Organization Theory: A Critique and Research Strategy. Academy of Management Review, 13, 182-201, 1988. Perry, J. L. and Wise, L R. The Motivational Bases of Public Service. Public Administration Review, 50, 367-373, 1990. Porter, Lyman W., Steers, Richard Mowday R. T. and Boulian, P.V. Organizational Commitment, Job Satisfaction and Turnover Among Psychiatric Technicians, Journal of Applied Psychology, October 1974. Randall, Donna M. Cross-Cultural Research on Organizational Commitment: A Review and Application of Hofstede’s Value Survey Module. Journal of Business Research, 26, 91-110, 1993. Reichers. A. E. A Review and Reconceptualization of Organizational Commitment. Academy of Management Review, 10,465-476, 1985. Reichers, A. E. Conflict and Organizational Commitments. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 508-514, 1986. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 195 Reilly, N. P. and Orsak, C. L. A Career Stage Analysis of Career and Organizational Commitment in Nursing. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 39, 311-330, 1991. Ritzer, G. and Trice, H. M. An Empirical Study of Howard Becker’s Side-bets Theory. Social Forces, 47, 475-479, 1969. Robbins, Stephen P. Organizational Behavior. Pearson and Prentice Hall, New Jersey, 2004. Robertson Peter J. Collaborative Organizing: An “Ideal Type” for a New Paradigm. Research in Organizational Change and Development, 12, 205-267, 1999. Robertson P., Trivisvavet S., and Wang F. The Self-Interest Paradox, an interactive paper presentation at the Academy of Management meeting in Seattle, Washington, 2003. Robertson, Peter J. and Tang, S. Y. The Role of Commitment in Collective Action: Comparing the Organizational Behavior and Rational Choice Perspectives. Public Administration Review, 55, 67-80, 1995. Rousseau, Denise M. and Parks, Judi M. The Contracts of Individuals and Organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 15, 1-43, 1993. Rousseau, Denise M. Psychological Contracts in Organizations: Understanding Written and Unwritten Agreements, Sage Publications, Inc., 1995. ________ . Why Workers Still Identify with Organizations. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19,217-233, 1998. Salancick, G. R. Interaction Effects of Performance and Money on Self-Perception of Intrinsic Motivation. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 339- 351, June 1995. ________ . Commitment and the Control of Organizational Behavior and Belief. In Straw, B. M. and Salancick, G. R. (eds). New Directions in Organizational Behavior, St. Clair Press, Chicago, 1977. Scott, Richard W. Organizations: Rational, Natural and Open System. Prentice Hall, New Jersey, 1998. Scott, Richard W. Institutions and Organizations. Sage Publications, Inc., 2001. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 196 Schechter, D. S. Value and Continuance Commitment: A Field Test of a Dual Conceptualization of Organizational Commitment. Unpublished Master’s thesis, University of Maryland, College Park, 1985. Schein, E. H. Organizational Culture. American Psychologist, 109-119, February 1990. Senge, Peter M. The Fifth Discipline: A Shift of Mind. Bantam Doubleday Dell Publishing Group, Inc., 1990. Selznick, P. The Moral Commonwealth: Social Theory and the Promise of Community. University of California Press, California, 1992. Seligman, M. E. P. Helplessness: On Depression, Development and Death. New York, Freeman, 1975. Shore, L. M. and Tetrick, L. E. A Construct Validity Study of the Survey of Perceived Organizational Support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 637-643, 1991. Shore, L. M. and Wayne, S. J. Commitment and Employee Behavior: Comparison of Affective and Continuance Commitment with Perceived Organizational Support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 774-780, 1993. Simon, Herbert A. The Proverbs of Administration. Public Administration Review, 53-67, 1946. Staw, Barry M. Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation. Tosi H. and Hamner, C. (eds), Organizational Behavior and Management: A Contingency Approach. St. Clair Press, Chicago, 1974. Steinhaus, C. S. and Perry, J. L. Organizational Commitment: Does Sector Matter? Public Productivity and Management Review, 19, 3, 278-288, 1996. Tang, S. Y., Robertson, P. J. and Lane, C. E. Organizational Types, Commitment and Managerial Actions. Public Productivity and Management Review, 19, 3, 289 -312, 1996. Taylor, Frederick W. Scientific Management, (trans). Norton, New York, 1967. Thanitcul, Sakda. Regulatory Reform and Competitiveness in Thailand, Thailand Law Forum, http://www.thailawforum.com/articles/regulatorv3.html. 2004. Tolbert, P. and Zucker, L. The Institutionalization of Institutional Theory. Clegg, Hardy and Nord, (eds), Handbook of Organization Studies. Newbury Park, Sage, 1996. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 197 Vandenberghe, R. J. and Self, R. M. Assessing Newcomers’ Changing Commitments to the Organization During the First Six Months of Work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 557-568, 1993. Vandenberghe, C., Stinglhammer, F., Bentein, K., and Dahaise, T. An Examination of the Cross-Cultural Validity of a Multidimensional Model of Commitment in Europe. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 32, 3, 322-347, May 2001. Wasti, A. Arzu. Organizational Commitment, Turnover Intentions and the Influence of Cultural Values. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 76, 3, 303-321, September 2003. Weber, Max. Essays in Sociology, (trans). Oxford University Press, Inc., 1946. Weick, Karl E. An Appreciation of Social Context: One Legacy of Gerald Salancick. Administrative Science Quarterly, December 1996. Weinberg, Sharon L. and Goldberg, Kenneth P. Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences. Cambridge University Press, 1990. Wiener, Y. Commitment in Organization: A Normative View. Academy of Management Review, 7, 418-428,1982. Wheatley, Margaret J. Leadership and the New Science: Learning about Organization from an Orderly Universe. Berrett-Koehler Publishers, San Francisco, 1992. Williamson, Oliver E. The Logic of Economic Organization. Journal of Law, Economics and Organization, 4, 65-93, 1988. Williamson, Oliver E. Transaction Cost Economics and Organization Theory. In Smelser and Swedberg (eds), The Handbook of Economic Sociology. Princeton, 1994. Wilson, James Q. Political Organizations. Princeton University Press, 1995. Willis, Maj Don. The Structure and Antecedents of Organizational Commitment in the Singapore Army, Applied Behavioral Sciences Department, Ministry of Defense, Singapore, International Military Testing Association, 2003. Yankelovich, D. Yankelovich on Today’s Workers. In Straw, B. M. (ed). Psychological Foundations of Organizational Behavior, Illinois, 1983. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 198 APPENDIX I Questionnaire: English Version University of Southern California School of Policy, Planning and Development Questionnaire Comparative Study of Organizational Commitment in Public and Prhate Sectors “The Case of Transportation Agencies in Thailand" Completion and return of the questionnaire will constitute consent to participate in this research project. Please answer the questions contained in this questionnaire to the best of your knowledge and as accurately as possible. This questionnaire is anonymous and confidential. Your responses will only be used for the purpose of academic research study and neither your responses nor your identity will be disclosed or revealed without your permission or unless required by law. Please answer the following questions by checking V in the provided spaces. 