a_management
TRANSCRIPT
A management developmentmodel
Measuring organizational commitment and itsimpact on job satisfaction among executives in
a learning organization
Steven Pool and Brian PoolRichard E. and Sandra J. Dauch College of Business and Economics,
Ashland University, Ashland, Ohio, USA
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this study is to investigate the nature of organizational commitment andthe impact on executive’s motivational level in providing job satisfaction within a learningorganization.
Design/methodology/approach – A management development model examines the relationshipbetween the measurable constructs. The model explores the relationship between the executive’smotivation level and their outcome with job satisfaction and organizational learning.
Findings – The results indicate there is a goodness-of-fit for the research model. The pathcoefficients explained a significant amount of variation along with the identification thatorganizational commitment is a significant attribute in the management development model.
Research limitations/implications – Limitations include the self-report methodology thatmeasures perceptual data with a series of questionnaire items.
Originality/value – The study examines executive’s perceptions and the significance oforganizational commitment. Management development specialists will recognize the dynamics oforganizational commitment and its linkage with motivation and job satisfaction in a learningorganization. There are practical applications for management development specialists and the modelsupports an environment in which employees are encouraged to use new behaviors and operationprocesses within the learning organization.
Keywords Management development, Motivation (psychology), Job satisfaction,Learning organizations
Paper type Research paper
IntroductionIn the past decade, the impact of organizational commitment has grown significantly inthe field of management development. This concept receives a great deal of empiricalstudy both as a consequence or antecedent as a work-related variable (Mathieu andZajac, 1990). As a consequence, organizational commitment is critical amongexecutives in creating a business environment that promotes motivation and jobsatisfaction at the workplace. It links the individual to the organization. Organizationalcommitment reflects the extent an individual identifies with an organization andcommitted to its organizational goals. Work attitude is important because committedexecutives are expected to exemplify a willingness to work harder to achieveorganizational goals. Executives demonstrating this commitment have a greater desire
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0262-1711.htm
A managementdevelopment
model
353
Received February 2006Revised April 2006
Accepted May 2006
Journal of Management DevelopmentVol. 26 No. 4, 2007
pp. 353-369q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0262-1711DOI 10.1108/02621710710740101
to remain employed with that organization. Research indicates organizationalcommitment is a viable predictor of many behaviors, including absenteeism (Gellatly,1995), turnover (Jaros, 1995), job satisfaction (Mathieu and Zajac, 1990), and workmotivation (Meyer et al., 2004). Organizational commitment is attitudinal behavior.Organizational commitment is defined as the relative strength of an individual’sidentification and involvement is a particular organization (Mowday et al., 1979).Conceptually, characterized by at least three factors; first, organizational commitmentreflects the strong belief and acceptance of the organization’s goals and values. Second,commitment impacts the executive’s behavior within an organization. Third,organizational commitment produces a strong desire to maintain membership in theorganization (Mowday et al., 1982). This study investigates the relationship oforganizational commitment, motivation, and job satisfaction. Therefore, organizationalcommitment is measured as an antecedent construct for this study. Also, this studyinvestigates if the executive’s motivation level has a negative or positive relationshipwith the attributes of the learning organization.
A learning organization creates, acquires, and transfers knowledge that changesits behavior based on new knowledge and insights. Senge (1990) describes alearning organization as a group of employees working together collectivelyenhancing their capacities to create results that are truly meaningful.Technological advancement, dynamic customer demands, increasing globalization,the blurring of organizational boundaries, and increasing competition combine toproduce organizational environments’ that are more turbulent than ever before(Parry and Proctor-Thompson (2003) and Bates and Khasawneh (2005). Themajority of literature defines a learning organization as acquiring, improving, andtransferring knowledge that improves individual learning (Campbell and Cairns,1994).
Work motivation identified by the expectancy theory of motivation, determines howindividuals choose between alternative behaviors in studying motivation. Theexecutive’s motivation behavior is measured by two major components. They are (E-I)effort-to-performance and (E-II) performance-to-outcomes. Effort-to-performanceexpectancy (E-I) is a person’s perception of the probability that effort will lead tosuccessful performance. Performance-to-outcome expectancy (E-II) is a person’sperception that the probability of performance will lead to specific other outcomes(organizational and individual).
Job satisfaction is one of the most studied variables in the history of industrial andorganizational psychology (Spector et al., 1997). Job satisfaction and organizationalcommitment receive significant importance in research studies. This establishes thesevariables as major determinants of organizational performance (Riketta, 2002) andeffectiveness (Laschinger, 2001). Job satisfaction is an attitude formed by individuals inreference to their jobs. It results from the perception of their jobs and the degree towhich there is a good fit between the individual and the organization. Further researchinvolving job satisfaction is advocated. If organizations can successfully measurewhich factors influence job satisfaction, they may strengthen employee’s morale andprovide positive outcomes for their organization.
Management development specialists are interested in the synergistic elements(organizational commitment, work motivation, and job satisfaction) impact on a
JMD26,4
354
learning organization culture. Therefore, further research and investigation iswarranted in analyzing this synergistic impact.
