work commitment in relation to withdrawal intentions and union effectiveness

J BUSN RES 1993:26:75-90

75

Work Commitment in Relation to Withdrawal Intentions and Union Effectiveness

Aaron Cohen The University of Lethbridge

This article assesses how forms of work commitments (job, occupational, union, and organization commitment) are related to withdrawal intentions and union effectiveness. Using a matrix measurement approach for work commitment (WC), 129 white-collar employees from three private industrial firms in Israel were sur- veyed. The findings indicate that almost all of the outcome variables are affected by WC forms. When job satisfaction was included in the equations, it contributed to the explained variance mainly in the case of withdrawal intentions. The results are discussed in terms of their implications for future investigation into WC, and on the need for a new conceptual framework of the relationships among WC, job satisfaction, and work outcomes.

Introduction

The subject of work commitment (WC) is of increasing concern among researchers and practitioners. Although organizational commitment is attracting the most attention (Griffin and Bateman, 1986), recently there has been a strong tendency to focus on the broader concept of WC that includes specific objects of commitment such as organization, occupation, union, and one’s job (Morrow, 1983; Gordon and Ladd, 1990). Thus, recent literature (Reichers, 1985; 1986) suggests that a better way to understand the concept of organizational commitment is to study individuals’ commitment to other factors in the organizational environment such as union, management and the work group-given that such groups will be the foci of the multiple commitments experienced.

WC forms have been shown to predict important work outcomes such as withdrawal, performance, absenteeism, and tardiness (e.g., Wiener and Vardi, 1980; Blau, 1986), and in some cases, commitment forms have been reported to be better predictors of work outcomes than other attitudes, such as job satisfaction (Mowday

Address correspondence to Aaron Cohen, Department of Political Science, University of Haifa, Mount Carmel, Haifa, 31999, Israel.

The author thanks Catherine Kirchmeyer and two anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments and suggestions. The author also thanks Sham4 Alam for his statistical advice and Suzanne Kiely for her editorial assistance.

Journal of Business Research 26,75-90 (1993) 0 1993 Else&r Science Publishing Co., Inc.

014&2963/93/$5.00

655 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10010

76 J BUSN RES 1993:26:75-90

et al., 1982). Nonetheless, very little research has empirically examined the joint effect of WC forms upon work outcomes (Mowday et al., 1982). The importance of such research was emphasized by Randall and Cote (1991) who argued that “a multivariate approach to WC research will advance understanding of how various pieces of the commitment puzzle fit together and how constellations of WC constructs influence outcome variables” (p. 209). The purpose of this study is to examine the effect of WC forms on work outcomes such as withdrawal intentions and indicators of union effectiveness (activity, militancy and success) by employing a comprehensive definition and measurement of WC that includes job, occupational, union and organization commitment.

Work Commitment and Work Outcomes

The view that WC may be an effective predictor of work outcomes has its roots in the literature. Steers and Rhodes (1978) argued that work outcomes, such as absenteeism, can be understood as a result of conflict among commitments. When employees are committed to factors other than the organization, inside or outside the work environment, they will experience less internal pressure to show up for work. Blau and Boa1 (1989) proposed and examined a conceptual framework uti- lizing combinations of high and low levels of job involvement and organizational commitment to predict withdrawal and absenteeism. Wiener and Vardi (1980) asserted that because individuals in a work setting simultaneously experience vary- ing degrees of commitment toward several aspects of working life (e.g., the employing organization, the job or task, personal career) work outcomes may be better understood as a function of all such commitment types rather than to one or another separately. They argued that as different objects of WC represent distinct attitudes, different effects on behavioral outcomes can be expected. Given that the object of organizational commitment is the employing organization, the most likely behavior to be affected by this commitment would be organizationally-oriented behavior. Similarly, the most likely behavior to be affected by job commitment would be task-oriented behavior; by occupational commitment, occupationlcareer- oriented behavior.

Most of the literature regarding WC has traditionally included some or all of the three forms of commitment: organization, job and occupation. One contribution of this study would be the inclusion of an additional form of WC, union commitment (Morrow, 1983), that has received considerable attention in the literature. Gordon et al. (1980) argued that the ability of unions to attain their goals is generally based on the loyalty of members and that commitment is part of the very fabric of the union. In several works, union commitment was found to be significantly related to indicators of union effectiveness, such as propensity to strike (Martin, 1986), perceived union effectiveness (Liebowitz, 1983)) participation in union activities (Fullagar and Barling, 1989), and union militancy (Black, 1983).