1. Which of these statements better describes your situation? (Choose only one) Organization usually comes first, even if it means I have to sacrifice my own interest. 1 usually do what it takes to protect and maximize my own interest. 2. Which is the best explanation when you choose to pursue organizational interest? (Choose only one) When I face with the choice between organizational or my own interest, I pursue organizational interest because I do not want to cause problems to myself When 1 face with the choice between organizational or my own interest, I pursue organizational interest because I do not want to appear as a defiant or different from the people in my organization When I face with the choice between organizational or my own interest, I pursue organizational interest if I am convinced that the organization is doing the right thing 3. Which is the best explanation when you choose to pursue your own interest? (Choose only one) When I face with the choice between organizational or my own interest, I pursue my own interest when I think it is fair and it will not really hurt the organization When I face with the choice between organizational or my own interest, I pursue my own interest if I believe that that is the only way for me and if I do not pursue my interest, the consequence would be too severe; e.g. damage my reputation, relationships, result in punishment, loss of job, etc. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 199 When I face with the choice between organizational or my own interest, I pursue my own interest if I am convinced that the organization is doing the wrong thing and if I choose to pursue such interest, it could actually harm the organization in the long-run 4. Do you feel committed to your organization? Y es_______ No 5. Do you intend to leave your organization right now or some time soon? Y es_______ No 6. Do you feel that your organization is committed to you? Y es_______ No 7. Do you feel that your organization is committed to you or its employees in general? Y es_______ No 8. Which of the following that you feel most committed to? Choose only 1. The organization The ideology or values that your organization stands for Your department or division The leadership of the organization (top leader) Your immediate leader/manager/supervisor Your co-workers How much do you agree or disagree - on the scale of 1 to 7; 1 being strongly agree and 7 being strongly disagree - with the following statements? Please check (V ) one level of your agreement or disagreement for each of the following statements. 1 .1 would be very happy to spend the rest of my career in this organization. Strongly disagree______________ Strongly agree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 2 .1 really feel as if this organization’s problems are my own. Strongly disagree______________ Strongly agree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 3 .1 do not feel like “part of the family” at my organization. Strongly disagree______________ Strongly agree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 200 4 .1 do not feel “emotionally attached” to this organization. Strongly agree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 5. This organization has a great deal of personal meaning for me. Strongly disagree Strongly agree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 6 .1 do not feel a strong sense of belonging to my organization. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 7. It would be very hard for me to leave my organization right now, even if I wanted to. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8. Too much of my life would be disrupted if I decided I wanted to leave my organization right now. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9. Right now, staying with my organization is a matter of necessity as much as desire. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10. One of the few negative consequences of leaving this organization would be the scarcity of available alternatives. Strongly disagree______________ Strongly agree Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 201 11. One of the major reasons I continue to work for this organization is that leaving would require considerable personal sacrifice; another organization may not match the overall benefits I have here. Strongly disagree______________ Strongly agree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 12,One of the major reasons I continue to work for this organization is that leaving would require considerable personal sacrifice; another organization may not match the overall benefits I have here. Strongly disagree______________ Strongly agree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 13.1 do not feel any obligation to remain with my current employer. Strongly disagree______________ Strongly agree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 14. Even if it were to my advantage, I do not feel it would be right to leave my organization now. Strongly disagree______________ Strongly agree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 15.1 would feel guilty if I left my organization now. Strongly disagree______________ Strongly agree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 16. This organization deserves my loyalty. Strongly disagree______________ Strongly agree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 17.1 would not leave my organization right now because I have a sense of obligation to the people in it. Strongly disagree______________ Strongly agree Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 202 18.1 owe a great deal to my organization. Strongly disagree______________ Strongly agree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 19. Having commitment and loyalty to the work place is my personal value. Strongly disagree______________ Strongly agree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 20. Working hard is my personal value. Strongly disagree______________ Strongly agree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 2 1 .1 am confident in my work skills. Strongly disagree______________ Strongly agree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 2 2 .1 know that I can contribute a lot to my organization. Strongly disagree______________ Strongly agree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 23. It will be difficult for me to find another job. Strongly disagree______________ Strongly agree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 24. It will be risky for me to find another job. Strongly disagree______________ Strongly agree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 25. It will be difficult for me to find a new job that is as desirable as this one. Strongly disagree______________ Strongly agree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 203 26. It will be risky for me to find a new job that is as desirable as this one. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 27. My organization provides me with adequate salary. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 28. My organization provides me with adequate compensation and rewards (other than salary). 