BackgroundNature of organization commitmentThe most significant developments in commitment theory over the past two decadesrecognizes commitment takes different forms (e.g. Becker et al., 1996; Jaros et al., 1993;Meyer and Allen, 1991; O’Reilly and Chatman, 1986). Second, it can be directed towardvarious targets, or foci (e.g. Becker et al., 1996; Cohen-Charash and Spector, 2003;Reichers, 1985). Several authors argue commitment evolves into different forms. Thereis considerable overlap in the various models to explain these differences. For ourpurposes, we focus on the three-component model developed by Meyer and Allen(1991). This model retains the greatest empirical scrutiny and arguably receives thegreatest support. Meyer and Allen (1990) initially developed a three-component modelthat observes similarities and differences in the conceptualizations of organizationalcommitment. Distinguishing different levels of commitment characterized by thesedifferent mindsets, Meyer and Allen labeled them “affective commitment”, “normativecommitment”, and “continuance commitment”, respectively. Meyer and Allen (1991)states one of the most important reasons for distinguishing the different forms oforganizational commitment was the different implications of behavior.
Nature of expectancy motivationMotivation is a psychological process that causes the arousal, direction, andpersistency of voluntary action in reaching organizational and personal goals. Mostbehaviors are considered a cognitive process. In this analysis, executives identify andmeasure their motivational aspirations by analyzing three components. They are E-I(expectancy), E-II (Instrumentality), and valence (the value of the rewards forperformance).
E-I is one of the expectancy constructs. It refers to the perceived relationshipbetween effort-to-performance measurements. Expectancy is the degree to which effortis perceived to cause performance. Expectancy is the amount of control a personperceives over their performance. If an individual believes their behavior impacts theirperformance, then expectancy is considered high.
Instrumentality is the perceived relationship between performance and rewards, orhow well performance on the job leads to job rewards. This construct is called E-II(performance-reward expectancy). Instrumentality is the perception by an individualthat first-level outcomes are associated with second-level outcomes (Vroom, 1964). Itrefers to the strength of a person’s belief in attaining a particular outcome that isinstrumental in attaining second-level outcomes. Instrumentality is the degree asuccessful performance actually results in valued rewards. The outcomes an executivereceives are evaluated in terms of their value or attractiveness. Valence refers to theexecutive’s perception of how they value the rewards or outcomes. Valence mirrors ourpersonal preferences (Feather, 1995). According to expectancy theory propositions, aperson in a work situation perceives two levels of outcomes, first-level and second-leveloutcomes. The first-level outcome is the degree the job performance is successful.First-level outcomes result from behavior associated with the job. The second-leveloutcome is the set of valued rewards attainable from successful job performance. The
A managementdevelopment
model
355
second-level outcomes are those events (rewards or punishments) associated with thefirst-level outcomes. An individual decides how much effort to exert towards asuccessful job performance after assessing expectancy, instrumentality, and valance.Researchers conducted eight studies exploring the relationship between goal level andinstrumentality (Mento et al., 1992). Although the results so far are encouraging,researchers suggest further research on employee’s job satisfaction within a learningorganization (Egan et al., 2004).
The development of a conceptual framework is based upon organizationalcommitment and its relationship with expectancy motivation in providing jobsatisfaction within a learning organization. Measuring motivation and its impact onthe organization’s philosophy is essential for management development specialists.The expectancy theory of motivation explains the subordinate’s motivation levels inthe workplace. The basic concept underlying the expectancy theory is determined byoutcomes, which are result of their actions on the job (Vroom, 1964). Figure 1 illustratesVictor Vroom’s expectancy motivation model which is a construct considered in thisstudy.
Vroom (1964), recommends employees consciously choose particular courses ofaction. They choose a course of action based upon perception, attitudes, and beliefs.Porter and Lawler (1968) later developed a theoretical model, stating the expenditure ofindividual effort will determine expectations in conjunction with the value placed on anoutcome in the person’s mind (Pinder, 1984). This model is generally known asexpectancy theory, but referred to as VIE theory. The letters represent valence,instrumentality, and expectancy (Mitchell and Michel, 1999). More than 50 studiestested the accuracy of Vroom’s expectancy theory in predicting employee motivationlevels (Nadler and Lawler, 1977). A meta-analysis of 77 studies indicated thatexpectancy theory significantly predicted performance, effort intentions, preferences,
Figure 1.Expectancy model ofmotivation
JMD26,4
356
and choice (Eerde and Thierry, 1996). Another summary of sixteen students revealedthat expectancy theory correctly predicted occupational or organizational choice 64.percent of the time: this was significantly better than chance predictions (Wanous et al.,1983). The most recent study investigates the relationship between leadership andexpectancy theory in motivating employees (Isaac et al., 2001).
Nature of job satisfactionJob satisfaction reflects the extent an individual enjoys their job. Therefore, it is anemotional response towards various facets. Job satisfaction is not a unitary concept,rather, a person can be relatively satisfied with one aspect of his or her job anddissatisfied with other aspects. The Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire utilized inthis study measures the executive’s satisfaction with recognition, compensation, andsupervision. Job satisfaction is one of the most frequently studied work attitudes.There are more than 12,000 job satisfaction studies published by the early 1990(Kinicki et al., 2002).
