Reconceptualizing Organizational Commitment Using the Theory of Reasoned Action PDF Download

Author: Thu Gia Hoang
Publisher:
ISBN:
Category : Employees
Languages : en
Pages : 219

Get Book

Book Description
The Three-Component Model of organizational commitment (TCM) by Meyer and Allen (1991, 1997) is widely regarded as the most dominant model in organizational commitment research (Cohen, 2003, 2007). However, recent research by Solinger et al. (2008) questioned the legitimacy of the TCM as a general model of organizational commitment. More specifically, the authors criticized the TCM for grouping affective commitment as an attitude toward target with continuance and normative commitment as attitudes toward behaviors under one general label of attitudinal construct. Based on the Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA; Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980), Solinger et al. (2008) argued that we should consider organizational commitment strictly as an attitude toward the organization (i.e., affective commitment). Based on Eagly and Chaiken's (1993) composite attitude-behavior model, the current study tested the reconceptualization of organizational commitment as a unidimensional construct reflecting employees' attitudes toward the organization (i.e., affective commitment) in predicting several organizational behaviors (i.e., considerate voice, production deviance, and behavioral engagement). In addition, I also investigated whether these organizational behaviors could be better explained by adding different classes of behavioral expectancies (i.e., utilitarian, normative and self-identity expectancies) as antecedents. Finally, I tested the mediating roles of attitude toward behaviors in the relationship between affective commitment and three behavioral expectancies and the three organizational behaviors. A sample of 258 employees in a large-sized organization in China was obtained for this study. The results suggested that none of the hypotheses of the current study was supported by the evidence in the current study. In particular, affective commitment and three classes of behavioral expectancies did not significantly predict their corresponding behaviors. In addition, I also did not find the evidence for the indirect effects from affective commitment and the behavioral expectancies on the behaviors. Several alternative explanations were provided for the results. Among those, the lack of compatibility between affective commitment and the behaviors, the existence of moderators (e.g. national culture), the lack of necessary control to perform the behaviors successfully are key factors that might lead to the current findings. Although none of the hypotheses was supported, I found limited empirical supports for the reconceptualization of organizational commitment strictly as the attitude toward the organization and that organizational behaviors could be better explained by adding appropriate behavioral expectancies to the model (Solinger et al., 2008). Finally, theoretical and practical implications of the current study as well as directions for future research are discussed.