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 29. My organization provides good career advancement and promotion opportunities. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 30. The work I am doing provides me with satisfaction. Strongly disagree Strongly agree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 31.1 feel that what I do is meaningful. Strongly disagree Strongly agree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 3 2 .1 enjoy my work. Strongly disagree Strongly agree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 33. The work I am doing is challenging. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 204 34. The work I am doing makes me grow and develop personally and professionally. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 35.1 agree with the way the job is done in my organization. Strongly disagree Strongly agree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 3 6 .1 can be adequately involved and participate in the decision making process at my organization. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 3 7 .1 have adequate autonomy in the area of my work in this organization. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 38. My organization has good communication and information system. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 39. The working conditions (physical work environment) at my organization suit me. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 40.1 believe in the organization’s missions and values. Strongly disagree Strongly agree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 41.1 believe in my organization’s goals and strategies. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 205 42. My organization is well respected in the field or sector. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 43. My organization is successful. Strongly agree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 4 4 .1 make impact on other people (peers, subordinates, etc.) at my organization. Strongly disagree Strongly agree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 4 5 .1 make impact on society through the work I do at my organization. Strongly agree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 46.1 respect and admire the top leaders in my organization. Strongly disagree Strongly agree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 47. The top leaders in my organization inspire me to work hard. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 48. The top leaders in my organization provide good direction, strategies and leadership. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 49. This organization is fair when it comes to policies and processes that involve its employees. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 206 50. I feel that this organization respects my work and me. Strongly disagree Strongly agree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 51.1 feel that this organization appreciates and recognizes my efforts. Strongly disagree Strongly agree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 52. This organization has good esprit de corp or teamwork spirit. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 5 3 .1 enjoy the working climate (For example, the friendliness how people interact and relate at your organization, not physical working condition) in my organization. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 5 4 .1 value the relationships that I have with people in my organization. Strongly disagree Strongly agree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Please answer the following questions regarding the demographic and occupational information by filling in the blanks with appropriate answers or checking V in the provided spaces. 1. Age:_____ Years 2. Gender:_____ Male 3. Marital status: Female Single Married Divorced/Widowed/Others 4. Education level: Secondary school or lower Certificate or vocational school degree College/bachelor degree Master degree Doctoral degree 5. Employment status: Full-time Part-time Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 6. Work scheduling:_____ Regular hours____Flex-time_____ Work from home 7. Type of your department (For example, engineering, accounting, administrative, etc.):__ 8. Type of organization:_____Private sector Government sector If private sector, is your organization a public company, listed in the Stock Exchange of Thailand, or not? Y es No 9. Management position (you have people working under you or directly report to you): Y es_____ No If your hold management position, your position is: Lower-level-management Mid-management High-level/executive 10. Time spent at this organization:_____ Years and months 11. Long-term benefits that your organization provides: Tenure Pension Employment security Nothing 12. Are there or have there been major change(s) recently (within the last 1 to 2 years) - e.g downsizing, restructuring, reform, etc. - at your organization: Yes No Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 208 APPENDIX II Questionnaire: Thai Version University of Southern California School of Policy, Planning and Development i t < cl 4 4 A A A I U I V I V niwiaiuriiaiauainausiifliuflaliJum wfmunLJ'usm uuuaauoinu1uum ?iC lfliH uvaua;:‘ uai|fi«nu?n< ua^fl'ianuiJim 8U fn}j V V V V I IV uasm ayaflinH uu»auaiwfl2^nm uiduniiM au,u8K aufl^fl1*m adisn8U 4i'M ifltim iu'u V IV* V V « W V I I V nieyalA^fnmwa-wiainmilflan^uftosyhlytsi/lfliinmiJwlma^ninuliiiJwmiwauuasfl^mflA iw aiflvnsiM alfil’ u n rsB ^ tyiP iflin ynu 'H fB gfnj^ fi’ ijl'H iflfU H a p n jjn g 'H m a m T M 'M 9 ts^a|( 9 |c)|c9 |c3 |c3 ^ 9 |e9 |e4 c 9 |ea|ea|ea|es(ca|c»|e^3 )e3 |e4 is|e3 4 ( 3 |c n ^flnpiauaiaiM fia’ liJuT fialaiala^'H m a V Iw va^i-i'H M iw iiaanm o^ 'H M W iiaB n Y im -jnyniiuitfw m a-aqaiinnnqe) v y , 1 . malaHi'anyamumntumB'aspuifmtjfi litamaan mm l yfnaan - / « ................ 8'38fiTyin0ymy8 ■ V y * ................ w u /8flym 9n yfls;iJnij0'3N aiJ?slow ii0-3^ n4i0'3n0ym u8 »> » » a» a* i «> 2 . fiioSyio'ualfimyistryytj^naTOqmmBfiiJfiiJa'aNaiJtsilow uasuinaTiijfifljn'uiirjnjB^fini Iibeuaan mm l ffnaanya^-amitromfn^ni^iB'aqtuytia • V V i V t ................ lufla-qmil'Hflifomifnijin lyaBwiilyimwanssmiJflBfsiiua'j ................ lu0mngfiy0'3nn«iifi8i'StnfiN0us i luafflm ^ v v i • . y , , v ................ 0tim i)s;fl0Q iy‘ U fiii8'3im if0'3i0'30fi?'n ily3'jy0fi«0'5 <u 3. fii0iui83)0l?imy3stTyy?j?) nflimjmraandniJB^Haibslwufn'umfio'uawfii Iitaaman m m l C T n a B fiyw i-jnytrm um itu 'tia-aqtuyq^ i ................ mamxnniilymfiaaEiimmsmjfm imslylayilymaanyiSamawawia'aan? ................. m0i5uvn-3ta0f)^8')yinly, ni0H)minfiNaa'W5yiyim m i iSomim'mvm'mn'mTU anm lm ljHam ayaaaiiNJtym jBm jfi'ul'UB^fim v tfa T O iS tK ) 4 e f ' V * * y ^ ................ maminiimBstfaumaBnaOisloTuuasuuQaiiuaafmmijl'unaTu uarail'uibslmrufiBa'aamimstrnniJj'Hnseisfni Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 209 4. 0m 0nxxm uflsi)47nanA fl0040n7ni040fim ?0lx <y q V • j ^ ^ »/ i 5. 0fuw 4lim i)S00ninn040n7lxn0>xx70i7™ x‘ H70lx 6 . ^fu^mia-janiflanu'nsjmaaai^fU'Hfalsj 7. 