Nature of learning organizationNumerous studies conducted on the learning organization (Watkins and Marsick, 1993,1999) focus on the theoretical significance (Power and Waddell, 2004). Empiricalstudies assess the learning organization’s relationship to various measure ofperformance (Ellinger et al., 2002). These studies confirm positive links between thelearning organization and performance. Both concluded more research is neededtherefore; convincing managers of the practical significance of the learningorganization. Both the learning organization literature (Senge, 1990) andorganizational commitment (Lok and Crawford, 2003) suggest researchers andpractitioners conduct additional empirical research investigating the relationshipbetween organizational commitment, job satisfaction, and the learning organization.The foundation of the Watkins and Marsick studies (1993, 1996a,b) are sevencomplementary action imperatives that identify the organization’s journey. The sevenare; create continuous learning opportunities, promote inquiry and dialogue, encouragecollaboration and team learning, establish systems to capture and share learning,empower people toward a collective vision, connect the organization to itsenvironment, and use leaders who model and support learning at the individual,team, and organizational levels. Their model emphasizes key components in studying alearning organization, they are systems level thinking, continuous learning; andmanaged knowledge outcomes; these outcomes lead to improvement in theorganization’s performance. Ultimately, its value is measured through both financialassets and non-financial intellectual capital (Watkins and Marsick, 1999). There islimited research in measuring the levels of motivation and the relationship withorganizational learning.
Is organizational commitment an antecedent construct in motivating employees?What is its practical application and process in promoting organizational learning?
Empirical studyManagement development modelFigure 2 illustrates the model utilized in this study. The constructs were organizationalcommitment, E-I (effort-to-performance motivation), E-II (performance-to-outcomes
A managementdevelopment
model
357
motivation), Job satisfaction, and the learning organization. Structural equationmodeling was applied for a goodness-of-fit. Also, the path coefficients were studied toidentify any significance in this research.
Structural equation modelingStructural equation modeling presents a statistical methodology utilized by manyresearchers and behavioral scientists (Raykov and Marcoulides, 2000). Researchersexamine this comprehensive method for the quantification and testing of theories. Oneexplanation for a precise application for statistical research is a major feature ofstructural equation modeling that takes into account the measurement error. SEMcontains latent variables that are hypothetical constructs and accessed for significanceand goodness of fit. Once constructs are assessed, structural equation modeling isutilized to test the theoretical assertions about potential interrelationships among theconstructs (Raykov and Marcoulides, 2000).
The specific type of SEM utilized was Path Analysis. Path analysis models areusually conceived only in terms of observed variables. Figure 2 illustrates the observedvariables. The observed variables are organizational commitment, E-I expectancy, E-IIexpectancy, job satisfaction, and learning organization.
Bentler (2005), EQS software assessed and measured the constructs of this model.The EQS software developed by P.M. Bentler in Encino, CA: Multivariate Software.
HypothesesThis study investigates organizational commitment and its impact on the executive’smotivation level. Organizational commitment measures the path and the effect on theexecutive’s motivation, job satisfaction, and organizational learning.
Organizational commitment researchers seldom incorporate the motivationalprocesses in which commitment affects behavior (Meyer et al., 2004). Measuringorganizational commitment indicates the more committed the executive, the higher themotivation level in pursing organizational goals for the business. Therefore:
H1. Executives with high levels of organizational commitment will be associatedwith high levels of E-I motivation (effort-to-performance).
Figure 2.The managementdevelopment model
JMD26,4
358
Expectancy motivation suggests individuals, acting through self-interest, adoptcourses of action perceived as maximizing the probability of desirable outcomes. Thisdesire to maximize self-interest provides management development specialists with aunique opportunity to assess executive’s expectancy and their outcomes. Managerialeffort-to-performance expectancy (E-I) action will increase executive’s expectationsabout outcomes (E-II). Therefore:
H2. Executives with high levels of effort-to-performance (E-I) attributes will beassociated with high levels of performance-to-outcomes (E-II).
If executives attain high E-II motivational levels and they value the outcomesassociated with the E-II’s instrumentalities, the question arises what impact will it haveon the executive’s level of job satisfaction? High levels of E-II expectancies will beassociated with high levels of job satisfaction. Therefore:
H3. Executives demonstrating high motivational levels with performance-to-outcomes expectancies (E-II) at work will be associated with high levels of jobsatisfaction.
An essential question to be address: What is the relationship between the executive’slevel of E-II expectancies and the organizational learning? If executives are highlymotivated, there should be a high level of organizational learning. Therefore:
H4. The higher levels of motivation (E-II) among executives in performing theirwork, the higher levels of organizational learning
The studyThe study is a cross sectional and a multi-industry sample. The data is a sample of 208MBA executives at Ashland University. The participants were employed inmanufacturing, retailing, financials, health organizations, accounting, energy, andinsurance industries. The questionnaire was developed with current literatureavailable. Procedures for the survey include a review of previous questionnaires. Thepsychometric properties for a learning organization, organizational commitment,motivation levels (E-I and E-II), and job satisfaction were satisfactory and listed in thenext section.
Questionnaire and measuresThe DLOQ instrument (Watkins and Marsick, 1993, 1996a,b) was used for this study inmeasuring the constructs of a learning organization. The seven dimensions in theWatkins and Marsick instrument measured the forty-three items. Previous researchconducted by Watkins and Marsick (1997), and Yang et al. (2004) illustratedaccordingly, several stages of empirical research assess the psychometric properties ofthe DLOQ. The analysis suggests the seven dimensions have acceptable reliabilityestimates (coefficient Alpha ranges from 0.75 to 0.85). The seven-factor structure alsofound the empirical data fit reasonably well (Watkins and Marsick, 1999).
