Chapter 2: Relevant Literature
2.6 Behavioral Consequences of Commitment
In cases when the intended result of a course of action is the target (focus), the resulting behavioral outcomes of commitment are usually specific. For example, commitment to improving student achievements ought to be evidenced in a change in behavior consistent with the change's purpose. Whereas in the event that the target is an entity, the resulting behavioral outcomes can be very general and quite broad. For
example, the behavioral consequences of commitment to a school that are anticipated include working toward organizational objectives, reduced employee turnover, reduced absenteeism, improved performance levels, and improved student results.
However, sometimes, when an individual’s commitment is to an entity, the behavioral consequences of that commitment are quite specific (e.g., continued membership).
Moreover, variations in the extent of behavioral consequences might be present within a single model. Examples of this include the behavioral consequences of CC, and to some extent, NC in Meyer and Allen’s (1991) three-component model are more specific than those of AC. Continued employment is the behavioral consequence of CC and NC to the organization that is conceptualized and measured. The behavioral consequences of AC are diverse by comparison (e.g., continued employment, attendance and performance), where the consequences are implied, as opposed to being detailed in the definition and measures (Meyer & Allen, 1991).
Equally, when commitment targets a specific course of action, where there is typically an objective in mind, behavior can be enacted with considerable variability.
It is difficult to identify the required behavior that will achieve this objective.
However, it was confirmed by Meyer and Herscovitch (2001) that it is rare that the outlined set of behaviors that are intended to achieve the desired objective of the specific course of action accurately and completely, reflects the specific course of action. The reason for this is that it is not possible to predict all outcomes and to communicate the correct behavioral reactions for each course of action. Employees who demonstrate commitment to performing a specific course of action will adapt their behavior to the desired objective. But will they? This might be determined by the nature of these employees’ commitment (Meyer & Herscovitch, 2001). This led
Meyer, and Herscovitch (2001) to believe that when considering commitment- behavior relationship complexities, different forms of commitment appear, suggesting a need to carefully consider the consequences of these different commitment mindsets on behavior. Research suggests that AC has an important correlation with a much broader range of “outcome” measures when compared to both CC and NC. Affective commitment also correlates more strongly with any given outcome measure. Meyer et al.’s (2002) meta-analysis relayed Meyer and Allen’s (1991) commitment scales to examine commitment and its correlations to organizational behaviors such as turnover, turnover intention, absenteeism, and job performance. It was determined that AC correlates significantly with a broader range of outcome measures; AC is defined in general terms as well as being operationalized more widely than CC and NC. Also, they found a similar correlation pattern but with different magnitudes for these three forms of commitment with the studied organizational behaviors, showing AC had a stronger correlation than NC, followed by CC (Meyer et al., 2002).
Meyer and Herscovitch (2001) speculate that one explanation for AC correlating with a broader and more diverse range of outcomes is because of its focal behavior. This refers to the behavior to which an individual is bound by their commitment, and is broader for AC compared to CC and NC; therefore, AC should be predictive of a much broader array of behaviors (Meyer & Herscovitch, 2001).
Another possible explanation is that when a mindset of desire accompanies commitment. The behavioral consequences of this type of commitment are usually broader at an individual level, when compared to commitment which is accompanied by a mindset of perceived cost or obligation. This means that employees are less sensitive to cues that potentially bind their behavior when their engagement in a
particular course of action is because of common values, including their loyalty and connection with the commitment target (e.g., organization, union). In this case, the employees’ mindsets direct attention to the intended outcome, and therefore, this enables employees to adjust their activities to attain the outcome. However, employees are more sensitive to parameters in the workplace that define what is required or expected of them when they are engaged in a particular course of action due to a sense of being duty-bound or in order to avoid costs (Meyer et al., 1990; Meyer &
Herscovitch, 2001; Herscovitch & Meyer, 2002).
Meyer and Herscovitch’s (2001) speculations supported Morrison’s (1994) findings that AC is encompassing a wider range of behaviors (i.e., extra-role behaviors), where there is a willingness to go above and beyond the call of duty as identified by Meyer and Allen (1997), more so than the other two commitment forms.