Hypotheses

Work Commitment and Withdrawal Intentions

Organizational commitment is considered to be the best single indicator of turnover (Mowday et al., 1982). In addition, previous research has demonstrated the effects

Commitment, Withdrawal and Union Effectiveness J BUSN RES 1993:26:75-90

77

of other WC forms such as job involvement (Blau and Boal, 1989), and career commitment (Wiener and Vardi, 1980) upon turnover. However, it is possible for employees to want to continue membership in their present organization, but in a different job. Following Wiener and Vardi (1980), job commitment should affect job withdrawal intentions more than the other WCs. Employees may also consider leaving their present occupation to begin a second (new) career in a different occupation. What probably affects this type of consideration is the attachment the employees have developed to their occupation during their career. Thus,

Hl: Each WC form will affect the referent withdrawal intention more strongly than other WC forms.

Work Commitment and Union Effectiveness

There is evidence in the literature of negative effects of commitments other than union commitment upon measures of union effectiveness (Alutto and Belasco, 1974; Dalton and Todor, 1982). The effects of the other commitments may be positive or negative depending upon the positive or negative nature of the employee exchange relationships with the various commitment objects. Thus,

H2: Union commitment will have a stronger effect upon the three measures of union effectiveness than the other WCs, but other WC(s) will also affect union effectiveness.

Work Commitment and Job Satisfaction

Conceptually, commitment is considered to be a better predictor of withdrawal than job satisfaction. “Commitment as a construct is more global, reflecting a general affective response to the organization as a whole. Job satisfaction, on the other hand, reflects one’s response either to one’s job or to certain aspects of one’s job” (Mowday et al., 1982, p. 28). Thus,

H3: Job satisfaction will contribute substantially to the explanation of intentions to leave the job. Job satisfaction will not make a substantial contribution to the explanation of organizational or occupational withdrawal intentions beyond organizational or occupational commitment.

Recent literature (Martin, 1986) regarding union commitment demonstrates the importance of the concept of commitment upon measures of union effectiveness. However, there is no such support for the effect of job satisfaction upon union effectiveness. Thus,

H4: Job satisfaction will not substantially contribute to the explanation of union effectiveness beyond WC forms.

Method

Sample

The research sample consisted of white-collar employees from three unionized, privately-owned firms who agreed to participate in the study. Two of the orga-

78 J BUSN RES 1993:26:75-90 A. Cohen

nizations, employing 550 and 520 employees respectively, produced chemical products for agriculture and industry. The third, employing 400 employees, man- ufactured aviation products. Morrow and Goetz (1988) argued that not all workers are employed in a professional occupation or career. Accordingly, it was decided to survey only employees with assumed occupational affiliation such as engineers, technicians and university graduates.

A questionnaire was distributed to employees in each company who were present, were defined as the target population and agreed to take the questionnaire. Fifty-six employees completed usable questionnaires in the first chemical organization (550 employees, 77 defined as the target population), 50 in the second (127 defined as the target population) and 23 (75 defined as the target population) in the aviation product organization (46% response rate). Altogether, a total of 129 usable questionnaires were returned; a response rate of 46%. Mean age of the respondents was 39.6 years and mean tenure in the organization and occupation was 9.3 and 14.7 years, respectively. Of the respondents, 79% were male; 12% of the employees had only high school education; 43.2% had some college education and 44.8% had completed their university education. Of the university graduates, 19.2% possessed an M.A. or Ph.D. ANOVA analysis revealed no significant differences among the three organizations in the respondents’ ages but significant differences in years in the organization, years in the profession, gender, and education. Therefore, it was decided to use an indicator variable for the firms in the regression equations so that heterogeneity among the tested groups would be controlled.

Definition and Measurement of Work Commitment

Randall and Cote (1991) argued that there is a need for methodological advances in WC research because of abundance of some WC constructs and measures. This article utilizes a comprehensive definition and measurement of WCs in an attempt to overcome some methodological limitations in existing WC measures. One lim- itation is the overlap between the measures and the outcomes they are suppose to predict. This problem is demonstrated in the common measure of organizational commitment, the Organizational Commitment Questionnaire (OCQ), when two of the dimensions of the OCQ overlap with intentions of behaviors such as withdrawal and performance (Reichers 1985; O’Reilly and Chatman, 1986). A different problem is the overlapping in some WC items (Morrow, 1983) that are not clear regarding the commitment foci they are measuring (e.g., “My loyalty is to my work, not to the union”).

The measures are based on the approach suggested by O’Reilly and Chatman (1986) in which organizational commitment is defined as a psychological attachment to the organization. Accordingly, WCs were defined as an affective attachment toward one or more of the objects of commitments (organization, occupation, job, union). This affective attachment can take one or more of the following three dimensions:

(a) Identification. Adoption as one’s own goal the goals and values of the commitment objects.


79

(b) AfJiZiation. Feelings of belonging to the commitment objects, being “part of it.”

(c) Moral involvemenr. Internalization of the roles of the commitment objects demonstrated in feelings of care and concern for these commitment objects.

The first and the third of these dimensions of WC are similar to the identification and internalization dimensions developed by O’Reilly and Chatman (1986). How- ever, their compliance dimension overlaps with calculative commitment as proposed by the side-bet theory (Becker, 1960) and its advocates (e.g., Meyer and Allen, 1984). Although calculative commitment is considered to represent psychological attachment, it tends to measure intentions to withdraw instead (e.g., Reichers, 1985). Therefore, the affiliation dimension, which seemed more consistent with the definition of WC as a psychological attachment, was proposed.