The Mowday et al. (1982) organizational commitment questionnaire is a commonamong researchers. The Mowday et al. (1979) lists 15 items. For each item, a statementis presented and subjects respond using a seven-point Likert scale, ranging from“strongly disagree”; (1) to “strongly agree” (7). The commitment scales were developed
A managementdevelopment
model
359
by Meyer and Allen (1984) and Mowday et al. (1979). Their results of a canonicalcorrelation analysis suggest the affective and continuance components oforganizational commitment are empirically distinguishable constructs.
Job satisfaction measured the twenty item short form of Minnesota SatisfactionQuestionnaire (Weiss et al., 1967). The instrument measured intrinsic and extrinsic jobsatisfaction (Gillet and Schwab, 1975; Weiss et al., 1967). Psychometric properties ofthese scales were found acceptable for the present analyses. The Cronbach alpha levelis 0.90.
The expectancy measurement for motivation is a validated instrument developedby Vroom (1964). Expectancy theory constructs E-I and E-II will measure thesubordinate’s motivational level and is an integral part in measuring an executive’smotivation level. The expectancy motivational scale was developed and enhanced bySchrisesheim (1978). The psychometric properties of E-I and E-II scale reliability withKuder-Richardeson formula 20 estimates of internal consistency of 0.89. The intrinsicrewards are feeling a sense of accomplishment, feeling a sense of responsibility for thejob, and feeling about one’s self. The extrinsic rewards include; positive relations withcoworkers, working relationship with one’s supervisor, increase job security, receivingpraise from the company management team, increase in wages plus a promotion.Participants indicated how true or how false each E-II item (scale of 1 to 5) in regards totheir current work situation. The work motivation measurement scales have illustratedhigh validity and reliability dimensions in other studies (Nadler, 1977).
EQS Structural Equation Software Program (Bentler, 2005) tested the hypotheses inthis management development model. Path analysis applied EQS. EQS is a linearstructural equation technique that specifies, estimates, and tests hypothesizedinterrelationship among a set of important variable (Bentler, 2005). The EQS computersoftware program provides a diagrammer and the researcher designed a practicalmanagement development model before running the data analysis. The statisticalresults measure the specific relationships and their contribution to the overall model. Inthis management development model, the linear structural equation design measuresthe relationship between organizational commitment, expectancy motivation (E-I andE-II), job satisfaction, and learning organization.
The exogenous & endogenous factors – goodness-of-fit modelThe exogenous variable in this study is organizational commitment. The endogenousfactors are E-I, E-II, job satisfaction, and learning organization. The results will reviewthe goodness of fit for the overall model as well as explained variance (R 2). Theevaluation for the model fit is calculated on the basis of inferential goodness-of-fitindex as well as a number of other descriptive indices. The inferential index refers tothe chi-square value. It represents a test statistic of goodness of fit regarding the datafor the research model. The goodness-of-fit demonstrates if the null hypothesis does ordoes not fit the model in analyzing covariance matrix. The descriptive-fit-indicesprovide additional indices to access the goodness-of-fit. They are Bentler-Bonett (NFI),Bentler-Bonett Non-normed fit index (NNFI), Comparative Fit index (CFI), and Lisrel fitindex (GFI), and Lisrel Adjusted fit index (AGFI). The model will measure the standarderror with test statistics. The explained adjusted R 2 for the relationship between thevariables listed in the model are illustrated in Figure 2. A complete statistical analysisis included in Table I.
JMD26,4
360
Max
imu
mli
kel
ihoo
dso
luti
on(n
orm
ald
istr
ibu
tion
theo
ry)
Ad
just
edS
tan
dar
diz
edso
luti
on:
R-s
qu
ared
JOB
SA
T¼
V1
=0.
803
* V4
þ0.
597
E1
0.64
4E
I¼
V3
=0.
848
* V2
þ0.
530
E3
0.71
9E
II¼
V4
=0.
882
* V3
þ0.
471
E4
0.77
9L
O¼
V5
=0.
876
* V4
þ0.
482
E5
0.76
7D
escr
ipti
ve
Var
iab
leJO
BS
AT
TC
OM
MIT
EI
EII
LO
V1
V2
V3
V4
V5
Mea
n64
.812
171
.573
837
.218
166
.973
215
1.89
60S
tan
dar
dd
ev.
17.8
553
13.1
001
8.95
7218
.391
548
.608
6R
esid
ual
cov
aria
nce
mat
rix
(S-S
igm
a):
OB
SA
TT
CO
MM
ITE
IE
IIL
OV
1V
2V
3V
4V
5JO
BS
AT
V1
0.00
0T
CO
MM
ITV
277
.678
0.00
0E
IV
318
.003
0.00
00.
000
EII
V4
0.00
024
.558
0.00
00.
000
V6
V5
7.48
561
.275
1.64
80.
000
0.00
0S
tan
dar
diz
edre
sid
ual
mat
rix
:JO
BS
AT
TC
OM
MIT
EI
EII
V6
V1
V2
V3
V4
V5
JOB
SA
TV
10.
000
TC
OM
MIT
V2
0.33
20.
000
EI
V3
0.11
30.