8. atu jS n 'n u m im s^in n n aflatn u lA l'u aw n T u in v iq A lib a m a n mti4 l ghiaan ...................... a ^ a n i l a y n u ...................... UX700 1|00X ^ IlllS tN fl UfOllTHX>ei‘ U04040n7 V o > H V a / r f ...................... H X °> 'H70NX7X>77S:mJtT4U04040n7 <u <u <u ...................... UHXn pllfJ >17014™ % > H ................. xrrwxi ^iMumyTnnii • • v ...................... m0X77W41X 00X 04 4 1 V I V V V I n a i S m i u im if lir j m e lu im ie n a iJ im je ia lm s f f lu lf l - m w a im jiia 'jn iia a n e fa im l a-a 7 I I v » V f lem fi l n u ia a - ) “lu m x g n a in f m q g t” u a s 7 tu jia « 4 - tibfljaanwifoifoiaanmmmmasfiifliijIflalamfa'i'Hinfj ^ I I V I V 1wv0^ii>jenmsmjniiwmuen0m0lwmuenfj . V j 3 > l l)n tiu fiju ijin n q f) itiu fn m n n tiq in 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 V 1 I d * • 2. WX/0WX7^07Tj{yX>X040n7ll7S:i4X0|jnJ70XlttX0XlftyX>,U0407l04 1»iiHKtniuuinn(|(n itfvJflKJUWYiqfl 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 210 3. ItirmifnaiJiAfitffl im ifnainnvupi 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 4. HU/flf "himwnuainfifjsi itfuenom nnqfl 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 5. 0 4 fin tfi8 fn iu , niJ3ej?i0^'3H3J/wnwjJifi lu m u n ia m n m in mwfnainnfiqsi 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 6 . N 3 J/^ « 4 JV ljl|i ^fm i84Jfl'3ll'H 'U 4ni0'3040f1l8 Tiioltiti tEJiiifinrfsi mwfnaannfiqfl 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 7. ItJ 'ra n a if itf 'u m n u in ^ H U /ia u ^ a m in a ^ f lm ^ im T i’ osiamfmonnfl'm 'limtwutiainntjA iriuniainnnqa 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 . M inw }j/0n, u^flmi1fl00nDin040ni1'un0'm 9sn0lmnA0iisj^mmm£W flmsii4Jfl0?4fsiinfHmj1il “ UimwnawinfiqA m wsnajnnfitjn 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9. m ifiw W fln u o g m jo w n n fliu fo M o ^fn im iiitav raifrcw jfk m n w o n n iJfliiu m jm lfl 1«m «fnu»nnnqfi mweneinnriqci 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 211 1 0 . ■Hinwu/Miioafifnnawm tftyvnwfiViviiismijmaoaTmyinlunisvmTulviii Im H u n iu jn n fiq n m u c n e iu w fiq n 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 4344lwim?0040mlvm03M s1sjmmi0l™ lmfl0UUASHaibs1mfiimjHJj/flm4lmvnmj04flmtfi)p'u lum tM nainnm jn nluaiojnnTlijfl 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 . m0W0rfimpH}j/0#u00mj1irm'3iunu0'3nimQfl0liJn00mi00n?in0^n?fumJufmiSfj'3 4i\jl4i}JVif004niful'Hii0ifiDsl3Jttiini0l‘ H N U i00V nm j:H ailis;T 0t »uniiN SJ/0B 'ul0i'vnniJ0'jnituifii^iJi4 IwmiinjEijnnnqti m w n o in n n q n 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ' vv \ j i v t y v 13. wu/0nw1jjl0i^fniflmiswn™ ^^D2;00-50gnu0-30nifim0 Iwmnmunififlqpi mwinitijnnflqsi 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 V • a>i s' • i • V • a> V 14. 04tm i9siil'uitasIow fl0#ii04nfsn3J H U /M ii^niim ilw ilim ^nflO 'W flsaonfl'inO 'afins'hn'Jtnil liinlwinioiiinnfjfi mwAiujiinriqsi I 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 5 . N U /0 fl, u^nH0'Hifii Ds;00ntnf)040n5ltin0ifi luiHuniatiinnqn mimiainnnqn 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 16. 040m{lmj03ll011lfll31Jf)4injTn01J04HlJ/flm4 'liiiHW ftitiiiinnijti muninuinnqin 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 212 * = > O ' W * * = > * V ^ e S < v * ' * V 17. NW/^nw 1ufl?ii)S0 0 n !n n0 '3f)fi7l \ 4n t n 5 m n 2 !S fm u ^ fi£ i'3fiiis;H fi™ ^?i0 fii4l u 0 'ifin7 - w u iv m V i i v v m thi n m o i n i i m u n ? 0 y lw ifam jiftyin 1)ii(1ucnti>iifinqfi itfufliam nnqa 18. 0-30fl7M}Jljqj^{U«0N3J/fl11M liiitlwfiiEinmriqn m um oxinnqn 19. 0 n u , v3um000'30fii 1«iv1iiB7iunnrS(jn 'uwim s;fniJJw i0itiutnii0'5N iJ/«flu m ufliainnm jfi 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 2 0 . flT llJlfolfnm s "liimwnainnTiqA M «im s!fl'3iiJw i0pninn,u 0 ^ w jj/fH JM mwsnawwriqfl 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 2 1 . R U /^«M W M lfllM 0n3Jfnin7{iltivi'uiM fni'nM , ii0'30T 09 Ijii^ iM n n x in riq fl m tisnajnnriqei I 2 3 4 5 6 7 2 2 . w jj/0fli4^nM '3i09i3Jfli}Ji70, U 0'iN Jj/0'B ijB 0njJtfi0fytm s;fliid% i000'30m m u aiain n n q fl 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 23. ‘ Hifi00ninfi0'a0n7lyn0ifiiis;enfi}JifiMDs;'vn'3Tul'Hu1?i lam w naw nfiqfi mwfnainntifjsi 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 213 24. >nn00fi!nn0-3?tn?l'unmfi!is;flfniuiSEJ4uin^fls; "luntw nam nnqn ifliH nainnm pi I 2 3 4 5 6 7 25. , H in00ninn040m lun0™ ?s;0im nfl^!isvn4TO ^Ds;l< HN0iJ5s;l0wmm4i\4'Lft)^iJt4 lurriufnamfinqA mMfnoainfiqn 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 26. , Hin00nBin040m1m4A™ 9sfl0ii}JiS04m0fe'Hi4TOvi«s:1wH0'Uisl0tKy0mi4iu'Lf^iJ, u "bimwnawinriqsi m wfnawinnqn 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 27. H}j/0ni4l0f'ui1i4t004i^m04vi0tnn04n7m “ lam u fn ajn n n q n nitusnawinfujfl 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 28. wu/^nwl^f'iJRTOOiiimu , Hf0HAitas:lmru0'u, n Ii0mm40inni4mpi03mf<ei4'm)fnn04fi7tu lunlufliaumnqf) mMfiiaainnqw 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 29. © w m lw lom aflQ ium T H tnluw 'U 'm fm 'n'u tw S fn im u rfia , Hu-sims;i1i4i00t4^mjJi3i?t}jniJ'W'Ufi4ii4 "Iwmwiiajnnriqsi m «fna«inaqfi 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 30. W3J/0934^mi4114^vilflqtU0TVn49«lfl lamwnaHiflfiqsi mwenaHififiqfl 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 31. HJJ/0fl34|0mi4114VlTmj0nil'Hin0 Iwmwenajnnrlqsi iWNfliajnnriqfi 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 214 32. HJJ/Slfl'Um{fimj'3TU IwiilMfnojiinfiijn nfaenuMinnijn 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 33. ^luufniajvnvnt) 'iM m nfiJriM ifinqfi i4«B70J)inrltj« 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 34. lltlJlb ^ imSJlMlllw wl'Ufl'l'Uftl'Ufll ims liim iifnuinnriqfl mMmamnfiqpi 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 d ^ 35. N3J/^«4im3J?n£inill5mi'ni'313ll4104fl5tliy lim nifiifiwinnsjn itniimojiinntjin 1 ' 2 3 4 5 6 7 36. a w m lM v m m iu lflfltn u iiu l'u n iim im jlD lum^iEJUin^^ rH uentijnnfiijfl 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 37. 040m 1vm 'U 0 4 iy l0 y 0 °™ 3 ?0 m stu m s0 M y lflly m i, m4TU Ijim M fn a w in n q p i m tisnajnnnqn 38. isuy0000iT0037 moya 4i04040nii40 4 1 "IxmwsnainnmjB m w najnnriqfi 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 215 39. Hu/fiflwaumiTUVHmsimfnn'ifr (nru w iaifn s ■naqvrnTu mitimia4vn4Tu) vivm'mu lim fuflinjnnriqA m tifnm iinriijfi I 2 3 4 5 6 7 40. HU/a£, m$aimsiai5i4l'uafl3Jfmfu im svrnnm s'uaqa-iani < lwiivifnB»nnyiqn mufnujtifmtifl 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 41. H3j/S«uifaim2;tai?'vilwnJTHinmms;EJviiifnfrfiin)0'aa4nim q lu m w n o in n n q n mwfna»nny«jn 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 42. aqnifuiuijuyiaam ijT u'M m i lu ^ su u ^ in fl w fe T u is iiin 'm n i 'Iwmwnamnyiqci itfufnainnm jn 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 43. 04fl1ft(Ul5l404flTfM^lJl5;tTUa31Utf3nt) limlwunMinrirjfl m w nainnrlqci 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 a v , n v 44. w u/aruilflm iqainm flnw iqlw m jfiinaijnnq m iifnm nnrujei 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 V V i % f 45. HU/0m4W?34fll3UUflnm4lnniin4f1U Ijjm M sn a w in fiq n rfiw n atn n m in 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 216 ^ V V c , aj * 46. u f l s p l w i i i s m j m l w w m 'Itinltifnawinfiqw mwna»nnriq<n 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 V V y . V • » 47. Will imSNll?W17?S0U{NltJ040mmmmmj0ial9lwH}J/flmJ3J0T13J'V13jmfl04'l'U <|) <u <u ’ 'Ijimufnawinfiqfi m asnainnfiqfl 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 48. Will imSHU?W1T1Smfl4lu04flmTI4ll'UlYn4 umitWBfntTf*l1vifl UOsSflllJJllluml'mfl <y <j qj 4 4 1 luititffnainnm jR m usnam nfitjft ! 