2.4. Leadership and commitment
2.4.2 Organizational commitment: The Three Component Model (TCM)
Commitment is still one of the most challenging concepts in the field of organizational behaviour and management (Cohen, 2007; Meyer, Stanley, Herscovitch, & Topolnytsky, 2002; Kinnine &Swart, 2012). It has been understood to refer to the willingness of employees to exert high levels of effort on behalf of the organization, as a strong desire by employees to stay in the organization and an acceptance by employees of the major goals and values of the organization (Porter, Crampon & Smith, 1976; Sheldon, 1971). It is therefore the willingness of staff to give their energy, loyalty and some level of belongingness to the organization (Mowday, Porter & Steers, 1982: 27). This willingness of staff is an important force in binding individuals to actions targeting organizational goals (Meyer &
Herscovirtch, 2001). In this view, employee commitment aligns individual goals with those of the organization making employees willing to work harder to achieve the goals of the organization. With higher levels of commitment, employees become members of the organization who put in effort that go beyond normal expectations (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Moorman & Fetter, 1990; Koh, Steers, & Terborg, 1995;
Steyrer, Schiffinger & Lang, 2008:366; Abdul-Rashid, Sambasivan & Johari, 2003).
One of the most well-known conceptualisations of commitment is the Three Component Model (TCM). This model of commitment arose after several attempts towards a model for better understanding, measurement and evaluation of organizational commitment (Meyer & Allen, 1991). It views commitment as a psychological state that has three components that reflect a desire, a need and an obligation to maintain membership with the organization (Meyer & Allen, 1991:61). It is now widely accepted that commitment is a multidimensional construct, whose components and consequences vary across its dimensions (Mayer & Allen, 1991). As a multidimensional construct TCM distinguishes three components of commitment:
the affective, normative and continuance component. The three components are important in understanding the impacts of commitment on employee retention, on- the-job behaviour and job performance (Meyer & Allen, 1991; Allen & Meyer, 1997).
40
Affective Commitment (AC) reflects emotional ties one attaches to an organization, involvement with the organization, its goals and their work in the organization, making them to want to stay in the organization (Rosseau, 1989; Allen & Meyer, 1997:45). Employees with strong affective commitment are supportive and strongly attached to the organization because they want to do so. Affective commitment is important for dedication and strong involvement with the organization (Rhoades, Eisenberger & Armeli, 2001; Beck & Wilson, 2000).
Normative Commitment (NC) is based on obligations, loyalty and sense of duty that one feels for the organization (Bolon, 1993; Wiener & Vardi, 1980:86) and is close to a moral obligation as they feel it is the proper thing to do, regardless of how much status enhancement or satisfaction the organization gives them (Wierner & Vardi, 1980). It is influenced by accepted rules about reciprocal obligations between the organization and its members (Suliman & Iles, 2000). It is the feeling or perception that they have to be committed to the organization; they should be committed as it is expected from them.
The last component is Continuance Commitment (CC), which is based on the perceived social and economic costs related to leaving the organization. Employees may want to stay in an organization because the costs of leaving are greater than its benefits. This is well explained by the side-bet theory of commitment (Becker, 1960), which views commitment as the accumulation of investments valued by an individual that would be lost if one decided to leave the organization. Employees whose commitment is based on continuance would stay with the organization because they need to do so (Meyer & Allen, 1984; Cohen & Lowenberg, 1990). This type of commitment is instrumental and calculative in nature because employees have to weigh the costs and risks associated with leaving the organization (Meyer &
Allen, 1997:11). Since we are interested in commitment, not turnover, but staying with the organization, we will assume that people who do not want to leave an organization are more committed than those who want to leave. Similarly, those
who want to leave but have difficulties to leave because of the associated costs of leaving are also supposed to be less committed than those who do not want to leave due to their own volition.
Thus, in contrast to many studies that use the TCM to investigate organizational turnover, in our study we are not directly interested in the question whether and why members want to stay or leave the organization. Nevertheless, as we are interested in commitment, engagement and involvement, the continuance component is useful. We would argue that some staff members – those who do not consider leaving because they have a desire to stay) -- are highly committed to the organisation. But others – those who (desperately) want to but cannot leave (as the costs are too high or when there are no opportunities available) -- are likely to be less committed. Thus, in our study the continuance component may be either positively or negatively related to organisational commitment. Likewise, Meyer, Stanley, Herscovitch & Topolynytsky (2001) ascertained that affective commitment has the strongest and most favourable correlation with attendance, performance and organization citizenship behaviour. Moreover, they argue that continuance commitment was unrelated or related negatively to organizational outcomes.
Affective commitment is therefore expected to have the strongest positive relation to commitment, followed by normative commitment, while the effect of continuance commitment is expected to be more ambiguous.
2.4.3 Applicability of the TCM-model
TCM ties together three separate streams of earlier commitment research (Allen &
Meyer, 1990) and is regarded as the most dominant model in organizational commitment research (Cohen, 2007). It has been widely used to understand commitment, performance and job satisfaction in organizations (Meyer, Stanley, Herscovitch & Topolnytsky, 2002; Williams & Anderson, 1991; Allen & Meyer 1996;
Hackett, Bycio, & Hausdorf, 1994; O’Reilly & Chatman, 1986; Cullen & Parboteeah, 2003; Brammer, Millington & Rayton, 2007). The TCM-model has however faced
42
some controversies. These controversies mainly concern the number of components and the interrelatedness of the three components.
According to Cohen (2007), the model also suffers from conceptual ambiguity of continuance commitment and the concept redundancy between normative and affective commitment. Based on these limitations he proposed a new approach to commitment based on two dimensions of which one is instrumental while the other is affective in nature. The TCM model is illustrated in Figure 2.3 below.
Figure 2.3: The Three Components Model (TCM) of commitment
+ + +-
We take notice of these controversies as regards the TCM, especially concerning the continuance component, but we will follow the model as such, although our assumptions regarding the continuance commitment are slightly different than in most other research (as mentioned, we are not interested in turnover and leaving the
Affective Commitment
(AC)
Normative Commitment
(NC)
Continuance Commitment
(CC)
Organizational Commitment
(OC)
organisations as such). Thus, as shown in figure 2.3, affective commitment and normative commitment should have positive (+) effect while continuance commitment could imply both positive and negative effects (+-) on staff commitment. As Allen & Meyer (1990) argue the net sum of a person’s commitment to the organization has to reflect each of these separate aspects of commitment.
Some employees can experience both a strong need and obligation to work for the organization, but not have an intense desire to do so. Others may feel neither desire nor strong obligation, but having a strong desire to be dedicated to their jobs.
In other words, all three components, and the relative weights attached to them, may inform us about a person’s commitment. The weights have to be empirically determined. The three components of commitment can be experienced in varying degrees. If they are all experienced at higher levels by employees in an organization, then their overall commitment would be higher, leading to possibilities of more success for the organization and vice versa. Linked to leadership styles, the focus of our study, it means that different leadership styles could influence these three components of commitment differently.