000
0.00
0E
IIV
40.
000
0.10
20.
000
0.00
0V
6V
50.
009
0.09
60.
004
0.00
00.
000
Fit
ind
ices
:B
entl
er-B
onet
tN
orm
edfi
tin
dex
¼0.
910
Ben
tler
-Bon
ett
Non
-nor
med
fit
ind
ex¼
0.77
3
(con
tinued
)
Table I.
A managementdevelopment
model
361
Max
imu
mli
kel
ihoo
dso
luti
on(n
orm
ald
istr
ibu
tion
theo
ry)
Ad
just
edS
tan
dar
diz
edso
luti
on:
R-s
qu
ared
Com
par
ativ
efi
tin
dex
(CF
I)¼
0.91
0L
ISR
EL
GF
Ifi
tin
dex
¼0.
910
LIS
RE
LA
GF
Ifi
tin
dex
¼0.
600
Rel
iab
ilit
yco
effi
cien
ts:
Cro
nb
ach
’sal
ph
a¼
0.83
4C
oeffi
cien
tal
ph
afo
ran
opti
mal
shor
tsc
ale¼
0.94
2B
ased
onth
efo
llow
ing
2v
aria
ble
sJO
BS
AT
V6:
Gre
ates
tlo
wer
bou
nd
reli
abil
ity¼
0.93
9G
LB
reli
abil
ity
for
anop
tim
alsh
ort
scal
e¼
0.96
8B
ased
on4
var
iab
les,
all
exce
pt:
EII
Ben
tler
’sd
imen
sion
-fre
elo
wer
bou
nd
reli
abil
ity¼
0.93
0S
hap
iro’
slo
wer
bou
nd
reli
abil
ity
for
aw
eig
hte
dco
mp
osit
e¼
0.95
1W
eig
hts
that
ach
iev
eS
hap
iro’
slo
wer
bou
nd
:JO
BS
AT
TC
OM
MIT
EI
EII
V6
0.46
50.
378
0.24
00.
421
0.63
8M
easu
rem
ent
equ
atio
ns
wit
hst
and
ard
erro
rsan
dte
stst
atis
tics
Sta
tist
ics
sig
nifi
can
tat
the
5p
erce
nt
lev
elar
em
ark
edw
ith
@JO
BS
AT¼
V1
=0.
779
* V4þ
1.00
0E
10.
034
23.1
86@
EI¼
V3
=0.
580
* V2þ
1.00
0E
30.
021
27.5
64@
EII¼
V4
=1.
812
* V3þ
1.00
0E
40.
056
32.3
20@
Lea
rn¼
V5
=2.
315
* V4þ
1.00
0E
50.
074
31.2
85@
(con
tinued
)
Table I.
JMD26,4
362
Max
imu
mli
kel
ihoo
dso
luti
on(n
orm
ald
istr
ibu
tion
theo
ry)
Ad
just
edS
tan
dar
diz
edso
luti
on:
R-s
qu
ared
Max
imu
mli
kel
ihoo
dso
luti
on(n
orm
ald
istr
ibu
tion
theo
ry)
Var
ian
ces
ofin
dep
end
ent
var
iab
les
Sta
tist
ics
sig
nifi
can
tat
the
5p
erce
nt
lev
elar
em
ark
edw
ith
@V
2-T
CO
MM
IT17
1.61
2* I
14.0
83I
12.1
86@
IM
axim
um
lik
elih
ood
solu
tion
(nor
mal
dis
trib
uti
onth
eory
)V
aria
nce
sof
ind
epen
den
tv
aria
ble
sS
tati
stic
ssi
gn
ifica
nt
atth
e5
per
cen
tle
vel
are
mar
ked
wit
h@
E1
-JO
BS
AT
113.
454
* IE
3–
EI
22.5
49I
9.31
0I
1.85
I12
.186
@I
12.1
86@
IE
4-
EII
74.8
82* I
E5
–L
earn
550.
064
I55
0.06
4I
6.14
5I
45.1
39I
12.1
86@
I12
.186
I
Notes:
Goo
dn
ess-
of-fi
tsu
mm
ary
for
met
hod
¼M
L;C
hi-
squ
are
=36
1.03
9b
ased
on6
deg
rees
offr
eed
om;P
rob
abil
ity
val
ue
for
the
chi-
squ
are
stat
isti
cis
0.00
000
Table I.
A managementdevelopment
model
363
ResultsUtilizing EQS software, the determinant of input matrix is 0.5363 indicting nomulticolinearity or perfect linear dependency with the data. This indicates the dataanalysis is accurate and no redundant data was evident that artificially inflates theprediction of the model. The amount of adjusted explained R 2 variation is listed inTable I for each variable. The amount of explained variation between E-I andorganizational commitment is 72 percent. The amount of explained variation betweenE-I and E-II is 78 percent. The amount of explained variation between job satisfactionand E-II is 64 percent. The amount of explained variation between E-II and learningorganization is 77 percent.
Table I illustrates the statistical results for the model. Chi-square value is 361.04 andsignificant at the P ¼ 0.00. The results indicate a goodness-of-fit for this researchmodel. The residual covariance matrix contains the computed variable variance andcovariance residuals. No large standardized residuals were observed. Therefore,indicating no serious deficiencies in the model when reviewing these variances. Thisstudy depicts a good fit of the model to the data; specifically; those variable in the pathanalysis model.