2 3 4 5 6 7 49. uloinm msnrufsra'uen^ liim w enm nnnqo mwnHwinmjfl 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 50. 040f17ln0nJJl017Vll'U01llE)S47UD04N3J/^n4J "Immifnajnnnqsi wwfnamnriqei 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 51. 040nilw011Ulfl1?'wl41fl71U'V1Um5!04N3J/0m4 laniufnainnfiqei mwmawinaqf) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 52. 090mS01imilu0UW'U40m00'3fU! 'HfoSfmNlfl'U teamwork g-3 ’ * < 4 c * V « * 'Iwm wnajnnntjci mwsnaMinnqn 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 217 53. ^0/0001(00011010100111114101004011140 4Tuniiiri4Tui30fi0 13004031000005001000130410 it it 03001 01050004 “ IwmwsntunnTniA musnutnnrisisi 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 v j ^ « v a v 54. Hll/0BtilM0331Jtf30£UniJ0'313J0f3J'Wll5niJ014™343,U 1K04000130410 03001 010g0004 IwrnttcnHJiinriqin i(1u«in»nrmtj« 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I V • I I 1 I t t V V V n^fM igiauflicnw pialiJw Ieialfrm fQ ^'H iJiE J v 'Hf0iwi4niPi0iJ^miJis;0ijl, M , w04ii4^nw1i1»i 1 . 0i0 ................ fl 2. m a ....................Kiel.......................ittyi 3. 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 ............................0 0 1 0 1^0 ................ 0m/0ie)/00ii 4. 15:0 0 0 1 1 ^ 0 0 1 ..............................0 5 0 0 ^ 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 3 1 1 11 1 0 B T i b ^ n t n ....................iJlflJfUlfll u u ................ iJiajfyiTn ................ ilijyqimn 5. 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 4 0 0 4 4 1 0 .....................0^4104004301/0004T0lllS:ri ............................. 111411414001301 ( P a r t- T im e ) 6. 00004510111111410 111005:4114 ** t V % ....................41)14114011415:0011100 (4K004440 9.00 04 5.00 010 9.30 04 5.30 V it .................... 4 1 )1 4 10440 0400 04301 10 (Flex-Time) • it ....................1)14101)100010 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 218 7. 3ilimunj0'3B'3fin? ................ 01071 ................. nimamm anamru ntaonmoTrao (tiammooloaaiaoan'm'wti) wfelo 8 . afuvrmol'mmon oforliE JB s'ta V I V • V 9. firuaejTui..'” “ ____ q 3 5 qi ' <u qj ...................... I n ..........................l o i n wimiloisaoiNimm aiuvminaifjtuayhnsimj v • ................ H iifm iism nn <u 3 / ..................WimrmsmjfiaH II V ................ HimnnsmiaM 3 / a* 3 / 1 0 . atuii^nulomjaiflmooimonai fl im s laau 11. B if ln in a ia m o n iif la a ia f if n i H a it a s la n o o f a a iio o o a ilo is iE is r n v if B lo u a s o lu jiJ u iJ ijlfl ........................ niixbsfvum iT unT vifniB i'a (Tenure) . u im o n v ifa im n ry viothioiraejin'vi l f | d lull 12. lu n n isC iv ifa l'u isia sn a i 1-2 AyIhtuoi liia ia m 'u a ia tM S m itiJ o o u u ilo iin ia lu la n a m -a a -ja m 3 > l i t f r a u f v m w ia fn u 'u la in a u a sm ir iim u m ifiS H fin isY iiJ w a a tim fa m a ................ o W * ................ IJ JU * ^ * * * ' « j ..................lo o lo n a io u a m a iD s io f n iiila a o iiiJ a - ia a iiim 'u a o lu in n o Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 219 APPENDIX III List of Original Antecedents A n tec ed e n t Item O perationalization of A n tec ed e n t V ariable Load on F acto r1 A n teced en t V ariable Label2 C ategory of V ariable3 1. Personal value of loyalty Yes Individual attribute Extras 2. Personal value of work ethics Yes Individual attribute Extras 3. Skill confidence Yes Individual attribute Extras 4. Contribution to organization Yes Individual attribute Extras 5. Difficulty in finding a job Yes Other opportunities R-C antecedent 6. Risk in finding a job Yes Other opportunities R-C antecedent 7. Difficulty in finding equally desirable job Yes Other opportunities R-C antecedent 8. Risk in finding equally desirable job Yes Other opportunities R-C antecedent 9. A dequate pay/salary Yes Extrinsic rewards R-C antecedent 10. A dequate com pensation and rewards Yes Extrinsic rewards R-C antecedent 11. C areer advancem ent and promotion Yes Extrinsic rewards R-C antecedent 12. Satisfaction from work Yes Intrinsic rewards H antecedent 13. Meaningful Yes Intrinsic rewards H antecedent 14. Enjoyment Yes Intrinsic rewards H antecedent 15. Challenge Yes Intrinsic rewards H antecedent 16. Personal and professional growth Yes Intrinsic rewards H antecedent 17. Job agreem ent Yes Work-job experience Extras 18. Participation Yes Work-job experience Extras 19. Autonomy Yes Work-job experience Extras 20. Communication and information system Yes Work-job experience Extras 21. Working conditions No Work-job experience Extras 22. Belief in organization’s mission/values No Work-job experience H antecedent 23. Belief in organization’s goals No N/A N/A 24. Organization is well respected No N/A N/A 25. Organization is successful No N/A N/A 26. Impact on people Yes Impact H antecedent 27. Impact on society Yes Impact H antecedent 28. Respect/adm iration for leaders Yes Leadership Extras 29. Inspired by leaders Yes Leadership Extras 30. Leader provides good direction, strategies and leadership Yes Leadership Extras 31. Fair policies and p rocesses Yes Feelings Extras 32. R espect from organization Yes Feelings Extras 33. Appreciation and recognition Yes Feelings Extras 34. Team work Yes Feelings Extras 35. Working climate Yes Feelings Extras 36. Relationships No N/A Extras 1 Determined by exploratory factor analysis. Those that do not load are tested individually in step-wise regression to determine their statistical contribution to the model. 2 Clusters or groups are labeled according to their conceptual relevance. For example, the three loaded items represent aspect o f leadership or work-job experience, etc. Same name for factor means the factor belongs to that specific cluster/group. Total clusters/groups identified by factor analysis = 8. N/A represents item that does not load and does not contribute to the model and thus not included in analyses. 3 Category determined based on literature review. Category is developed this way to guide the hypothesis testing and statistical analyses. R-C = rational choice, H = humanistic, Extras = not R-C, not H or having overlapped qualities o f R-C and H. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 220 APPENDIX IV List of Variables and Detailed Descriptions Variable Label Detailed Description (from questionnaire) Org_com mitment Do you feel committed to your organization? Yes/No Allcommit m ean AAC + CCC + NC (Means) AAC_mean 1 . 1 would be very happy to spend the rest of my career in this organization. 2 . 1 really feel a s if this organization’s problem s are my own. 3 . 1 do not feel like “part of the family’ ’ at my organization. (R) 4 . 1 do not feel “emotionally attached” to this organization. (R) 5. This organization h as a great deal of personal m eaning for me. 6 . 1 do not feel a strong se n se of belonging to my organization (R) CCC_m ean 1. It would be very hard for m e to leave my organization right now, even if I w anted to. 2. Too m uch of my life would be disrupted if I decided I wanted to leave my organization right now. 3. Right now, staying with my organization is a m atter of necessity a s m uch a s desire. 4. I believe that I have too few options to consider leaving this organization. 