Scale Construction

To increase face and content validity of the WC measures, a number of preliminary steps were taken before the final study. The initial stage of instrument construction consisted of collecting items from common commitment scales and/or composing items that reflected the dimensions of all WCs. All together, 40 items were developed. Each item was put in a general form, thereby allowing its use for all forms of WCs. A pre-test of these items using 110 white-collar employees was done to assess construct validity. Based on the analysis of these data, 31 ambiguous items were deleted yielding a 9-item instrument-3 for each of the definitions suggested for WC (identification, affiliation, and moral involvement).

The final list of items was organized in matrix form for the final survey instrument. The vertical portion of the matrix included the nine items that were phrased in general form, while the horizontal axis listed the types of WC measured in this study (occupation, organization, job, and union). The respondents answered the same question for each type of commitment using a 7-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). The WC scales in their matrix form are presented in the appendix.

Outcomes Measures and Job Satisfaction

Intention to leave the organization was measured by three items following Mobley et al.‘s (1979) definition. The respondents were asked to indicate their agreement with the following 3 items on a 5-point scale: (1) I think a lot about leaving the organization; (2) I am actively searching for an alternative to the organization; (3) When I can, I will leave the organization. Intentions to leave the job and the occupation were measured using the same items by replacing the term “organization” with either “job” or “occupation.”

Union activity was measured using seven items partially based on the Gordon et al. (1980) measure. Respondents were asked how active they were in seven union-related activities: voting, attendance at general membership meetings, knowledge of the union contract, serving in elected offices, reading the union’s newsletter, assisting union activities, and applying to the union for any support.

80 J BUSN RES 1993:26:75-90 A. Cohen

Three response alternatives were provided to each item, most of them using the following scale: 1 = never, 2 = sometimes, 3 = most of the time.

Attitudinal militancy was defined and measured by a scale of four items. Re- spondents were asked to predict their behavior should their union strike: (1) I would never be a “strikebreaker;” (2) I would participate in a strike even if I knew that it was an illegal strike; (3) I would not hesitate to picket for the union; (4) 1 would be ready to warn strikebreakers. The respondents were asked to indicate their degree of agreement with each statement on a scale that ranged from 1 = strongly disagree, to 5 = strongly agree. Union success was measured using a scale of four items. Respondents were asked to evaluate their union’s success in the following areas: (1) wages and social benefits; (2) job security; (3) cultural and social activities; (4) occupational status of its employees. Job satisfaction was assessed using the overall job satisfaction measure of Warr et al. (1979). The scale was designed to cover both extrinsic and intrinsic job features.

Data Analysis

Several analyses were conducted in an attempt to show the characteristics of the proposed WC measures. Except for convergent validity, the data analyses conducted give at least some information about the other components of validity: content validity, internal consistency and reliability, discriminant validity, and nom- ological/predictive validity (e.g., Morrow et al., 1991). Content validity was demonstrated by the stages of development of the measure described earlier. This study analyzed internal consistency by reliability estimates. Discriminant validity was assessed via factor analysis of all the WC items and the correlations among the WC forms. NomologicaYpredictive validity was examined by the predictions outlined in the hypotheses. The hypotheses, the conceptual portion of this article, were examined by regressing the four WC forms on the three withdrawal intentions variables and on the three union effectiveness indicators: activity, militancy and success. Each of the six regressions in this study was conducted in three steps. In the first step, the organizations participated in this study were entered as dummy variables. In the second step, all WC forms were entered into the equation. In the third step, the variable job satisfaction was added for each equation in order to test its contribution beyond WC forms as outlined in the hypotheses.

Results

Table 1 gives the scale means, standard deviations and Cronbach’s alpha (in brack- ets) for the research measures and the intercorrelations among them. The results demonstrate acceptable reliabilities of the research variables in general and the WC measures in particular. The reliabilities for the WC scales ranged from .86 to .92. Item analyses (correlations between each item of a WC scale and the total score less the item) indicate that each item had a positive correlation with the total score for each of the WC scales, with the range of average correlation from .60 to .81 for union commitment, .40 to .73 for organizational commitment, .27 to .65 for occupational commitment, and .46 to .73 for the job commitment scale. These results suggest that the WC scales are relatively homogeneous with respect to the underlying attitude constructs they measure.

Tab

le

1.

Des

crip

tive

Stat

istic

s,

Rel

iabi

litie

s,

and

Inte

rcor

rela

tions

A

mon

g St

udy

Var

iabl

es

Scor

e V

aria

ble

M

SD

Ran

ge

1 2

3 4

5 6

7 8

9 10

11

Org

aniz

atio

nal

com

mitm

ent

41.1

10

.0

9-63

(.