Furthermore, employees with higher levels of AC were more likely to engage in a wider range of behaviors (i.e., extra-role behaviors) than employees with weaker AC.
The nature of the mindset can influence the perception (the form of commitment) and its relevant behavior. This includes circumstances in which focal behavior is identified in the measure that is used (i.e., when using items pertaining specifically to the desire of remaining in the organization); AC is related to a broader array of employee behaviors that fall outside the specified boundaries for AC than NC or CC (Morrison, 1994; Meyer & Allen, 1997; Meyer & Herscovitch, 2001).
Meyer and Herscovitch (2001) added that the committed individual always has some discretion to specify the terms of the commitment, as it is more likely to be interpreted more liberally for AC than for the other forms of commitment. The term discretionary denotes to any behavior that is not specifically within the terms of the
commitment but can be incorporated into the terms; this is at the discretion of the individual concerned. A similar pattern of effects can be identified for discretionary behaviour when considering the three forms of commitment. This is evident in cases when an individual with a strong AC to an initiative that involves organizational change might be prepared to perform beyond what is ordinarily required of them, to find ways to ensure the success of the initiative. It is unlikely to be the case for those individuals whose primary commitment is derived from a sense of obligation or their awareness of the cost of failing to comply with organizational change initiatives. In contrast, employees that predominantly have a sense of cost might be unwilling to do anything that is not required of them (Meyer & Herscovitch, 2001).
Jaros (1997) explained why the measures of AC, together with focal behavior, have a tendency to strongly correlate with any outcome variable, compared to CC and NC measures. Jaros (1997) outlined that the possible explanation of this is the “binding force” that is unequal among all of the commitment mind-sets. This results in individuals that demonstrate commitment out of desire and have a greater propensity to carry out their commitment than individuals who demonstrate a commitment out of obligation or to avoid costs. Employees who are committed primarily to avoid costs might be motivated to find ways to get out of their commitment. For example, an employee continues to search for other employment opportunities during their term of employment with an organization because they view their skills as uniquely valuable and marketable (Jaros, 1997).
Meyer and Herscovitch (2001) claimed that for the cases of AC, CC, and NC, and where the other two forms are weak, these commitments were called “pure” cases.
In these pure cases, for the focal behavior, the expectation is that committed
individuals will enact the most in the case of AC, followed by NC and then CC (Meyer
& Herscovitch, 2001).
However, when multiple forms of commitment are in operation, as in the cases where it is not classified as a pure case, different forms of commitment are considered.
Therefore, it might result in a decreased influence of the commitment than it would be in the pure affective case. Furthermore, Meyer and Herscovitch (2001) speculated that AC would have a stronger impact on behavior than CC and NC. They believe that the behavior, whether focal or discretionary, would be the greatest when the mindset of desire is combined with one of obligation, and particularly with one of need, in comparison to what it would be in the case for NC or CC alone (Meyer & Herscovitch, 2001).
They also believe that in the case of “pure” AC, both focal and discretionary behavior are the greatest, followed by cases in which AC is accompanied by high levels of NC and/or CC. Normative commitment alone is anticipated to result in more focal and possible discretionary behavior, compared to CC. Continuance commitment should result in more focal behavior than no commitment, but no differences are anticipated concerning discretionary behavior. Finally, even in the case of AC, the correlations that connect the behavioral consequences of commitment are modest (Meyer & Herscovitch, 2001). These findings were confirmed by the work of Gellatly et al. (2006). However, the findings of these researchers were inconsistent, suggesting that there may have been other processes underlying the observed interaction effects still need to be investigated.
For a long time, research on commitment showed that different forms of commitment have different antecedents and different consequences associated with
them, for example, the work of Allen and Meyer (1990). In the following two sections, these differences are addressed in general and are not specific to each commitment form.
2.7 Teacher Organizational Commitment (OC) and Commitment to Teaching