5. O ne of the few negative con seq u en ces of leaving this organization would be the scarcity of available alternatives. 6. One of the major reasons I continue to work for this organization is that leaving would require considerable personal sacrifice; another organization m ay not m atch the overall benefits I have here. NC_mean 1 . 1 do not feel any obligation to remain with my current em ployer (R) 2. Even if it w ere to my advantage, I do not feel it would be right to leave my organization now. 3 . 1 would feel guilty if I left my organization now. 4. This organization d eserv es my loyalty. 5 . 1 would not leave my organization right now becau se I have a se n se of obligation to the people in it. 6 . 1 owe a great deal to my organization. G ender new Fem ale or male E d ucationjevel Secondary or below Certificate or vocational College M aster Time spent Time spent at your organization: years and m onths Mngt positionnew M anagem ent position: you have people working under you or directly report to you (Yes/No) Org type Type of organization: private sector or governm ent sector Transportl Category of transportation industry sub-system Transport2 Category of transportation industry sub-system Other_opportunities 1. It will be difficult for m e to find another job. 2. It will be risky for m e to find another job. 3. It will be difficult for m e to find a job that is a s desirable a s this one. 4. It will be risky for m e to find a job that is a s desirable a s this one. Extrinsic_rewards 1. My organization provides m e with adequate pay. 2. My organization provides m e with adequate com pensation and rewards 3. My organization provides m e with good career advancem ent and promotion. lntrinsic_rewards 1. The work I am doing provides m e with satisfaction. 2 . 1 feel that what I do is meaningful. 3. I enjoy my work. 4. The work I am doing is challenging. 5. The work I am doing m akes m e grow/develop personally and professionally. Mission I believe in my organization's m issions and values. Impact 1 . 1 m ake impact on other people (peers, subordinates, etc.) at my organization. 2. I m ake impact on society through the work I do at my organization. lnd_attributes 1. Working hard is my personal value. 2. Having commitment and loyalty to the work place is my personal value. 3. I am confident in my work skills. 4 . 1 know that I can contribute a lot to my organization. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 221 List of Variables and Detailed Descriptions (Continued) Variable Label Detailed Description (from questionnaire) W orkjob_experience 1 . 1 agree with the way th e job is done in my organization. 2 . 1 can be adequately involved and participate in the decision making process. 3 . 1 have adequate autonom y in the area of my work in this organization. 4. My organization has good communication and information system . 5. The working conditions (physical/environment) at my organization suit me. Leadership 1 . 1 respect and admire the top leaders in my organization. 2. The top leaders in my organization inspire m e to work hard. 3. The top leaders in my organization provide good direction, strategies and leadership. Feelings 1. This organization is fair when it com es to policies and processes. 2 . 1 feel that this organization respects my work and me. 3 . 1 reel that this organization appreciates and recognize my efforts. 4. This organization h as good espirt de corp or teamwork spirit. 5 . 1 enjoy the working climate in my organization. Relationships I value the relationships that I have with people in my organization. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 222 APPENDIX V Statistical Results for Factor Analysis: Communality Estimates Final Communality Estimates: Total = 23.303948 V alue_L oyalty V alue W orkethics S k ill_ C o n fid e n c e C o n trib u te_ C o n fid e n ce 0.54523722 0.56196455 0.56874126 0.34538486 D i f f i c u l t ,, jo b R i s k j o b D iffic u lt_ g o o d jo b R isk_goodjob 0.74652182 0.79432145 0.81886392 0.79792044 Pay Rewards Advancement S a t i s f a c t i o n 0.76570810 0.68251743 0.61734601 0.65437133 Meaning Enjoyment C h allen g e Growth 0.81252182 0.69397596 0.68439956 0.51729451 Agreem ent J o b _ p a r tic ip a tio n Autonomy Com m unication 0.60252802 0.68917128 0.60898600 0.64569589 Work c o n d itio n s '';V;MiSSiOp: '.-;“^::^I]^v Goal O rg _ re sp e c t 0.42748247 0.65680360 0.27329261 0.60789666 O rg_success Im pact_people Im pact_soc L e a d e r_ re sp e c t 0.62070730 0.76652098 0.80340172 0.77706819 L e a d e r_ in s p ire L ea d erJL ea d ersh ip F a irn e s s F e e lin g _ R e sp e c t 0.74627116 0.85909838 0.69754578 0.75713184 F e e lin g _ a p p re c ia te d Org_team W ork_clim ate R e la tio n s h ip s 0.67238307 0.62604621 0.50413051 0.35469657 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 223 APPENDIX VI Pearson Correlation Coefficients Variable Org commitment Allcommit mean AAC mean CCC mean NC mean Org_commitment 1.00 0.19 0.26 -0.06 0.27 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 0.1110 < 0.0001 Allcommit_mean 0.19 1.00 0.70 0.68 0.82 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 AAC_mean 0.26 0.70 1.00 0.08 0.57 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 0.0411 < 0.0001 CCC_mean -0.06 0.68 0.08 1.00 0.29 0.1110 < 0.0001 0.0411 < 0.0001 NC_mean 0.27 0.82 0.57 0.29 1.00 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 Other_opportunities -0.02 0.58 0.16 0.68 0.37 0.6897 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 Extri nsi c_rewa rds 0.14 0.43 0.36 0.17 0.44 0.0006 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 lntrinsic_rewards 0.31 0.50 0.55 0.06 0.56 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 0.1405 < 0.0001 Impact 0.03 0.21 0.23 0.03 0.23 0.4241 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 0.4042 < 0.0001 Mission 0.21 0.50 0.54 0.10 0.52 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 0.0139 < 0.0001 lnd_attributes 0.25 0.45 0.43 0.09 0.53 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 0.0308 < 0.0001 Workjob_experience 0.20 0.50 0.53 0.12 0.51 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 0.0034 < 0.0001 Leadership 0.29 0.47 0.53 0.07 0.51 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 0.0755 < 0.0001 Feelings 0.23 0.50 0.52 0.09 0.56 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 0.0234 < 0.0001 Relationships 0.15 0.41 0.38 0.11 0.45 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 0.0052 < 0.0001 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 224 Pearson Correlation Coefficients (Continued) Variable Other_opportunities Extrinsic_rewards intrinsic_rewards Impact Mission Org_commitment -0.02 0.14 0.31 0.03 0.21 0.69 0.0006 < 0.0001 0.4241 < 0.0001 Allcommit_mean 0.58 0.43 0.50 0.21 0.50 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 AAC_mean 0.16 0.36 0.55 0.23 0.54 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 CCC_mean 0.68 0.17 0.06 0.03 0.10 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 0.1405 0.4042 0.0139 NC_mean 0.37 0.44 0.56 0.23 0.52 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 O theropportunities 1.00 0.35 0.20 0.10 0.21 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 0.0114 < 0.0001 Extrinsicrew ards 0.35 1.00 0.41 0.19 0.45 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 lntrinsic_rewards 0.20 0.41 1.00 0.28 0.60 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 Impact 0.10 0.19 0.28 1.00 0.35 0.0114 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 Mission 0.21 0.45 0.60 0.35 1.00 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 Ind.attributes 0.12 0.25 0.60 0.21 0.50 0.0036 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 W orkjobexperience 0.22 0.53 0.50 0.24 0.60 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 Leadership 0.22 0.45 0.50 0.29 0.64 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 Feelings 0.24 0.57 0.52 0.27 0.62 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 Relationships 0.10 0.22 0.47 0.14 0.43 0.0092 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 0.0004 < 0.0001 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Pearson Correlation Coefficients (Continued) 225 Variable Ind attributes Workjob_experience Leadership Feelings Relationships Org_commitment 0.25 0.20 0.29 0.23 0.15 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 0.0001 Allcommitmean 0.45 0.50 0.47 0.50 0.41 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 AACmean 0.43 0.53 0.53 0.52 0.38 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 CCC_mean 0.09 0.12 0.07 0.09 0.11 0.0308 0.0034 0.0755 0.0234 0.0052 NC_mean 0.52 0.51 0.51 0.56 0.45 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 Other_opportunities 0.18 0.28 0.22 0.24 0.10 0.0036 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 c 0.0001 0.0092 Extrinsic_rewards 0.25 0.53 0.45 0.57 0.22 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 lntrinsic_rewards 0.60 0.50 0.50 0.53 0.47 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 Impact 0.21 0.24 0.28 0.27 0.14 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 0.0004 Mission 0.50 0.60 0.64 0.62 0.43 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 lnd_attributes 1.00 0.31 0.34 0.34 0.43 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 Workjob_experience 0.31 1.00 0.62 0.73 0.32 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 Leadership 0.34 0.62 1.00 0.71 0.38 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 Feelings 0.34 0.73 0.71 1.00 0.45 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 Relationships 0.44 0.32 0.34 0.45 1.00 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 226 APPENDIX VII Regression Results with Selected Interaction Terms 1. Overall Commitment with Selected Interaction Terms' Outcome Variable Coefficient2 SE T-value Controls G ender -0.020 0.148 -0.76 Educational Level 0.018 0.110 0.50 Time Spent 0.088** 0.001 2.53 Managerial Position -0.078** 0.188 -2.76 Transportl 0.052* 0.200 1.47 Transport2 -0.023 0.224 -0.62 Sector Comparison Sector 0.159 0.904 0.98 Rational-Choice Antecedents Other Opportunities 0.370*** 0.064 8.60 Extrinsic Rewards -0.014 0.061 -0.39 Humanistic Antecedents Intrinsic Rewards 0.019* 0.121 0.34 Impact 0.005 0.049 0.17 Mission 0.044 0.072 1.09 Extras Individual Attributes 0.228*** 0.137 4.59 W ork-Job Experience 0.140** 0.109 2.47 Leadership 0.211** 0.097 3.60 Feelings 0.036 0.128 0.56 Relationships 0.104* 0.089 2.33 Interaction Terms Sector * Other Opportunities 0.112 0.083 1.54 Sector * Intrinsic Rewards 0.253 0.161 1.59 Sector * Individual Attributes -0.204 0.186 -1.06 Sector * Work-job Experience -0.151* 0.154 -1.27 Sector * Leadership -0.272 0.132 -2.37 Sector * Feelings 0.151 0.177 1.11 Sector * Relationships -0.007 0.125 -0.05 * P < 0.05 ** P < 0.01 *** P < 0.0001 Adjusted R-Square = 0.6022 F = 39.66, P < 0.0001 ' Selected interaction terms are created from selecting the antecedents found to be statistically significant from the sector comparison regression models and multiplying them with sector. 2 Standardized coefficient estimates are reported in all regression results such that the coefficients o f various outcome variables and their effects on the dependent variables can be properly compared. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 227 Regression Results with Selected Interaction Terms 2. Attitudinal-Affective Commitment with Selected Interaction Terms Outcome Variable Coefficient SE T-value Controls G ender 0.002 0.072 0.07 Educational Level 0.043 0.054 1.04 Time Spent at Organization 0.098* 0.000 2.42 M anagerial Position -0.044 0.091 -1.35 T ransportl 0.065 0.097 1.58 Transport2 -0.045 0.108 -1.04 Sector Comparison Sector 0.075 0.426 1.41 Rational-Choice Antecedents Other Opportunities -0.125** 0.031 -2.51 Extrinsic Rewards -0.041 0.029 -1.00 Humanistic Antecedents Intrinsic Rewards 0.059 0.058 0.91 Impact 0.007 0.024 0.23 Mission 0.086* 0.035 2.23 Extras Individual Attributes 0.201** 0.065 3.56 W ork-Job Experience 0.216** 0.049 3.49 Leadership 0.269*** 0.045 4.10 Feelings 0.088 0.045 1.60 Relationships 0.015 0.030 0.41 Interaction Terms Sector * O ther Opportunities 0.168* 0.040 1.99 Sector * Intrinsic Rewards 0.588** 0.077 3.24 Sector * Individual Attributes -0.453* 0.088 -2.08 Sector * Work-job Experience -0.146 0.066 -1.20 Sector * Leadership -0.145 0.058 -1.19 * P < 0.05 ** P < 0.01 *** P < 0.0001 Adjusted R -Square = 0.4621 F = 24.94, P < 0.0001 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 228 Regression Results with Selected Interaction Terms 3. Calculative-Continuance Commitment with Selected Interaction Terms Outcome Variable Coefficient SE T-value Controls G ender -0.018 0.087 -0.62 Educational Level -0.016 0.065 -0.40 Time S pent at Organization 0.070 0.001 1.78 Managerial Position -0.031 0.111 -1.97 Transportl 0.080* 0.117 2.03 Transport2 0.007 0.131 0.18 Sector Comparison Sector -0.072 0.393 -0.53 Rational-Choice Antecedents Other Opportunities 0.642*** 0.036 13.72 Extrinsic Rewards -0.061 0.036 -1.51 Humanistic Antecedents Intrinsic Rewards -0.115** 0.048 -2.66 Impact -0.001 0.029 -0.02 Mission 0.018 0.042 0.39 Extras Individual Attributes 0.059 0.055 1.54 W ork-Job Experience -0.025 0.046 -0.54 Leadership -0.028 0.040 -0.60 Feelings -0.022 0.055 -0.41 Relationships 0.102* 0.047 2.25 Interaction Terms Sector * O ther Opportunities 0.108 0.047 1.37 Sector * Relationship -0.029 0.062 -0.23 * P < 0.05 ** P < 0.01 *** P < 0.0001 Adjusted R-Square = 0.4862 F = 31.53, P < 0.0001 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 229 Regression Results with Selected Interaction Terms 4. Normative Commitment with Selected Interaction Terms Outcome Variable Coefficient SE T-value Controls G ender -0.029 0.069 -1.00 Educational Level 0.025 0.051 0.64 Time S pent at Organization 0.020 0.001 0.54 Managerial Position -0.099** 0.087 -3.22 Transportl -0.020 0.093 -0.54 Transport2 -0.022 0.104 -0.55 Sector Comparison Sector -0.016 0.429 -0.09 Rational-Choice Antecedents Other Opportunities 0.241*** 0.030 5.17 Extrinsic Rewards 0.083* 0.028 2.14 Humanistic Antecedents Intrinsic Rewards 0.112 0.056 1.82 Impact -0.058 0.030 -1.44 Mission -0.011 0.034 -0.25 Extras Individual Attributes 0.243*** 0.064 4.52 W ork-Job Experience 0.104 0.051 1.69 Leadership 0.136* 0.045 2.13 Feelings 0.128 0.060 1.82 Relationships 0.134** 0.041 2.77 Interaction Terms Sector * O ther Opportunities -0.098 0.039 -1.25 Sector * 1 ntrinsic Rewards 0.052 0.076 0.30 Sector * Impact 0.192* 0.045 2.35 Sector * Individual Attributes 0.088 0.087 0.42 Sector * Work-job Experience -0.070 0.072 -0.54 Sector * Leadership -0.152 0.062 -1.21 Sector * Feelings 0.043 0.082 0.29 Sector * Relationships -0.019 0.058 -0.13 * P < 0.05 ** P < 0.01 *** P < 0.0001 Adjusted R-Square = 0.5315 F = 28.82, P < 0.0001 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Abstract (if available)