86)

Occ

upat

iona

l co

mm

itmen

t 47

.0

9.2

9-63

.3

7”’

Job

com

mitm

ent

46.7

9.

0 9-

63

.62”

’ U

nion

com

mitm

ent

36.8

11

.9

9-63

.2

9”’

Org

aniz

atio

n w

ithdr

awal

int

entio

n 7.

3 3.

8 3-

15

- .5

2”’

Job

with

draw

al i

nten

tion

7.2

3.4

3-15

-

.21”

’ O

ccup

atio

n w

ithdr

awal

int

entio

n 5.

3 3.

0 3-

15

- .2

7”’

Uni

on a

ctiv

ity

10.6

2.

4 7-

21

.21”

’ U

nion

Mili

tanc

y 11

.71

3.75

4-

20

.06

Uni

on s

ucce

ss

9.87

2.

81

4-20

.I

1 Jo

b sa

tisfa

ctio

n 48

.9

7.8

15-7

5 .5

1”’

(.87

) .6

5*-’

.3

8’“’

-

.05

- .0

5 -

.33”

’ .3

0”’

.03

- .0

5 .1

3

(.87

) .2

2”

- .3

1”’

- .3

1”’

_ &

$”

.32”

’ .O

l .0

4 .3

8***

(.92

) -

.16”

* (.

91)

- .0

3 .5

7”’

(.86

) -

.07

.33”

’ .5

4”’

(.89

) .4

3”’

- .lO

-

.07

- .2

4**

(.67

) .3

6***

.0

4 -

.02

-.02

.3

6”’

(.71

) .3

0***

-

.09

- .0

3 -

.04

.28”

’ .1

5’

(.73

) .0

9 -

.47”

’ -

.46*

*’

- .2

3”

.13

- .0

9 .2

2”

(.83

)

a N

=

106129

* p<

.o5.

**

fC

.01.

**

* f <

ml.

82 J BUSN RES 1993:26:75-90

A. Cohen

Discriminant Validity Among Work Commitment Measures

Some of the work commitment forms were highly correlated with each other, such as the relationship between organizational commitment and job commitment (r = .62), or occupational commitment and job commitment (r = .65). These two high correlations suggest that job commitment is redundant with other WC forms. All the other intercorrelations of WC measures were below I = .40. Factor analysis provides another way to evaluate discriminant validity. If the four measures are reasonably independent, the factor structure should reflect such a pattern (Morrow and McElroy, 1986). The 36 items used to measure WC forms were factor-analyzed using the minres (principal axes with iterations) solutions with varimax rotation. The factor analysis yielded 8 factors that accounted for 65% of the total variance. The results suggest that, in this sample, union commitment (Factor 1) and organizational commitment (Factor 2) are independent forms of WC. Union commitment is completely independent, and organizational commitment only has a few common loadings on job commitment items. However, occupational commitment (Factor 4) and job commitment (Factor 5) are marked by some redundancy as evidenced by common loadings especially on factor 3. The results are available

from the author upon request.

Work Commitment and Withdrawal Intentions

As Table 2 (Model 2) indicates, organizational commitment was the strongest predictor of intentions to withdraw from the organization. Interestingly, occupational commitment had a positive effect upon organizational withdrawal intention. Neither job commitment nor union commitment affected this withdrawal intention significantly. Results for job withdrawal intention (model 2) demonstrate that job commitment was the strongest predictor of job withdrawal intentions while, similar to organization withdrawal, occupational commitment also positively affected withdrawal intentions. These results support Hypothesis 1. The findings regarding occupational withdrawal intentions did not support Hypothesis 1. Job commitment was the only variable that affected occupational withdrawal intentions while occupational commitment was hypothesized to be the best predictor of this outcome, along with other WC forms.

Work Commitment and Union Effectiveness

In general, results in Table 3 support Hypothesis 2. Union commitment was the strongest predictor of union effectiveness as suggested in the hypothesis. Other commitments also affected measures of union effectiveness. Job commitment positively affected union activity, and occupational commitment negatively affected union success. However, in the case of union militancy, union commitment was the only variable of any effect.

Job Satisfaction and Work Commitment

Hypothesis 3 received only partial support. As expected, the contribution of job satisfaction to the explanation of intended job withdrawal was large and significant

Tab

le

2.

Reg

ress

ion

Res

ults

(S

tand

ardi

zed

Coe

ffic

ient

s)

of W

ork

Com

mitm

ent

and

Wor

k C

omm

itmen

t w

ith

Job

Satis

fact

ion

on W

ithdr

awal

In

tent

ions

(t

tes

t in

Par

enth

eses

)

Var

iabl

es

Org

aniz

atio

n W

ithdr

awal

Jo

b W

ithdr

awal

O

ccup

atio

n W

ithdr

awal

Inte

ntio

n In

tent

ion

Inte

ntio

n

Mod

el

1 M

odel

2

Mod

el

3 M

odel

1

Mod

el

2 M

odel

3

Mod

el

1 M

odel

2

Mod

el

3

Org

aniz

atio

n lb

Org

aniz

atio

n 2’

Org

aniz

atio

nal

com

mitm

ent

Occ

upat

iona

l

com

mitm

ent

Job

com

mitm

ent

Uni

on c

omm

itmen

t

Job

satis

fact

ion

R2

(Adj

uste

d)

AR

2

Stan

dard

er

ror

Ove

rall

F

.07

.09

(.77

) (.