The limitations of the Chi-square value indicate the importance that alternative fitindices aid in the process of model evaluation. The descriptive-fit indices provide analternative of indices that assess the goodness-of-fit in the proposed model. These indicesare similar to the R 2 in explaining the amount variation for a goodness-of-fit. The indicesdemonstrate as much as 91 percent and as low as 60 percent of the amount of variationexplained for the goodness-to-fit for the model. Models with scores in the mid-1990s orhigher are viewed likely to represent a reasonably good approximation of the data(Raykov and Marcolulides, 2000). The results are mixed comparing the indices. Figure 2lists the descriptive-fit-indices. Bentler-Bonett ðNFI ¼ 0:91Þ; Bentler-Bonett Non-normedfit index ðNNFI ¼ 0:77Þ; Comparative fit index ðCFI ¼ 0:91Þ; and Lisrel fit indexðGFI ¼ 0:91Þ; and Lisrel adjusted fit index ðAGFI ¼ 0:60Þ and the root mean-squareerror of approximation ðRMSEA ¼ 0:15Þ:
All path coefficients are significant at the 0.05 alpha level. The results are listed inTable I. The overall results with the goodness-of-fit utilizing the chi-square and the fitindices are encouraging. The model denotes the importance of organizationalcommitment and its impact on the motivation level among executives for high jobsatisfaction in businesses promoting organizational learning.
H1. Executives with high levels of organizational commitment will be associatedwith high levels of E-I motivation (effort-to-performance). Results: There wasa significant and positive relationship between organization commitment andE-I motivation level ðR 2 ¼ 72 percent).
H2. Executives with high levels of effort-to-performance (E-I) attributes will beassociated with high levels of performance-to-outcomes (E-II). Results: Therewas a significant and positive relationship between E-I and E-II motivationallevels ðR 2 ¼ 78 percent) among executives.
H3. Executives demonstrating high motivational levels with performance-to-outcomes expectancies (E-II) in the workplace relates to high levels of jobsatisfaction. Results: There was a significant and positive relationship betweenE-II (motivation) and job satisfaction ðR 2 ¼ 64 percent) among executives.
JMD26,4
364
H4. The higher levels of motivation (E-II) among executives in performing theirwork will result in higher levels of organizational learning (Senge, 1990).Results: There was a significant and positive relationship between E-II(expectancy) and organizational learning (learning organization) amongexecutives ðR 2 ¼ 77 percent).
Research limitationsThis study relied on self-report and survey data. The research examines across-sectional survey, this is difficult in determining a definitive causal claims basedon the findings. The model presumes a specific time ordering among the exogenousvariable (commitment), and the endogenous variables (motivational levels, jobsatisfaction, and organizational learning). Consequently, all variables were measuredat a single point in time. This research relies primarily on perceptual data measuredwith a series of questionnaire items. Future studies are necessary to validate the model.Although a large amount of variation is explained among the exogenous andendogenous variables, other variables introduced in future studies will increase theamount of explained variation. Future efforts directed at more precise models to clarifypotential errors; specifically, the descriptive-fit-indices. To increase the goodness-of-fit,the R 2 among the indices should account for mid-1990s or higher to support thechi-square calculations. The root mean-square error of approximation was calculatedat 0.15 and should be at the 0.05 level or lower to support the model. Although theseareas provided research limitation, future researchers may investigate theselimitations to strengthen the model presented in this paper.
Managerial practical implications and applicationsThis integrated model consisting of organizational commitment, motivation, jobsatisfaction, and a learning organization illustrates important implications forpractitioners. If these constructs were improved from an environmental change ratherthan organizational, the imperative question did the development program orenvironmental changes have a positive impact upon the subordinate’s behavior? Theimplications are a careful analysis in measuring the change in executive’s behavior. Isthe change a continuous state or an intermittent event? Management developmentspecialist must recognize this dilemma. Executive development programs mustreinforce a continuous process that is practical and meaningful change of behavior ingaining organizational commitment and its association with job satisfaction in alearning organization. There are practical applications for management developmentspecialist to consider when strengthening organizational commitment within abusiness.
Organizational commitment defines how strong the individual’s beliefs are towardsthe organization and its goals. Improving and enhancing a positive work attitude isimperative. Managers can increase the components of employee commitment throughthe following format. First, a business employs executives whose personal values areconsistent with organization’s values. A positive, satisfying work environmentincreases employee’s desire to stay in the company. Second, the organization’s actionenhances the level of trust through the organization. Positive outcomes amongemployees rein enforced by their manager gain support for organizationalcommitment. Another practical application reflects on a number of antecedents in
A managementdevelopment
model
365
supporting organizational commitment; by supporting and improving work experienceand value congruence or person-culture fit. Once an employee is committed, thespecialists can proceed by strengthening the executive’s motivational levels.
Expectancy theory has managerial implications among employees. Managersenhance their efforts for performance expectancies by supporting employees inaccomplishing their performance goals. Managers coaching strategies improvesemployees’ self-efficacy. Manager’s influence employees’ instrumentalities and monitorvalences for various rewards. Money is a positive reward, but there are many issues toconsider when deciding on the relative balance between monetary and non-monetaryrewards. Therefore, managers should focus on linking employee performance tovalued rewards regardless the type of reward. Conceptually, employees who aremotivated reach organizational goals and are satisfied with rewards. These employeeswill display job satisfaction, a goal valued universally.