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Banking on the commons: An institutional analysis of groundwater banking programs in California's Central Valley

PDF

A configuration study of multiagency partnerships as practiced in Taipei City government

PDF

Executive development and effectiveness: A study of mobility assignment experiences of career executives in federal research and development agencies

PDF

Federal mentor -protege programs: A pilot study on protege survival and growth

PDF

Educational reform for private state -approved schools in California

PDF

Internal venturing in public agencies

PDF

Institutional analysis of evolution of housing cooperatives in India

PDF

Drug treatment providers' organizational responses to implementation of California's Proposition 36

PDF

Executive spending power: Flexibility in obligation and outlay timing as a measure of federal budgetary and policy control

PDF

Interoperability among complex defense computer -based systems: The Navy case

PDF

A search for theory: Performance management to improve transportation safety

PDF

Determining risk propensity of government program managers for high risk /high payoff projects

PDF

A preliminary assessment of the influence of certain variables on the implementation of recommendations by scientific -technical advisory committees

PDF

Historical perspectives and future horizons of local government managers and the International City /County Management Association

PDF

Charter schools' influence on public school administrators' innovative behaviors

PDF

Assessing ombudsman performance: Two case studies in North America

PDF

Evaluation of professional services consultants in rural government

PDF

Adapting and applying a mission-focused strategic framework for emergency management

PDF

Care management for the uninsured: A force field analysis of the business case

PDF

An analysis of health risk selection and quality of care under Medicare fee -for -service and Medicare managed care health care systems

Asset Metadata

Creator Trivisvavet, Supamas (author)

Core Title Comparative study of organizational commitment in the public and private sectors: The case of transportation agencies in Thailand

School School of Policy, Planning and Development

Degree Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Program Public Administration

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag OAI-PMH Harvest,Political Science, public administration

Language English

Contributor Digitized by ProQuest (provenance)

Advisor Robertson, Peter J. (committee chair), Porath, Christine (committee member), Tang, Shui-Yan (committee member)

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c16-327681

Unique identifier UC11340754

Identifier 3155490.pdf (filename),usctheses-c16-327681 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier 3155490.pdf

Dmrecord 327681

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Trivisvavet, Supamas

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the au...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus, Los Angeles, California 90089, USA