99)

- .3

9 -

.21

( -

4.03

)“’

(-2.

15)’

- .4

0

(-

3.57

)“’

.24

(2.0

9)’

-.14

(-1.

05)

-.lO

(-1.

05)

.18(

.16)

.3

6(.3

2)

.18”

’

3.51

3.

17

11.1

0”’

9.13

”’

.08

(.97

) -

.28

(-

3.00

)”

-.23

(-1.

93)

.17

(1.5

6)

- .0

5

(-

.42)

-.ll

(-

1.28

) -

.33

(-

3.61

)“’

.43(

.39

)

.OS*

*’

2.99

10.6

4”’

.06

.07

(.59

) (.

70)

-.16

-.06

(-

1.56

) (-

.5

5)

.02

(.19

)

.26

(2.0

0)’

- .4

7

(-3.

17)”

- .0

3

(-

.26)

.04(

.02)

.1

5(.1

0)

.ll’

3.36

3.

22

2.00

2.

87’

.06

(.68

) -.1

6

(-

1.58

)

.27

(2.1

0)’

.17

(1.3

8)

- .3

5

(-2.

56)’

- .0

5

( -

.49)

- .4

7

(-4.

59)“

’

.30(

.25)

.15”

’

2.94

5.97

”’

“N

=

106-

129.

bC

ompa

riso

n G

roup

=

O

rgan

izat

ion

3.

;*

p S

.05.

.23

.23

(2.2

1)’

(2.3

9)’

- .0

3 .0

9

(-.2

9)

(.85

)

- .0

3

(-.2

4)

- .0

8

(F.6

4)

- .3

9

(2.7

7)”

.08

(.79

)

.06(

&t)

.2

4(.2

0)

.19*

**

2.91

2.

66

3.15

’ 5.

31”’

.22

(2.3

7)’

.07

(.62

)

.02

(.18

)

-.lO

(-

.80)

- .3

6

(-

2.54

)’

.07

(.75

) -.l

O

( -

.96)

.25(

.20)

.Ol

2.66

4.68

”’

84 J BUSN RES 1993:26:75-90 A. Cohen

Table 3. Regression Results (Standardized Coefficients) of Work Commitment and Work Commitment With Job Satisfaction on Three Measures of Union Effectiveness (t test in Parentheses)”

Union Activity Union Militancy Union Success

Variables Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 1 Model 2 Model 3

Organization lb

Organization 2’

Organizational

commitment

Occupational

commitment

Job commitment

Union commitment

Job satisfaction

R2 Adjusted

AR2

Standard error

Overall F

-.07 - .Ol

(- .63) (- .08)

.06 .06

(.62) (.57)

- .I0

(- .85)

- .Ol

(- .05)

.29

(2.09)’

.40

(4.10)“’

.Ol(.OO) .25(.20)

.24”’ 2.45 2.18

.62 5.52”’

- .Ol

(- .07)

.07

(.65)

- .13

(- .96)

.oo (.03) .27

(1.96)’

.40

(4.10)”

.05

(.46) .25(.20)

.OO

2.19

4.73”’

-.13 - .08 - .08

(- 1.24) (- .84) (- .88)

.OO .04 .Ol

(.Ol) (W (.06)

-.I1 - .02

(-.89) (-.17)

- .23

(- 1.83)

.15

(1.10)

.44

(4.42)“’

.02(.00) .17(.13) 16”’

3.75 3.51

.89 3.67”

- .26

(- 2.08)’

.20

(1.37)

.43

(4.37)“’

-.16

(-1.54)

.19(.14)

.02

3.48

3.52”

-.I6 - .I3 -.12

(-1.54) (-1.31) (-1.29) .06 .07 .I2

(.a) (.63) (1.14)

.oo -.13

(.02) (- .98)

- .28

(-2.18)’

.lO

(.71) .37

(3.71)“’

.03(.02) .16(.11)

.13”

2.79 2.65

1.99 3.40”

- .22

(-1.79) .04

(.27) .38

(3.90)” .25

(2.41)’

.21(.15)

.04’

2.59

3.87”’

’ N = 106-129. ” Comparison Group = nGrganization 3

p 5 .05. ** ps.01. ***p~.cm.