A learning organization infuses a company with new ideas and information. This isaccomplished by constantly scanning their external environments, hiring new talent,and developing significant resources to train their employees. This new knowledgetransfers through the organization striving for reduced structural, process, andinterpersonal barriers in sharing information, ideas, and knowledge amongorganizational members. Finally, behavior must change as a result of newknowledge. Learning organizations focuses on results that foster an environment inwhich employees are encouraged to apply new behaviors to achieve corporate goals.
Job satisfaction is not a unitary or global construct, rather; it is multidimensional.Top management must identify the key elements among employees, which impact theemployee’s level of job satisfaction within an organizational setting. A recentmeta-analysis of nine studies and 1,739 workers revealed a significant positiverelationship between motivation and job satisfaction (Kinicki et al., 2002). Managerscan potentially enhance employees’ motivation through various attempts to increasejob satisfaction.
ConclusionThe findings in this research paper established strong support for commitment as anantecedent in motivating employees that directly impacts job satisfaction.Management specialists must examine the power of commitment when personal andprofessional relationships become a priority goal. This generates trust amongemployees and empowering subordinates in accomplishing corporate goals. Once theemployees gain trust, and build a culture of commitment, they are motivated to remainwith the organization, because commitment is a strong force in enhancing motivationand job satisfaction. The management development model in this research paperindicates a direct relationship between commitment, expectancy motivation, and jobsatisfaction.. An organization supporting developmental programs that promotes andvalues commitment reaps substantial benefits. Commitment enables employees tocollaborate and solve business problems as successful teams, because they valuecommitment. These findings reveal tangible relationships between commitment,motivation, and job satisfaction that are integral components for success within alearning organization.
JMD26,4
366
References
Bates, R. and Khasawneh, J. (2005), “Organizational learning culture, learning transfer climateand perceived innovation in Jordanian organizations”, International Journal of Trainingand Development, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 96-109.
Becker, T., Billings, R.S., Eveleth, D.M. and Gilbert, N.L. (1996), “Foci and bases of employeecommitment: implications for job performance”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 39No. 2, pp. 464-73.
Bentler, P. (2005), EQS 6 Structural Equation Program Manual, Multivariate SoftwarePublishing, Encino, CA.
Campbell, T. and Cairns, H. (1994), “Developing and measuring the learning organization:moving from buzz words to behaviours”, paper presented at the 1994 ECLO conference,La Hulpek.
Cohen-Charash, Y. and Spector, P.E. (2003), “The role of justice in organizations: a meta-analysis”,Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processe, Vol. 86, pp. 278-321.
Eerde, W.V. and Thierry, H. (1996), “Vroom’s expectancy models and work-related criteria:a meta-analysis”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 81 No. 5, pp. 575-86.
Egan, T., Yang, B. and Barlett, R.K. (2004), “The effects of organizational learning culture and jobsatisfaction on motivation to transfer learning and turnover intentions”, Human ResourceDevelopment Quarterly, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 279-301.
Ellinger, A., Yang, B. and Howton, S. (2002), “The relationship between the learning organizationconcept and firms’ financial performance: an empirical assessment”, Human ResourceDevelopment Quarterly, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 5-21.
Feather, N. (1995), “Values, valences, and choice: the influence of values on the perceivedattractiveness and choice of alternatives”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,Vol. 28 No. 7, pp. 639-56.
Gellatly, I. (1995), “Individual and group determinants of employee absenteeism: test of a causalmodel”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 16 No. 5, pp. 469-85.
Gillet, B. and Schwab, D.F. (1975), “Convergent and discriminate validites of corresponding jobdescription index and Minnesota satisfaction questionnaire scales”, Journal of AppliedPsychology, Vol. 60 No. 3, pp. 313-7.
Isaa, R., Zerbe, W. and Pitt, D. (2001), “Leadership and motivation: the effective application ofexpectancy theory”, Journal of Managerial Issues, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 212-27.
Jaros, S. (1995), “An assessment of Meyer and Allen’s (1991) three-component model oforganizational commitment and turnover intentions”, Academy of ManagementProceedings, pp. 317-32.
Jaros, S., Jermier, J., Koehler, J. and Sincich, T. (1993), “Effects of continuance, affective, and moralcommitment on the withdrawal process: an evaluation”, Academy of Management Journal,Vol. 36 No. 5, pp. 951-96.
Kinicki, A., McKee-Ryan, F., Schriesheim, C. and Carson, K. (2002), “Assessing the constructvalidity of the job descriptive index: a review and meta-analysis”, Journal of AppliedPsychology, Vol. 87 No. 1, pp. 14-32.
Laschinger, H. (2001), “The impact of workplace commitment, organizational trust on staffnurses’ work satisfaction and organizational commitment”, Health Care ManagementReview, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 7-24.
Lok, P. and Crawford, J. (2003), “The effect of organisational culture and leadership style on jobsatisfaction and organisational commitment: a cross-national comparison”, Journal ofManagement Development., Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 321-38.
A managementdevelopment
model
367
Mathieu, J. and Zajac, D. (1990), “A review and meta-analysis of antecedents, correlates, andconsequences of organizational commitment”, Psychological Bulletins, Vol. 108 No. 7,pp. 171-94.