(Table 2, model 3). In the variable organization withdrawal intention, the contribution of job satisfaction to the explained variance was also significant, although less so than in the case of job withdrawal intention. However, when job satisfaction was entered into the equation, the effects of organizational commitment as well as occupational commitment lost their significance. Some support for Hypothesis 3 was found in the results for occupational withdrawal intentions. The effect of job satisfaction was not significant in model 3, and there are no significant changes between models 2 (without job satisfaction) and 3 (with job satisfaction) (Table 2).

Hypothesis 4 was supported by the data. The contribution of job satisfaction was not significant in explaining union activity or union militancy (Table 3). It was significant in explaining union success, but only slightly increased the variance already explained by WCs alone. However, the effects of union commitment and occupational commitment remained significant when job satisfaction was added to the equation (model 3).

Discussion

Before reviewing the findings of this study, it is important to discuss its limitations. First, the generalizability of these findings is limited because only white-collar employees, members of occupational unions, participated in this study-making extrapolation of the results to blue-collar unions somewhat tenuous. Secondly, the


8.5

most apparent problem arises in discerning the implications of correlational data. For example, it is not clear in the present instance whether union activity was responsible for engendering commitment, or whether a feeling of commitment to the union produced the willingness to be active in union affairs.

The Definition and Measurement of Work Commitment

The matrix form, in which the measures were presented to the respondents, provides an effective way of measuring multiple forms of WC. First, it obliged the respondents to evaluate and indicate their attitudes toward WC forms simultaneously, as they do in the workplace. Second, it avoids the long questionnaires required when splitting the WC items across the questionnaire. The findings have demonstrated that the proposed WC measures revealed acceptable psychometric properties of reliabilities, means and standard deviations. The measures have also overcome some of the difficulties in the commonly used WC scales (Morrow, 1983). They have the same definitions and items for all of the WC forms and avoid differing definitions that may cause difficulties when generalizing conclusions by comparing results among the WC scales; they avoid overlapping in items that relate in content to more than one facet of commitment. Also, the measures do not overlap in their items with antecedents and outcomes while demonstrating good predictive validity for the outcomes examined in this study.

However, results of the factor analysis and the high correlations between some of the measures revealed concept redundancy, especially between the occupation and job foci. The same problem of redundancy between the job and the occupation foci forms was found in previous factor analyses of WC scales (Morrow and McElroy, 1986; Morrow and Wirth, 1989) as well as when content analysis was the methodology for assessing discriminant validity (Morrow et al., 1991). Some of the redundancy in this study can be attributed to the matrix form of the measures, which could account for some priming and consistency artifacts. Therefore, some revisions in the measures should be considered in future research. In revising the measures, particularly problematic items would be items six and seven, because of their multiple loadings on the job and occupational commitment measures. The general formulation of the items also needs more attention. It seems, based on the factor analysis results, that respondents had problems in applying some items (e.g., items one and four) to the job commitment foci.

The findings of this study as well as other studies have several implications that need to be addressed in future research. If the redundancy arises from methodological problems, then research should continue in an attempt to find the appro- priate methodology/measurement for assessing WC (Randall and Cote, 1991). If the redundancy is because respondents cannot distinguish between some concepts, then a possible conclusion would be that “researchers have been so ambitious in their propagation of additional concepts and measures that the incremental benefits they have achieved are only perceptible to other researchers” (Morrow et al., 1991, p. 230). The implication would probably be to reduce the WC foci to those that respondents can discriminate. Morrow and Goetz (1988) suggested that the value, job and organizational foci may be the only truly generic forms of work commitment .

However, another possible implication is that some redundancy among the WC

86 JBUSNRES 1993:26:75-90 A. Cohen

forms should be tolerated. Conceptually it can be argued that perfect interde- pendence does not reflect reality in the workplace. It makes more practical sense to suggest that forms of WC are likely to be correlated and dependent simply because they are likely to be correlated within the minds of the employees. For example, Stagner (1956) described dual commitment to union and employer as a phenomenon arising from the tendency to perceive a work situation as a unit rather than sharply differentiating the union role from the management role. The validity of WC measures should be demonstrated not only by factor analysis, which is sample-specific and subject to common method error variance problems (Morrow et al., 1991), but also by their predictive validity as well as by the differences among antecedents, which may be more useful in increasing our understanding of WC. While the majority of the current literature examines discriminant validity among WC forms there is a need for more research on outcomes and determinants of WC foci, using established or proposed measures of the concepts.

Work Commitment and Work Outcomes

One contribution of this study is that WC has been demonstrated to predict turnover intentions better than any commitment separately. This support was based on the mutual effect of more than one commitment upon organization and job withdrawal intention. The findings suggest that future research regarding turnover should consider the possible effects of the differences among the various withdrawal behaviors. The divergent effects of WC and job satisfaction upon the different withdrawal intentions demonstrate that withdrawal behavior should be treated as a multi- dimensional construct. It could be that some of the confusion in the literature regarding the similarity of the effect of commitment and job satisfaction upon turnover (Griffin and Bateman, 1986) results from treatment of withdrawal behavior as a unidimensional concept. For example, employees who wish to remain with their organization, though not in the same job or position, may be forced to indicate high turnover intentions rather than high desire to change jobs within their present organization. Because questions regarding willingness to transfer within the organization are generally not asked in turnover studies, it may be that job frustration is portrayed as organization withdrawal intention simply because no alternative is available. This argument was strongly supported by the finding that showed job withdrawal intentions to be affected negatively by job satisfaction and job commitment, but positively by organizational commitment.

The findings of this research strongly demonstrate the usefulness of WC as a predictor of union effectiveness, thus supporting Martin’s (1986) argument in this vein. Future research should examine the usefulness of WC upon work outcomes other than those such as turnover and performance, which are of a strictly organizational focus.

Work Commitment and Job Satisfaction

The findings supported the Shore and Martin (1989) results that organizational commitment and job satisfaction relate differently to the same outcome variables: turnover intentions and performance. This study found that job satisfaction strongly affects job withdrawal intentions. It also affects organizational withdrawal inten-


87

tion. However, job satisfaction had almost no effect upon two concepts less related to one’s immediate work situation: occupational withdrawal intention and union effectiveness. These findings demonstrate the differences between WC and job satisfaction. While job satisfaction can predict work outcomes related to the immediate work environment, such as job withdrawal, WC appears to be able to predict outcomes outside the immediate work situation. Another implication of these findings is that instead of perceiving job satisfaction and WC as competing concepts, they are better perceived as complementary concepts. Each has its unique contribution in relation to work outcomes, and using both of them would increase our understanding of work outcomes. Future research needs to reexamine the relationships among commitment, job satisfaction and work outcomes based on this study’s findings.

The Theoretical Framework for Work Commitment

The findings support two conceptual frameworks for WC. One approach focuses on the potential conflict among various commitment objects (Angle and Perry, 1986; Stagner, 1954), mainly between union and organizational commitment. The positive correlations among union, occupational and organizational commitment do not support the notion of hidden conflict between these commitments. However, the positive effect of occupational commitment versus the negative effect of organizational and job commitment upon job and organization withdrawal intentions does offer some support to the notion of conflict between commitment objects in the organization to those outside the organization (occupation, union). Thus, the notion of conflict as a conceptual framework for WCs has some empirical support.

The second approach (Magenau et al., 1988) suggested that a positive exchange relationship with one object of commitment and a negative relationship with another may affect work outcomes. For example, a positive exchange relationship with the occupation and negative exchange relationship with the organization will both increase turnover intentions, as this study indicates. A positive exchange relationship with the job and the union may positively affect union activity. Future research should explore whether the concept of WC and the effects upon its consequences would be better understood using the conflict or the exchange approach.

Finally, an interesting factor for future research is the cross-national dimension. The present study used WC scales to measure various facets of the concept in Israel. However, this data requires a replication in North America. Cultural concepts may then have to be used to explain possible differences between the two sets of data (Miller et al., 1981). The contribution of this research has been basically to provide a methodological and conceptual starting point for important future research issues.

References

Alutto, J. A., and Belasco, J. A., Determinants of Attitudinal Militancy Among Nurses and Teachers. Industrial and Labor Relations Review 27 (January 1974): 216-227.

Angle, H. L., and Perry, J. L., Dual Commitment and Labor-Management Relationship Climates. Academy of Management Journal 29 (March 1986): 31-50.

88 J BUSN RES 1993:26:75-90 A. Cohen

Becker, H. S., Notes on the Concept of Commitment. American Journal of Sociology 66 (July 1960): 32-40.

Black, A. W., Some Factors Influencing Attitudes Toward Militancy, Membership, Soli- darity and Sanctions in a Teachers’ Union. Human Relations 36 (November 1983): 973- 986.

Blau, G. J. Job Involvement and Organizational Commitment as Interactive Predictors of Tardiness and Absenteeism. Journal of Management 12 (December 1986): 577-584.

Blau, G. J., and Boal, K. B., Using Job Involvement and Organizational Commitment Interactively to Predict Turnover. Journal of Management 15 (March 1989): 115-127.

Dalton, D. R., and Todor, W. D., Antecedents of Grievance-Filing Behavior: Attitude/ Behavior Constituency and the Union Steward. Academy of Management Journal 25 (March 1982): 158-169.

Fullagar, C., and Barling, J., A Longitudinal Test of the Antecedents and Consequences of Union Loyalty. Journal of Applied Psychology 74 (April 1989): 213-227.

Gordon, M. E., and Ladd, R., Dual Allegiance: Renewal, Recommendation, and Recan- tation. Personnel Psychology 43 (Spring 1990): 37-69.

Gordon, M. E., Philpot, W. J., Burt, E. R., Thompson, A. C., and Spiller, E. W., Com- mitment to the Union: Development of a Measure and an Examination of its Correlates. Journal of Applied Psychology 65 (August 1980): 479-499.

Griffin, R. W., and Bateman, T. S., Job Satisfaction and Organizational Commitment, in International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology. C. L. Cooper and I. Robertson, eds., John Wiley and Sons, New York. 1986. pp. 157-188.

Liebowitz, S. J., An Exploration of the Relationships Among Union Commitment, Union Democracy and Union Effectiveness. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN. June 1983.

Magenau, J. M., Martin, J. E., and Peterson, M. M., Dual and Unilateral Commitment Among Stewards and Rank-and-File Union Members. Academy of Management Journal 31 (June 1988): 359-376.

Martin, J. E., Predictors of Individual Propensity to Strike. Industrial and Labor Relations Review 39 (January 1986): 214-227.

Meyer, P. J., and Allen, J. N., Testing the Side-Bet Theory of Organizational Commitment: Some Methodological Considerations. Journal of Applied Psychology 69 (August 1984): 372-378.

Miller, J., Kazimiers, M. S., and Schoenberg, R. J., Assessing Comparability of Measure- ment in Cross-National Research: Authoritarian-Conservatism in Different Socio- Cultural Settings. Social Psychology Quarterly 44 (September 1981): 178-191.

Mobley, W. H., Griffeth, R. H., Hand, H. H., and Meglino, B. M., Review and Conceptual Analysis of the Employee Turnover Process. Psychological Bulletin 86 (May 1979): 493- 522.

Morrow, P. C., Concept Redundancy in Organizational Research: The Case of Work Com- mitment. Academy of Management Review 8 (July 1983): 486-500.

Morrow, P. C., Eastman K., and McElroy, J. C., Concept Redundancy and Rater Nalvety in Organizational Research. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 21 (February 1991): 219-232.

Morrow, P. C., and Goetz, J. F., Professionalism as a Form of Work Commitment. Journal of Vocational Behavior 32 (February 1988): 92-111.

Morrow, P. C., and McElroy, J. C., On Assessing Measures of Work Commitment. Journal of Vocational Behavior 28 (June 1986): 214-228.

Morrow, P. C., and Wirth R. E., Work Commitment Among Salaried Professionals. Journal of Vocational Behavior 34 (February 1989): 40-56.

Mowday, R. T., Porter, L. M., and Steers, R. M., Employee-Organizational Linkage, Academic Press, New York. 1982.

Commitment, Withdrawal and Union Effectiveness J BUSN RES 1!+93:26:75-90

89

O’Reilly, C. A., and Chatman, J., Organizational Commitment and Psychological Attach- ment: The Effects of Compliance, Identification and Internalization on Prosocial Be- havior. Journal of Applied Psychology 71 (August 1986): 492-499.

Randall, M. D., and Cote J. A., Interrelationships of Work Commitment Constructs. Work and Occupation 18 (May 1991): 194-211.

Reichers, A. E., A Review and Reconceptualization of Organizational Commitment. Acad- emy of Management Review 10 (July 1985): 465-476.

Reichers, A. E., Conflict and Organizational Commitment. Journal of Applied Psychology 71 (August 1986): 508-514.

Shore, L. M., and Martin, H. J., Job Satisfaction and Organizational Commitment in Relation to Work Performance and Turnover Intentions. Human Relations 42 (July 1989): 625-638.

Stagner, R., Dual Allegiance as a Problem of Modern Society. Personnel Psychology 7 (Spring 1954): 41-46.

Stagner, R., Psychology of Industrial Conflict, John Wiley and Sons, New York. 1956.

Steers, R. M., and Rhodes, S. R., Major Influences on Employee Attendance: A Process Model. Journal of Applied Psychology 63 (August 1978): 391-407.

Warr, P. B., Cook, J., and Wall, T. D., Scales for the Measurement of Some Work Attitudes and Aspects of Psychological Well-Being. Journal of Occupational Psychology 52 (June 1979): 129-148.

Wiener, Y., and Vardi Y., Relationships Between Job, Organization and Work Outcomes: An Integrative Approach. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 26 (August 1980): 81-96.

A. Cohen 90 J BUSN RES 1993:26:75-90

APPENDIX

Work Commitment Questionnaire

Instructions

Listed below are a series of statements that represent possible feelings that individuals might have about the following aspects of their work: organization, occupation, job, and union. With respect to your own feelings about each of the four particular factors, please indicate the degree of your agreement or disagreement with each statement regarding each of the four factors listed. Please use the following scale for indicating your response. Write the number that indicates your response in the squares to the right of each statement. You don’t have to give the same for each square, but the scores in some squares may be the same.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Strongly moderately slightly

disagree disagree disgree

neither

agree nor

disagree

slightly moderately strongly agree agree agree

my goals and the goals of:

9. I really care about everything that

happens in:

’ giving the specific title for each of the commitment factors is highly recommended. For example, the name of the union, organization, occupation, job.

* Affiliation Items 1,4,7 Identification Items 2,5,8 Moral Involvement items 3,6,9

work commitment in relation to withdrawal intentions and union effectiveness

Documents