Mento, A., Locke, E. and Klein, H. (1992), “relationship of goal level to valence andinstrumentality”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 77 No. 4, pp. 395-405.
Mowday, R.T., Porter, L. and Steers, R. (1982), Employee-Organizational Linkages, AcademicPress, New York, NY.
Mowday, R., Steers, R. and Porter, L. (1979), “The measurement of organizational commitment”,Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 224-47.
Mitchell, T. and Michel, A. (1999), “The meaning of money: an individual difference perspective”,Academy of Management, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 568-78.
Meyer, J. and Allen, N. (1991), “A three-component conceptualization of organizationalcommitment”, Human Resource Management Review, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 61-90.
Meyer, J., Bobocel, D. and Allen, N. (1991), “Development of organizational commitment duringthe first year of employment: a longitudinal study of pre- and post-entry influences”,Journal of Management, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 716-36.
Meyer, J. and Allen, N. (1990), “The measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance andnormative commitment to the organization”, Journal of Occupational Psychology, Vol. 63No. 1, pp. 1-18.
Meyer, J.P. and Allen, N.J. (1984), “Testing the ‘side-bet theory’ of organizational commitment:some methodological considerations”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 69 No. 3,pp. 372-8.
Meyer, J., Becker, T. and Vandenberghe, C. (2004), “Employee commitment and motivation: aconceptual analysis and integrative model”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 89 No. 6,pp. 991-1007.
Nadler, D. and Lawler, E. (1977), Perspective on Behavior in Organizations, McGraw-Hill,New York, NY.
O’Reilly, C. and Chatman, J. (1986), “Organizational commitment and psychological attachment:the effects of compliance, identification, and internalization on pro-social behavior”,Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 71 No. 3, pp. 492-9.
Parry, K. and Proctor-Thompson, S. (2003), “Leadership, culture and performance: the case of theNew Zealand public sector”, Journal of Change Management, Vol. 3 No. 4, pp. 376-99.
Pinder, C. (1984), Work Motivation: Theory, Issues, and Applications, Scott, Foresman andCompany, Glenview, IL.
Porter, L. and Lawler, E. (1968), Managerial Attitudes and Performance, Dorsey Press,Homewood, IL.
Power, J. and Waddell, D. (2004), “The link between self-managed work teams and learningorganizations using performance indicators”, The Learning Organization, Vol. 11 No. 3,pp. 244-59.
Raykov, T. and Marcolulides, J. (2000), A First Course in Structural Equation Modeling,Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ.
Reichers, A. (1985), “A review and reconceptualization of organizational commitment”, Academyof Management Review, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 465-76.
Riketta, M. (2002), “Attitudinal organizational commitment and job performance: a meta-analysis”,Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 257-66.
JMD26,4
368
Schriesheim, C. (1978), “Development, validation, and application of new leadership behavior andexpectancy research instruments”, Dissertation Abstracts International, Vol. 42, p. 251.
Senge, P. (1990), The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization,Currency/Doubleday, New York, NY.
Spector, P., Brannick, P. and Chen, P. (1997), “When two factors don’t reflect two constructs: howitem characteristics can produce artifactual factors”, Journal of Management, Vol. 23 No. 5,pp. 659-68.
Vroom, V.H. (1964), Work and Motivation, Wiley, New York, NY.
Wanous, J., Keon, V. and Lattack, J.C. (1983), “Expectancy theory and occupational/organizationalchoices: a review and test”, Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, Vol. 32No. 1, pp. 66-86.
Weiss, D., Dawis, R., England, G. and Lifquist, L. (1967), Manual for the Minnesota SatisfactionQuestionnaire – Minnesota Studies in Vocational Rehabilitation: XXII, Industrial RelationsCenter Work Adjustment Project, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN.
Watkins, K. and Marsick, V. (1993), Sculpting the Learning Organization: Lessons in the Art andScience of Systemic Change, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Watkins, K. and Marsick, V. (1996a), “Adult educators and the challenge of the learningorganization”, Adult Learning, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 18-20.
Watkins, K. and Marsick, V. (Eds.) (1996b), In Action: Creating the Learning Organization,American Society for Training and Development, Alexandria, VA.
Watkins, K. and Marsick, V. (1999), Dimensions of the Learning Organization Questionnaire,Partners for the Learning Organization, Warwick, RI.
Watkins, K., Yang, B. and Marsick, V. (1997) in Torraco, R. (Ed.), “Measuring dimensions of thelearning organization”, Proceedings of the Academy of Human Resource DevelopmentConference, Academy of Human Resource Development, Academy of Human ResourceDevelopment, Atlanta, GA.
Yang, B., Watkins, K. and Marsick, V. (2004), “The construct of learning organization:dimensions, measurement and validation”, Human Resource Development Quarterly,Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 31-55.
Further reading
Yang, B., Watkins, K. and Marsick, V. (1998) in Torraco, R. (Ed.), “Examining construct validityof the dimensions of the learning organization questionnaire”, Proceedings of the Academyof Human Resource Development Conference, Academy of Human Resource Development,Oak Brook, IL, pp. 83-90.
Corresponding authorSteve Pool can be contacted at: [email protected]
A managementdevelopment
model
369
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected] visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints