3 Organizational Commitment ORGANIZATIONAL MECHANISMS Organizational Culture Organizational Structure GROUP MECHANISMS Leadership: Styles & Behaviors Leadership: Power & Negotiation Teams: Processes & Communication Teams: Characteristics & Diversity INDIVIDUAL MECHANISMS Job Satisfaction Stress INDIVIDUAL OUTCOMES Job Performance Motivation Trust, Justice, & Ethics Organizational Commitment Learning & Decision Making INDIVIDUAL CHARACTERISTICS Ability Personality & Cultural Values LEARNING GOALS After reading this chapter, you should be able to answer the following questions: 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 What is organizational commitment? What is withdrawal behavior? How are the two connected? What are the three types of organizational commitment, and how do they differ? What are the four primary responses to negative events at work? What are some examples of psychological withdrawal? Of physical withdrawal? How do the different forms of withdrawal relate to each other? What workplace trends are affecting organizational commitment in today’s organizations? How can organizations foster a sense of commitment among employees? ©Chris Batson/Alamy PWC W hat’s your sense of the typical career path at a Big Four accounting firm? Put in five or so good years, then step away from the grind of travel and hours for something more slow-paced? PwC, the New York–based firm with 41,531 U.S. employees (and 157,955 employees worldwide) is fighting to make that career path a bit less typical. The firm, which was recently named one of Fortune’s 100 Best Companies to Work For, is taking a number of steps to build a sense of loyalty among the rank and file. Some of those steps are focused on making PwC a fun place to work. For example, interns who receive offers of full-time employment get to compete in games and challenges at Disney World. PwC also uses sporting events and leagues to promote camaraderie. Nearly 400 employees— including interns and partners—participated in its softball tournament in Denver. Other steps are focused on making PwC a convenient place to work. For example, the company offers a number of desirable perks, including telecommuting, job sharing, compressed work weeks, paid parental leave, and paid time off for volunteering. Indeed, PwC recently announced that it would begin contributing $1,200 a year to employees’ student loans. The founder of a startup helping PwC administer this new perk views it as a “tremendous differentiator” when PwC recruits on college campuses. Helping hires pay off their student loans should be particularly valued by Millennials, who typically carry a significant amount of debt from college. PwC hopes that’s the case, as it’s struggled to build loyalty on the part of Millennials in recent years. Whereas new hires typically stayed for multiple years to take advantage of training and development opportunities, more and more Millennials have been quitting after a year or two. “Our first reaction was to question ourselves,” says Anne Donovan, a manager in PwC’s human capital group. “We thought we must be hiring the wrong people.” That sense changed when PwC commissioned a large-scale study of Millennial attitudes, to find out what drove loyalty for that age group. What did that study show? Summarizes Donovan, “Millennials are driven by how well their team works together, how supported and appreciated they feel, and how much possibility they have. They’re all about how it feels.” 62 C H A P T E R 3   Organizational Commitment ORGANIZATIONAL COMMITMENT 3.1 What is organizational commitment? What is withdrawal behavior? How are the two connected? FIGURE 3-1 Organizational commitment sits side-by-side with job performance in our integrative model of organizational behavior, reflecting one of the starting points for our journey through the concepts covered in this course. Why begin with a discussion of organizational commitment? Because it’s not enough to have talented employees who perform their jobs well. You also need to be able to hang on to those employees for long periods of time so that the organization can benefit from their efforts. Put yourself in the shoes of a business owner. Let’s say you spent a great deal of time recruiting a graduate from the local university, selling her on your business, and making sure that she was as qualified as you initially believed her to be. Now assume that, once hired, you took a personal interest in that employee, showing her the ropes and acting as mentor and instructor. Then, just as the company was set to improve as a result of that employee’s presence, she leaves to go to work for a competitor. As an employer, can you think of many things more depressing than that scenario? Unfortunately, that scenario is not far-fetched. The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics estimates that the average American will have 10.8 jobs between the ages of 18 and 42.1 That projection is based in part on an overall turnover (or “attrition”) rate of around 16 percent across all industries. Such statistics are nerve-wracking to employers because turnover can be quite expensive. Estimates suggest that turnover costs between 90 percent and 200 percent of an employee’s annual salary.2 Why so expensive? Those estimates include various costs, including the administrative costs involved in the separation, recruitment expenses, screening costs, and training and orientation expenses for the new hire. They also include “hidden costs” due to decreased morale, lost organizational knowledge, and lost productivity. Organizational commitment is defined as the desire on the part of an employee to remain a member of the organization.3 Organizational commitment influences whether an employee stays a member of the organization (is retained) or leaves to pursue another job (turns over). Our attention in this chapter is focused primarily on reducing voluntary turnover by keeping the employees whom the organization wants to keep, though we will touch on involuntary turnover in a discussion of layoffs and downsizing. Employees who are not committed to their organizations engage in withdrawal behavior, defined as a set of actions that employees perform to avoid the work situation—behaviors that may eventually culminate in quitting the organization.4 The relationship between commitment and withdrawal is illustrated in Figure 3-1. Some employees may exhibit much more commitment than withdrawal, finding themselves on the green end of the continuum. Other employees exhibit much more withdrawal than commitment, finding themselves on the red end of the continuum. The sections that follow review both commitment and withdrawal in more detail. Organizational Commitment and Employee Withdrawal Withdrawal Behavior Low High High Low Organizational Commitment C H A P T E R 3   Organizational Commitment 63 WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO BE “COMMITTED”? One key to understanding organizational commitment is to understand where it comes from. In other words, what creates a desire to remain a member of an organization? To explore this question, consider the following scenario: You’ve been working full-time for your employer for around five years. The company gave you your start in the business, and you’ve enjoyed your time there. Your salary is competitive enough that you were able to purchase a home in a good school system, which is important because you have one young child and another on the way. Now assume that a competing firm contacted you while you were attending a conference and offered you a similar position in its company. What kinds of things might you think about? If you created a list to organize your thoughts, what might that list look like? TYPES OF COMMITMENT One potential list is shown in Table 3-1. The left-hand column reflects some emotional reasons for staying with the current organization, including feelings about friendships, the atmosphere or culture of the company, and a sense of enjoyment when completing job duties. These sorts of emotional reasons create affective commitment, defined as a desire to remain a member of an organization due to an emotional to, and involvement with, that organization.5 Put simply, you stay because you want to. The middle column reflects some cost-based reasons for staying, including issues of salary, benefits, and promotions, as well as concerns about uprooting a family. These sorts of reasons create continuance commitment, defined as a desire to remain a member of an organization because of an awareness of the costs associated with leaving it.6 In other words, you stay because you need to. The right-hand column reflects some obligation-based reasons for staying with the current organization, including a sense that a debt is owed to a boss, a colleague, or the larger company. These sorts of reasons create normative commitment, defined as a desire to remain a member of an organization due to a feeling of obligation.7 In this case, you stay because you ought to. TABLE 3-1 The Three Types of Organizational Commitment What Makes Someone Stay with His/Her Current Organization? AFFECTIVE COMMITMENT (EMOTION-BASED) CONTINUANCE COMMITMENT (COST-BASED) NORMATIVE COMMITMENT (OBLIGATION-BASED) Some of my best friends work in my office . . . I’d miss them if I left. I’m due for a promotion soon . . . will I advance as quickly at the new company? My boss has invested so much time in me, mentoring me, training me, showing me the ropes. I really like the atmosphere at my current job . . . it’s fun and relaxed. My salary and benefits get us a nice house in our town . . . the cost of living is higher in this new area. My organization gave me my start . . . they hired me when others thought I wasn’t qualified. My current job duties are very rewarding . . . I enjoy coming to work each morning. The school system is good here, my spouse has a good job . . . we’ve really put down roots where we are. My employer has helped me out of a jam on a number of occasions . . . how could I leave now? Staying because you want to. Staying because you need to. Staying because you ought to. 3.2 What are the three types of organizational commitment, and how do they differ? 64 C H A P T E R 3   Organizational Commitment Committed employees often have strong positive feelings about one particular aspect of their job, such as their colleagues, their manager, or the particular work they do. FIGURE 3-2 As shown in Figure 3-2, the three types of organizational commitment combine to create an overall sense of psychological to the company. Of course, different people may weigh the three types differently. Some employees may be very rational and cautious by nature, focusing primarily on continuance commitment when evaluating their overall desire to stay. Other employees may be more emotional and intuitive by nature, going more on “feel” than a calculated assessment of costs and benefits. The importance of the three ©Liquidlibrary/Getty Images commitment types also may vary over the course of a career. For example, you might prioritize affective reasons early in your work life before shifting your attention to continuance reasons as you start a family or become more established in a community. Regardless of how the three types are prioritized, however, they offer an important insight into why someone might be committed and what an organization can do to make employees feel more committed. Figure 3-2 also shows that organizational commitment depends on more than just “the organization.” That is, people aren’t always committed to companies; they’re also committed to the Drivers of Overall Organizational Commitment Affective Commitment Felt in Reference to One’s: Company Top Management Continuance Commitment Department Manager Work Team Specific Coworkers Normative Commitment OVERALL ORGANIZATIONAL COMMITMENT C H A P T E R 3   Organizational Commitment top management that leads the firm at a given time, the department in which they work, the manager who directly supervises them, or the specific team or coworkers with whom they work most closely.8 We use the term focus of commitment to refer to the various people, places, and things that can inspire a desire to remain a member of an organization. For example, you might choose to stay with your current employer because you’re emotionally attached to your work team, worry about the costs associated with losing your company’s salary and benefits package, and feel a sense of obligation to your current manager. If so, your desire to remain cuts across multiple types of commitment (affective, continuance, and normative) and multiple foci (or focuses) of commitment (work team, company, manager). Now that you’re familiar with the drivers of commitment in a general sense, let’s go into more depth about each type. AFFECTIVE COMMITMENT One way to understand the differences among the three types of commitment is to ask yourself what you would feel if you left the organization. Consider the reasons listed in the left-hand column of Table 3-1. What would you feel if, even after taking all those reasons into account, you decided to leave your organization to join another one? Answer: You’d feel a sense of sadness. Employees who feel a sense of affective commitment identify with the organization, accept that organization’s goals and values, and are more willing to exert extra effort on behalf of the organization.9 By identifying with the organization, they come to view organizational membership as important to their sense of self.10 Is affective commitment something that you feel for your current employer or have felt for a past employer? Check the OB Assessments feature to find out. It’s safe to say that if managers could choose which type of commitment they’d like to instill in their employees, they’d choose affective commitment. Moreover, when a manager looks at an employee and says “She’s committed” or “He’s loyal,” that manager usually is referring to a behavioral expression of affective commitment.11 For example, employees who are affectively committed to their employer tend to engage in more interpersonal and organizational citizenship behaviors, such as helping, sportsmanship, and boosterism. One meta-analysis of 22 studies with more than 6,000 participants revealed a moderately strong correlation between affective commitment and citizenship behavior.12 (Recall that a meta-analysis averages together results from multiple studies investigating the same relationship.) Such results suggest that emotionally committed employees express that commitment by “going the extra mile” whenever they can. Because affective commitment reflects an emotional bond to the organization, it’s only natural that the emotional bonds among coworkers influence it.13 We can, therefore, gain a better understanding of affective commitment if we take a closer look at the bonds that tie employees together. Assume you were given a sheet with the names of all the employees in your department or members of your class. Then assume you were asked to rate the frequency with which you communicated with each of those people, as well as the emotional depth of those communications. Those ratings could be used to create a “social network” diagram that summarizes the bonds among employees. Figure 3-3 provides a sample of such a diagram. The lines connecting the 10 members of the work unit represent the communication bonds that tie each of them together, with thicker lines representing more frequent communication with more emotional depth. The diagram illustrates that some employees are “nodes,” with several direct connections to other employees, whereas others remain at the fringe of the network. The erosion model suggests that employees with fewer bonds will be most likely to quit the organization.14 If you look at Figure 3-3, who’s most at risk for turning over? That’s right—the employee who has only one bond with someone else (and a relatively weak bond at that). From an affective commitment perspective, that employee is likely to feel less emotional to work colleagues, which makes it easier to decide to leave the organization. Social network diagrams can also help us understand another explanation for turnover. The social influence model suggests that employees who have direct linkages with “leavers” will themselves become more likely to leave.15 In this way, reductions in affective commitment become contagious, spreading like a disease across the work unit. Think about the damage that would be caused if the central figure in the network (the one who has linkages to five other people) became unhappy with the organization. More and more companies are beginning to understand the value in helping employees connect. SAS, the Cary, North Carolina–based software company, provides a number of perks that 65 66 C H A P T E R 3   Organizational Commitment OB ASSESSMENTS AFFECTIVE COMMITMENT How emotionally attached are you to your employer? This assessment is designed to measure affective commitment—the feeling that you want to stay with your current organization. Think about your current job or the last job that you held (even if it was a part-time or summer job). Answer each question using the response scale provided. Then subtract your answers to the boldfaced questions from 6, with the difference being your new answers for those questions. For example, if your original answer for question 3 was “4,” your new answer is “2” (6 − 4). Then sum your answers for the six questions. (Instructors: Assessments on continuance commitment, normative commitment, and embeddedness can be found in the PowerPoints in the Connect Library’s Instructor Resources and in the Connect assignments for this chapter). 1 STRONGLY DISAGREE 2 DISAGREE 3 NEUTRAL 4 AGREE 5 STRONGLY AGREE 1. I would be very happy to spend the rest of my career in this organization.      2. I really feel as if this organization’s problems are my own.      3. I do not feel like “part of the family” at my organization.      4. I do not feel “emotionally attached” to this organization.      5. This organization has a great deal of personal meaning for me.      6. I do not feel a strong sense of belonging to my organization.      SCORING AND INTERPRETATION If your scores sum up to 20 or above, you feel a strong sense of affective commitment to your current or past employer, which means that you feel an emotional to the company or the people within it. This means that you would leave voluntarily. If your scores sum up to less than 20, you have a weaker sense of affective commitment to your current or past employer. This result is especially likely if you responded to the questions in reference to a part-time or summer job, as there might not have been enough time to develop an emotional bond. Source: Adapted from N.J. Allen and J.P. Meyer, “The Measurement and Antecedents of Affective, Continuance, and Normative Commitment to the Organization,” Journal of Occupational Psychology 63 (1990), pp. 1–18. bring employees together.16 Those include a billiard hall; intramural tennis, baseball, and volleyball; pool and fitness facilities; and even a hair salon. Sabre Holdings, the Southlake, Texas– based owner of Travelocity, created an internal social network system called Sabre Town.17 More company-focused than Facebook, Sabre Town includes profiles of employee skills, experience, and customer contacts, along with groups built around common personal interests. One such group is Mom2Mom, which allows employees to connect and converse about day care centers, pediatricians, and work–family balance issues. CONTINUANCE COMMITMENT Now consider the reasons for staying listed in the middle column of Table 3-1. What would you feel if, even after taking all those reasons into account, you C H A P T E R 3   Organizational Commitment FIGURE 3-3 67 A Social Network Diagram decided to leave your organization to join another one? Answer: You’d feel a sense of anxiety. Continuance commitment exists when there’s a profit associated with staying and a cost associated with leaving,18 with high continuance commitment making it difficult to change organizations because of the steep penalties associated with the switch.19 One factor that increases continuance commitment is the total amount of investment (in terms of time, effort, energy, etc.) employees have made in mastering their work roles or fulfilling their organizational duties.20 Picture a scenario in which you’ve worked extremely hard for a number of years to finally master the “ins and outs” of working at a particular organization, and now you’re beginning to enjoy the fruits of that labor in terms of financial rewards and better work assignments. That effort might be wasted if you moved to another organization (and had to start over on the learning curve). Another factor that increases continuance commitment is a lack of employment alternatives.21 If an employee has nowhere else to go, the need to stay will be higher. Employment alternatives themselves depend on several factors, including economic conditions, the unemployment rate, and the marketability of a person’s skills and abilities.22 Of course, no one likes to feel “stuck” in a situation, so it may not be surprising that the behavioral benefits associated with affective commitment don’t really occur with continuance commitment. There’s no statistical relationship between continuance commitment and citizenship behavior, for example, or any other aspects of job performance.23 Continuance commitment, therefore, tends to create more of a passive form ©Charly Kurz/laif/New York Times/Redux Pictures of loyalty. SAS, the Cary, North Carolina–based software company, offers a number of recreational perks to help employees stay connected to one another. 68 C H A P T E R 3   Organizational Commitment It’s important to note that some of the reasons in the middle column of Table 3-1 center on personal or family issues. Continuance commitment focuses on personal and family issues more than the other two commitment types, because employees often need to stay for both work and nonwork reasons. One concept that demonstrates the work and nonwork forces that can bind us to our current employer is embeddedness, which summarizes employees’ links to their organization and community, their sense of fit with their organization and community, and what they would have to sacrifice for a job change.24 As demonstrated in Table 3-2, embeddedness strengthens continuance commitment by providing more reasons employees need to stay in their current positions (and more sources of anxiety if they were to leave).25 Research suggests that embeddedness helps employees weather negative events that occur,26 and that it matters across cultures.27 Think about your current situation. If you’re a college student who is working part-time, you likely don’t feel very embedded. Your links to your job are probably only short term, and you may feel that the job is more routine than you’d like from a fit perspective. You probably also wouldn’t feel you were sacrificing much if you left the job. From a community perspective, you may be going to school in a different city or state than where you grew up, again resulting in few links, low perceived fit, or a lack of felt sacrifice. However, if you’re a full-time employee who is relatively established in your job and community, you may feel quite embedded in your current situation.28 Alcon Labs seems to understand the value of continuance commitment. The Fort Worth, Texas–based leader in eye care products enjoys a voluntary turnover rate of less than 2 percent.29 One likely reason for that low rate is the benefits package Alcon offers its employees. For example, Alcon offers a 401(k) retirement plan in which it matches 240 percent of what employees contribute, up to a total of 5 percent of total compensation. So, for example, if an employee invests $500 toward retirement in a given month, Alcon contributes $1,200. That policy more than doubles the most generous rates of other companies, allowing employees to build a comfortable “nest egg” for retirement more quickly. Clearly, employees would feel a bit anxious about giving up that benefit if a competitor came calling. NORMATIVE COMMITMENT Now consider the reasons for staying listed in the right-hand column of Table 3-1. What would you feel if, even after taking all those reasons into account, you decided to leave your organization to join another one? Answer: You’d feel a sense of guilt. TABLE 3-2 Embeddedness and Continuance Commitment “Embedded” People Feel: FACET FOR THE ORGANIZATION: FOR THE COMMUNITY: Links • I’ve worked here for such a long time. • I’m serving on so many teams and committees. • Several close friends and family live nearby. • My family’s roots are in this community. Fit • My job utilizes my skills and talents well. • I like the authority and responsibility I have at this company. • The weather where I live is suitable for me. • I think of the community where I live as home. Sacrifice • The retirement benefits provided by the organization are excellent. • I would sacrifice a lot if I left this job. • People respect me a lot in my community. • Leaving this community would be very hard. Source: Adapted from T.R. Mitchell, B.C. Holtom, T.W. Lee, C.J. Sablynski, and M. Erez, “Why People Stay: Using Job Embeddedness to Predict Voluntary Turnover,” Academy of Management Journal 44 (2001), pp. 1102–21. C H A P T E R 3   Organizational Commitment Normative commitment exists when there is a sense that staying is the “right” or “moral” thing to do.30 The sense that people should stay with their current employers may result from personal work philosophies or more general codes of right and wrong developed over the course of their lives. They may also be dictated by early experiences within the company, if employees are socialized to believe that long-term loyalty is the norm rather than the exception.31 Aside from personal work philosophies or organizational socialization, there seem to be two ways to build a sense of obligation-based commitment among employees. One way is to create a feeling that employees are in the organization’s debt—that they owe something to the organization. For example, an organization may spend a great deal of money training and developing an employee. In recognition of that investment, the employee may feel obligated to “repay” the organization with several more years of loyal service.32 Think about how you’d feel if your employer paid your tuition, allowing you to further your education, while also providing you with training and developmental job assignments that increased your skills. Wouldn’t you feel a bit guilty if you took the first job opportunity that came your way? Another possible way to build an obligation-based sense of commitment is by becoming a particularly charitable organization. For example, many companies encourage employees to engage in volunteering—the giving of time or skills during a planned activity for a nonprofit or charitable group.33 Such companies may encourage volunteering on employees’ own personal time, or may create “corporate volunteering” programs where employees can give time or skills during the workday. Are such efforts a distraction for employees that interferes with their jobs? Quite the contrary, as research suggests that employees who volunteer are actually more engaged in their work than employees who don’t. Moreover, employees who volunteer are given “credit” for those activities by their colleagues.34 For the organization, charitable activities can provide good public relations, potentially generating goodwill for its products and services and helping attract new recruits.35 They can also help existing employees feel better about the organization, creating a deeper sense of normative commitment. Those benefits may be particularly relevant with younger employees, as evidence indicates that recent generations are somewhat more charitably minded than previous ones. In support of that view, a growing number of MBA graduates are joining socially conscious online networks, such as Netimpact.org (see Chapter 7 on trust, justice, and ethics for more discussion of such issues).36 Comcast recognizes the value of normative commitment. For around a decade, the Philadelphia– based media company has organized Comcast Cares Day.37 Originally, the day consisted of 50 employees working at a local charity event. One recent year, 60,500 employees, their family members, and volunteers worked with local and national nonprofits on a variety of activities, from planting gardens to cleaning up riverbanks. The head of Comcast’s community involvement program contends that Comcast Cares Day was not created to help attract and maintain employees. Still, she admits that it’s been a positive unintended consequence, especially for younger employees. WITHDRAWAL BEHAVIOR As noted earlier, one study suggested that 60 percent of employees plan to look for another job once the economy improves.38 Organizational commitment is, therefore, a vital concern, given that organizations will need to be fully staffed when business picks back up and industries become even more competitive. Indeed, organizational commitment is at its most important when employees are at their most needed. To paraphrase the old saying, “When the going gets tough, the organization doesn’t want you to get going.” In tough times, organizations need their employees to demonstrate loyalty, not “get going” right out the door. Of course, it’s those same tough times that put an employee’s loyalty and allegiance to the test. Consider the following scenario: You’ve been working at your company for three years and served on a key product development team for the past several months. Unfortunately, the team has been struggling of late. In an effort to enhance the team’s performance, the organization has added a new member to the group. This member has a solid history of product development but is, by all accounts, a horrible person to work with. You can easily see the employee’s talent 69 70 C H A P T E R 3   Organizational Commitment 3.3 What are the four primary responses to negative events at work? but find yourself hating every moment spent in the employee’s presence. This situation is particularly distressing because the team won’t finish its work for another nine months, at the earliest. What would you do in this situation? Research on reactions to negative work events suggests that you might respond in one of four general ways.39 First, you might attempt to remove yourself from the situation, either by being absent from work more frequently or by voluntarily leaving the organization. This removal is termed exit, defined as an active, destructive response by which an individual either ends or restricts organizational membership.40 Second, you might attempt to change the circumstances by meeting with the new team member to attempt to work out the situation. This action is termed voice, defined as an active, constructive response in which individuals attempt to improve the situation (see Chapter 2 on job performance for more discussion of such issues).41 Third, you might just “grin and bear it,” maintaining your effort level despite your unhappiness. This response is termed loyalty, defined as a passive, constructive response that maintains public support for the situation while the individual privately hopes for improvement.42 Fourth, you might just go through the motions, allowing your performance to deteriorate slowly as you mentally “check out.” This reaction is termed neglect, defined as a passive, destructive response in which interest and effort in the job decline.43 Sometimes neglect can be even more costly than exit because it’s not as readily noticed. Employees may neglect their duties for months (or even years) before their bosses catch on to their poor behaviors. Taken together, the exit–voice–loyalty–neglect framework captures most of the possible responses to a negative work event. Where does organizational commitment fit in? Organizational commitment should decrease the likelihood that an individual will respond to a negative work event with exit or neglect (the two destructive responses). At the same time, organizational commitment should increase the likelihood that the negative work event will prompt voice or loyalty (the two constructive responses). Consistent with that logic, research indeed suggests that organizational commitment increases the likelihood of voice and loyalty while decreasing the likelihood of exit and neglect.44 To see two of the exit–voice–loyalty–neglect options in action, see our OB on Screen feature. If we consider employees’ task performance levels together with their organizational commitment levels, we can gain an even clearer picture of how people might respond to negative work events. Consider Table 3-3, which depicts combinations of high and low levels of organizational commitment and task performance. Stars possess high commitment and high performance and are held up as role models for other employees. Stars likely respond to negative events with voice because they have the desire to improve the status quo and the credibility needed to inspire change.45 It’s pretty easy to spot the stars in a given unit, and you can probably think about your current or past job experiences and identify the employees who would fit that description. Citizens possess high commitment and low task performance but perform many of the voluntary “extrarole” activities that are needed to make the organization function smoothly.46 Citizens are likely to respond to negative events with loyalty because they may lack the credibility needed to inspire change but do possess the desire to remain a member of the organization. You can spot citizens by looking for the people who do the little things—showing around new employees, picking up birthday cakes, ordering new supplies when needed, and so forth. Lone wolves possess low levels of organizational commitment but high levels of task performance and are motivated to achieve work goals for themselves, not necessarily for their company.47 They are likely to respond to negative events with exit. Although their performance would give them the credibility needed to inspire change, their lack of prevents them from using that credibility constructively. Instead, they rely on their performance levels to make them marketable to their next employer. To spot lone wolves, look for the talented employees who never seem to want to get involved in important decisions about the future of the company. Finally, apathetics possess low levels of both organizational commitment and task performance and merely exert the minimum level of effort needed to keep their jobs.48 Apathetics should respond to negative events with neglect because they lack the performance needed to be marketable and the commitment needed to engage in acts of citizenship. It’s clear from this discussion that exit and neglect represent the flip side of organizational commitment: withdrawal behavior. How common is withdrawal behavior within organizations? C H A P T E R 3   Organizational Commitment OB ON SCREEN CHEF Well why don’t you cook the menu without a chef and we see how it goes tonight? With those words, Chef Carl Casper (Jon Favreau) quits his job in Chef (Dir. Jon Favreau, Aldamisa Entertainment, 2014). Carl is just a few days removed from receiving a scathing review from Ramsey Michel (Oliver Platt), the most respected food critic in Los Angeles. And now he’s taken to Twitter, challenging Michel to give him a second try, this time with an all new menu. As Carl explains to the hostess, Molly (Scarlett Johansson), “We’re not pushing specials today—the whole menu is special.” When Molly sees the excitement in Carl’s eyes, he goes on, “I’m excited. I’m finally happy . . . I’m happy, OK? Am I allowed to be happy, at work?” ©Open Road Films (II)/Photofest Unfortunately for Carl, the restaurant’s owner—Riva (Dustin Hoffman)—doesn’t want that special menu. Instead, he wants the unusually large crowd to experience the kind of entrées they can expect week in and week out. Riva walks back into the kitchen to protest, noting, “So now suddenly you’re gonna be an artist. Well, be an artist on your own time.” Carl argues that the crowd is there to see him face off against the critic and to eat his food. Corrects Riva, “It’s my food because it’s my restaurant. I pay for the glasses, I pay for the napkins, I pay for the spoons . . . ” Given an ultimatum, Carl chooses to walk out of the kitchen, and out of Riva’s employ. He was deeply committed to his craft—to being a chef. Put differently, he had high occupational commitment. But he was no longer committed to Riva. Moreover, given his talent, Carl assumed he had other options—other restaurants that would hire him. Thus, his exit. The same was not true for Carl’s sous-chef, Tony. Carl assumes Tony will follow him out of the kitchen and on to whatever comes next. But Tony is less established in his career—he needs to remain loyal for reasons that Carl doesn’t. Where does Carl go next? Here’s a hint: His next kitchen is smaller. Quite common, it turns out. One study clocked employees’ on-the-job behaviors over a twoyear period and found that only about 51 percent of their time was actually spent working! The other 49 percent was lost to late starts, early departures, long coffee breaks, personal matters, and other forms of withdrawal.49 As a manager, wouldn’t you like to feel like there was more than a coin-flip’s chance that your employees were actually working during the course of a given day? 71 72 C H A P T E R 3   Organizational Commitment TABLE 3-3 Four Types of Employees TASK PERFORMANCE Organizational Commitment HIGH LOW HIGH Stars Citizens LOW Lone wolves Apathetics Source: Adapted from R.W. Griffeth, S. Gaertner, and J.K. Sager, “Taxonomic Model of Withdrawal Behaviors: The Adaptive Response Model,” Human Resource Management Review 9 (1999), pp. 577–90. 3.4 What are some examples of psychological withdrawal? Of physical withdrawal? How do the different forms of withdrawal relate to each other? As shown in Figure 3-4, withdrawal comes in two forms: psychological (or neglect) and physical (or exit). Psychological withdrawal consists of actions that provide a mental escape from the work environment.50 Some business articles refer to psychological withdrawal as “warm-chair attrition,” meaning that employees have essentially been lost even though their chairs remain occupied.51 This withdrawal form comes in a number of shapes and sizes.52 The least serious is daydreaming, when employees appear to be working but are actually distracted by random thoughts or concerns. Socializing refers to the verbal chatting about nonwork topics that goes on in cubicles and offices or at the mailbox or vending machines. Looking busy indicates an intentional desire on the part of employees to look like they’re working, even when not performing work tasks. Sometimes, employees decide to reorganize their desks or go for a stroll around the building, even though they have nowhere to go. (Those who are very good at managing impressions do such things very briskly and with a focused look on their faces!) When employees engage in moonlighting, they use work time and resources to complete something other than their job duties, such as assignments for another job. Perhaps the most widespread form of psychological withdrawal among white-collar employees is cyberloafing—using Internet, e-mail, and instant messaging access for their personal enjoyment rather than work duties.53 Some estimates suggest that typical cubicle dwellers stop what they’re doing about once every three minutes to send e-mail, check Facebook or Twitter, surf over to YouTube, and so forth.54 Such distractions consume as much as 28 percent of employees’ workdays and cost some $650 billion a year in lost productivity. Sports fans seem particularly vulnerable. Estimates suggest that Fantasy Football league transactions consume as much as $1.5 billion in productivity during a typical season.55 The spring isn’t much better, as estimates suggest that employers lose $1.2 billion as employees watch NCAA tournament games online.56 Some employees view cyberloafing as a way of “balancing the scales” when it comes to personal versus work time. For example, one participant in a cyberloafing study noted, “It is alright for me to use the Internet for personal reasons at work. After all, I do work overtime without receiving extra pay from my employer.”57 Although such views may seem quite reasonable, other employees view cyberloafing as a means to retaliate for negative work events. One participant in the same study noted, “My boss is not the appreciative kind; I take what I can whenever I can. Surfing the net is my way of hitting back.” Physical withdrawal consists of actions that provide a physical escape, whether short term or long term, from the work environment.58 Physical withdrawal also comes in a number of shapes and sizes. Tardiness reflects the tendency to arrive at work late (or leave work early).59 Of course, tardiness can sometimes be unavoidable, as when employees have car trouble or must fight through bad weather, but it often represents a calculated desire to spend less time at work.60 Long breaks involve longer-than-normal lunches, soda breaks, coffee breaks, and so forth that provide a physical escape from work. Sometimes, long breaks stretch into missing meetings, which means employees neglect important work functions while away from the office. As a manager, you’d like to be sure that employees who leave for lunch are actually going to come back, but sometimes that’s not a safe bet! Absenteeism occurs when employees miss an entire day of work.61 Of course, people stay home from work for a variety of reasons, including illness and family emergencies. There’s also a rhythm C H A P T E R 3   Organizational Commitment FIGURE 3-4 73 Psychological and Physical Withdrawal WITHDRAWAL BEHAVIOR Daydreaming Socializing Psychological Withdrawal Physical Withdrawal (NEGLECT) (EXIT) Looking Busy Cyberloafing Moonlighting Tardiness Missing Meetings Long Breaks to absenteeism. For example, employees are more likely to be absent on Mondays or Fridays. Moreover, streaks of good attendance create a sort of pressure to be absent, as personal responsibilities build until a day at home becomes irresistible.62 That type of absence can sometimes be functional because people may return to work with their “batteries recharged.”63 Group and departmental norms also affect absenteeism by signaling whether an employee can get away with missing a day here or there without being noticed.64 One survey suggests that 57 percent of U.S. employees take sick days when they’re not actually sick, a trend that has some companies going to extreme measures.65 IKEA, the Sweden-based furniture maker, recently made headlines for spying on its French employees for various reasons— including checking on their sick leave use.66 In the United States, private investigation firms charge around $75 per hour to send investigators in search of employees who may be playing hooky. Rick Raymond, an investigator in Florida, once followed a supposedly sick employee to Universal Studios.67 The employee rode three roller coasters that take automatic pictures at the sharpest turns. Raymond bought all three, which conveniently included time and date stamps. When the employee later claimed that the photos weren’t her, Raymond responded by playing back video of her volunteering at an animal ©Colin Anderson/Getty Images Quitting Absenteeism In an effort to curb absenteeism, some companies have turned to private investigators to try to catch “sick” employees who are playing hooky. 74 C H A P T E R 3   Organizational Commitment show in the park! The news isn’t all bad for would-be work-skippers. Some of the same firms that track employees provide training on how to elude the boss’s surveillance attempts. Finally, the most serious form of physical withdrawal is quitting—voluntarily leaving the organization. As with the other forms of withdrawal, employees can choose to “turn over” for a variety of reasons. The most frequent reasons include leaving for more money or a better career opportunity; dissatisfaction with supervision, working conditions, or working schedule; family factors; and health.68 Note that many of those reasons reflect avoidable turnover, meaning that the organization could have done something to keep the employee, perhaps by offering more money, more frequent promotions, or a better work situation. Family factors and health, in contrast, usually reflect unavoidable turnover that doesn’t necessarily signal a lack of commitment on the part of employees. Regardless of their reasons, some employees choose to quit after engaging in a very thorough, careful, and reasoned analysis. Typically some sort of “shock,” whether it be a critical job change, a negative work experience, or an unsolicited job offer, jars employees enough that it triggers the thought of quitting in them.69 Once the idea of quitting has occurred to them, employees begin searching for other places to work, compare those alternatives to their current job, and—if the comparisons seem favorable—quit.70 This process may take days, weeks, or even months as employees grapple with the decision. In other cases, though, a shock may result in an impulsive, knee-jerk decision to quit, with little or no thought given to alternative jobs (or how those jobs compare to the current one).71 Of course, sometimes a shock never occurs. Instead, an employee decides to quit as a result of a slow but steady decrease in happiness until a “straw breaks the camel’s back” and voluntary turnover results. Figure 3-4 shows 10 different behaviors that employees can perform to psychologically or physically escape from a negative work environment. A key question remains though: “How do all those behaviors relate to one another?” Consider the following testimonials from uncommitted (and admittedly fictional) employees: • “I can’t stand my job, so I do what I can to get by. Sometimes I’m absent, sometimes I socialize, sometimes I come in late. There’s no real rhyme or reason to it; I just do whatever seems practical at the time.” • “I can’t handle being around my boss. I hate to miss work, so I do what’s needed to avoid being absent. I figure if I socialize a bit and spend some time surfing the Web, I don’t need to ever be absent. But if I couldn’t do those things, I’d definitely have to stay home . . . a lot.” • “I just don’t have any respect for my employer anymore. In the beginning, I’d daydream a bit during work or socialize with my colleagues. As time went on, I began coming in late or taking a long lunch. Lately I’ve been staying home altogether, and I’m starting to think I should just quit my job and go somewhere else.” Each of these statements sounds like something that an uncommitted employee might say. However, each statement makes a different prediction about the relationships among the withdrawal behaviors in Figure 3-4. The first statement summarizes the independent forms model of withdrawal, which argues that the various withdrawal behaviors are uncorrelated with one another, occur for different reasons, and fulfill different needs on the part of employees.72 From this perspective, knowing that an employee cyberloafs tells you nothing about whether that employee is likely to be absent. The second statement summarizes the compensatory forms model of withdrawal, which argues that the various withdrawal behaviors negatively correlate with one another—that doing one means you’re less likely to do another. The idea is that any form of withdrawal can compensate for, or neutralize, a sense of dissatisfaction, which makes the other forms unnecessary. From this perspective, knowing that an employee cyberloafs tells you that the same employee probably isn’t going to be absent. The third statement summarizes the progression model of withdrawal, which argues that the various withdrawal behaviors are positively correlated: The tendency to daydream or socialize leads to the tendency to come in late or take long breaks, which leads to the tendency to be absent or quit. From this perspective, knowing that an employee cyberloafs tells you that the same employee is probably going to be absent in the near future. C H A P T E R 3   Organizational Commitment 75 Which of the three models seems most logical to you? Although all three make some sense, the progression model has received the most scientific support.73 Studies tend to show that the withdrawal behaviors in Figure 3-4 are positively correlated with one another.74 Moreover, if you view the behaviors as a causal sequence moving from left (daydreaming) to right (quitting), the behaviors that are closest to each other in the sequence tend to be more highly correlated.75 For example, quitting is more closely related to absenteeism than to tardiness, because absenteeism is right next to it in the withdrawal progression. These results illustrate that withdrawal behaviors may begin with very minor actions but eventually can escalate to more serious actions that may harm the organization. SUMMARY: WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO BE “COMMITTED”? So what does it mean to be a “committed” employee? As shown in Figure 3-5, it means a lot of different things. It means that employees have a strong desire to remain a member of the organization, maybe because they want to stay, need to stay, or feel they ought to stay. Regardless of the reasons for their though, retaining these employees means stopping the progression of withdrawal that begins with psychological forms and then escalates to behavioral forms. Note that the negative sign (−) in Figure 3-5 illustrates that high levels of overall organizational commitment reduce the frequency of psychological and physical withdrawal. Note also that psychological withdrawal goes on to affect physical withdrawal, which represents the progressive nature of such behaviors. As you move forward in this book, you’ll notice that every chapter includes a description of how that chapter’s topic relates to organizational commitment. For example, Chapter 4 on job satisfaction describes how employees’ satisfaction levels influence their organizational commitment. Chapter 7 on trust, justice, and ethics explains how employees’ trust in management influences their organizational commitment. Sometimes you’ll notice that a given chapter’s topic relates more strongly to organizational commitment than to job performance. Other times, however, the topic may relate similarly to commitment and performance, or even relate more strongly to performance. Regardless, such differences will help you see exactly why the various topics in this book are so important to managers. TREN DS THAT AFFE CT COMMITMENT Now that we’ve described exactly what organizational commitment represents, it’s time to describe some of the trends that affect it in the contemporary workplace. Put simply, the composition of the workforce is changing, as is the traditional relationship between employees and employers. These trends put pressure on some types of commitment and alter the kinds of withdrawal seen in the workplace. DIVERSITY OF THE WORKFORCE One of the most visible trends affecting the workplace is the increased diversity of the U.S. labor force. Demographically speaking, the percentage of the workforce that is white has dropped to 64 percent.76 Meanwhile, the percentage of minorities in the workforce has reached the following levels: African Americans (12 percent), Hispanics (16 percent), and Asians (5 percent). Thus, minority groups now make up one-third of the workforce. Meanwhile, women have virtually matched men in terms of workforce percentages, with 53 percent of jobs filled by men and 47 ­percent by women. These statistics show that the “white, male-dominated” workforce is becoming a thing of the past. The workforce is becoming diverse in other ways as well. The percentage of members of the workforce who are 60 years or older stands at around 10 percent.77 As the 78 million Baby Boomers near retirement, they’re continuing to remain in the workforce significantly longer than previous 3.5 What workplace trends are affecting organizational commitment in today’s organizations? Normative Commitment Continuance Commitment Affective Commitment FIGURE 3-5 − Socializing Daydreaming OVERALL ORGANIZATIONAL COMMITMENT Looking Busy Long Breaks Tardiness Cyberloafing Moonlighting − Psychological Withdrawal What Does It Mean to Be “Committed”? Missing Meetings Physical Withdrawal Absenteeism Quitting 76 C H A P T E R 3   Organizational Commitment C H A P T E R 3   Organizational Commitment generations.78 Research suggests that remaining a member of the workforce is actually beneficial to older people’s health, keeping them more mentally and physically fit. Moreover, medical advances are helping older employees stay vital longer, just as the physical labor component of most jobs keeps shrinking. The Baby Boomers are also one of the most educated generations, and research suggests that their continued participation in the workforce could add $3 trillion a year to the country’s economic output. That, combined with the uncertainty surrounding Social Security and stock market–based retirement plans, makes staying in the workforce a logical call. As the economy continues to become more global, U.S. businesses face another important form of diversity: More and more employees are foreign-born. Although stereotypes view immigrants as staffing blue-collar or service jobs, many of the most educated employees come from abroad. Consider that half of the PhDs working in the United States are foreign-born, as are 45 percent of the physicists, computer scientists, and mathematicians.79 At the same time, more and more American employees are working as expatriates who staff offices in foreign countries for long periods of time. Serving as an expatriate can be a very stressful assignment for employees as they adjust to a new country, a new style of working, and increased distance from family and friends. See our OB Internationally feature for more discussion of organizational commitment in multinational corporations. These forms of diversity make it more challenging to retain valued employees. Consider the social network diagram in Figure 3-3. As work groups become more diverse with respect to race, gender, age, and national origin, there’s a danger that minorities or older employees will find themselves on the fringe of such networks, which potentially reduces their affective commitment. At the same time, foreign-born employees are likely to feel less embedded in their current jobs and perceive fewer links to their community and less fit with their geographic area. This feeling may reduce their sense of continuance commitment. Recent trends suggest that the most educated and skilled immigrants are leaving the U.S. workforce at a rate of about 1,000 a day, particularly when their home country’s economy begins to boom.80 THE CHANGING EMPLOYEE–EMPLOYER RELATIONSHIP A few generations ago, many employees assumed that they would work for a single organization for their entire career. The assumption was that they would exchange a lifetime of loyalty and good work for a lifetime of job security. That perception changed in the 1980s and 1990s as downsizing became a more common part of working life. In 1992, downsizing statistics peaked as 3.4 million jobs were lost, and annual job losses have remained that high ever since.81 Downsizing represents a form of involuntary turnover, when employees are forced to leave the organization regardless of their previous levels of commitment. The increase in downsizing has gone hand-in-hand with increases in temporary workers and outsourcing, fundamentally altering the way employees view their relationships with their employers. Companies usually downsize to cut costs, particularly during a recession or economic downturn. Does downsizing work? Does it make the company more profitable? One study suggests that the answer is “not usually.” This study examined 3,628 companies over a 15-year time period, of which 59 percent downsized 5 percent or more of their workforce at least once and 33 percent fired 15 percent or more of their workforce at least once.82 The most important result was that downsizing actually harmed company profitability and stock price. In fact, it typically took firms two years to return to the performance levels that prompted the downsizing in the first place. The exception to this rule was companies that downsized in the context of some larger change in assets (e.g., the sale of a line of business, a merger, an acquisition). However, such firms were relatively rare; only oneeighth of the downsizers were involved in some sort of asset change at the time the layoffs occurred. Why doesn’t downsizing tend to work? One reason revolves around the organizational commitment levels of the so-called survivors. The employees who remain in the organization after a downsizing are often stricken with “survivor syndrome,” characterized by anger, depression, fear, distrust, and guilt.83 One study found that downsizing survivors actually experienced more work-related stress than did the downsizing victims who went on to find new employment.84 Survivor syndrome tends to reduce organizational commitment levels at the worst possible time, as downsizing survivors are often asked to work extra hard to compensate for their lost colleagues. 77 78 C H A P T E R 3   Organizational Commitment OB INTERNATIONALLY Fostering organizational commitment can be more complex in multinational corporations, for two primary reasons. First, multinational corporations provide two distinct foci of commitment: Employees can be committed to the local subsidiary in which they work, or they can be committed to the global organization. Research on commitment in multinational corporations suggests that employees draw a distinction between those two foci when judging their commitment. Specifically, employees distinguish between the prestige of their local subsidiary and the reputation of the larger organization. They also distinguish between the support provided by their local supervisor and the support provided by the global organization’s top management. Such results reveal that it’s possible to be committed to the local office but not the overall organization, or vice versa. Second, multinational corporations require many employees to serve as expatriates for significant periods of time. Research suggests that the organizational commitment of expatriates depends, in part, on how well they adjust to their foreign assignments. Research further suggests that expatriates’ adjustment comes in three distinct forms: • Work adjustment. The degree of comfort with specific job responsibilities and performance expectations. • Cultural adjustment. The degree of comfort with the general living conditions, climate, cost of living, transportation, and housing offered by the host culture. • Interaction adjustment. The degree of comfort when socializing and interacting with members of the host culture. A study of American multinational corporations in the transportation, service, manufacturing, chemical, and pharmaceutical industries showed that all three forms of adjustment relate significantly to affective commitment. If expatriates cannot feel comfortable in their assignment, it’s difficult for them to develop an emotional bond to their organization. Instead, they’re likely to withdraw from the assignment, both psychologically and physically. What factors contribute to an expatriate’s adjustment levels? It turns out that work adjustment depends on many of the same things that drive domestic employees’ job satisfaction and motivation. Cultural and interaction adjustment, in contrast, are very dependent on spousal and family comfort. If an expatriate’s spouse or children are unhappy in their new environment, it becomes very difficult for the expatriate to remain committed. Fortunately, research suggests that cultural and interaction adjustment can increase with time, as experiences in the host nation gradually increase expatriates’ sense of comfort and, ultimately, their commitment to the work assignment. Sources: J.S. Black, M. Mendenhall, and G. Oddou, “Toward a Comprehensive Model of International Adjustment: An Integration of Multiple Theoretical Perspectives,” Academy of Management Review 16 (1991), pp. 291–317; R. Hechanova, T.A. Beehr, and N.D. Christiansen, “Antecedents and Consequences of Employees’ Adjustment to Overseas Assignment: A Meta-Analytic Review,” Applied Psychology: An International Review 52 (2003), pp. 213–36; C. Reade, “Antecedents of Organizational Identification in Multinational Corporations: Fostering Psychological to the Local Subsidiary and the Global Organization,” International Journal of Human Resource Management 12 (2001), pp. 1269–91; and M. A. Shaffer, and D.A. Harrison, “Expatriates’ Psychological Withdrawal from International Assignments: Work, Nonwork, and Family Influences,” Personnel Psychology 51 (1998), pp. 87–118. Indeed, a study of 3,500 Boeing employees revealed some particularly stark examples of survivor syndrome.85 Specifically, the study showed that employees who survived a 33 percent downsizing had depression scores that were nearly twice as high as those who left. They were also more likely to binge drink and experience chronic sleeping and health problems. The change in employee–employer relationships brought about by a generation of downsizing makes it more challenging to retain valued employees. The most obvious challenge is finding a way to maintain affective commitment. The negative emotions aroused by survivor syndrome C H A P T E R 3   Organizational Commitment 79 likely reduce emotional to the organization. Moreover, if the downsizing has caused the loss of key figures in employees’ social networks, then their desire to stay will be harmed. However, a second challenge is to find some way to maintain normative commitment. The sense that people should stay with their employer may have been eroded by downsizing, with personal work philosophies now focusing on maximizing marketability for the next opportunity that comes along. Even if employees felt obligated to remain at a firm in the past, seeing colleagues get dismissed in a downsizing effort could change that belief rather quickly. One way of quantifying the change in employee–employer relationships is to assess how employees view those relationships psychologically. Research suggests that employees tend to view their employment relationships in quasi-contractual terms. Specifically, psychological contracts reflect employees’ beliefs about what they owe the organization and what the organization owes them.86 These contracts are shaped by the recruitment and socialization activities that employees experience, which often convey promises and expectations that shape beliefs about reciprocal obligations. Some employees develop transactional contracts that are based on a narrow set of specific monetary obligations (e.g., the employee owes attendance and protection of proprietary information; the organization owes pay and advancement opportunities).87 Other employees develop relational contracts that are based on a broader set of open-ended and subjective obligations (e.g., the employee owes loyalty and the willingness to go above and beyond; the organization owes job security, development, and support).88 Seeing one’s coworkers downsized can constitute a “breach” of an employee’s psychological contract, and research suggests that psychological contract breach leads to psychological and physical withdrawal.89 However, trends such as downsizing, use of temporary workers, and outsourcing may also cause employees to define their contracts in more transactional (as opposed to relational) terms. A PPLICATION: COMMITMENT INITIATIVES Now that you’ve gained a good understanding of organizational commitment, as well as some of the workforce trends that affect it, we close with a discussion of strategies and initiatives that can be used to maximize commitment. What exactly can companies do to increase loyalty? At a general level, they can be supportive. Perceived organizational support reflects the degree to which employees believe that the organization values their contributions and cares about their well-being.90 Organizations can do a number of things to be supportive, including providing adequate rewards, protecting job security, improving work conditions, and minimizing the impact of politics.91 In a sense, such support represents the organization’s commitment to its employees. A meta-analysis of 42 research studies with almost 12,000 participants revealed that perceptions of support are strongly related to organizational commitment.92 That same review showed that perceptions of support are associated with lower levels of psychological and physical withdrawal. For more wisdom on fostering commitment, see our OB at the Bookstore feature. Beyond being supportive, organizations can engage in specific practices that target the three forms of commitment. For example, organizations could foster affective commitment by increasing the bonds that link employees together. Ben & Jerry’s holds monthly “joy events” during which all production stops for a few hours to be replaced by Cajun-themed parties, table tennis contests, and employee appreciation celebrations.93 Monsanto, the St. Louis, Missouri–based provider of agricultural products, groups staffers into “people teams” charged with designing employee-bonding activities like “snowshoe softball.”94 Such tight bonding among employees may explain why Monsanto’s voluntary turnover rate is only 3 percent. Companies like PepsiCo and Procter & Gamble pay particular attention to mentoring and team-building programs for female and minority employees to create a sense of solidarity among employees who might otherwise remain on the fringe of social networks.95 From a continuance commitment perspective, the priority should be to create a salary and benefits package that creates a financial need to stay. One study compared the impact of a variety of human resource management practices on voluntary turnover and found that two of the most 3.6 How can organizations foster a sense of commitment among employees? 80 C H A P T E R 3   Organizational Commitment OB AT THE BOOKSTORE WIDGETS by Rodd Wagner (New York: McGraw Hill, 2015). YOUR PEOPLE ARE NOT YOUR GREATEST ASSET. They’re not yours, and they’re not assets . . . You don’t own your people. Many of them don’t trust you. Some don’t like you. Too many won’t stick it out with you. And the ones you need most have the credentials to walk out fastest if you treat them poorly. With those words, Rodd Wagner summarizes the importance (and challenge) that surrounds organizational commitment in today’s workplace. Commitment is important, but many companies do a really bad job fostering it. Wagner and his research team conducted interviews and surveys at hundreds of companies to pursue two goals: (1) to get a sense of where most employees fall on the commitment spectrum and (2) to identify “new rules” for increasing loyalty. Their results on the first goal suggest that 19 percent of employees are “demoralized”—feeling that their employer treats them like “widgets.” Another 23 percent are “frustrated”—with moments of positivity surrounded by the sense that the company is poorly run. Another 29 percent are “encouraged”—neither invigorated to give their best nor upset enough to leave. That leaves only 30 percent in the “energized” camp—feeling like employers do a great job of treating them ©Roberts Publishing Services like human beings, not “assets.” What should companies do to help more employees find their way into that 30 percent? What are the so-called new rules for fostering commitment? Wagner discusses 12 rules. Although some are more relevant to other topics in our integrative model of OB, many are directly relevant to the three types of commitment. For example, Rule #1, “Get Inside Their Heads,” is relevant to affective commitment. It urges managers to truly understand their employees—what they want from their work and how managers can help give it to them. As another example, Rule #3, “Make Money a Non-Issue,” affects continuance commitment. Pay employees fairly so that concerns about pay don’t short-circuit loyalty. Are you curious whether your current or previous employer is following these rules, and whether you’re “energized,” “demoralized,” or somewhere in between? If so, just Google “New Rules Index” to find out! significant predictors were average pay level and quality of the benefits package.96 Of course, one factor that goes hand-in-hand with salaries and benefits is advancement/promotion because salaries cannot remain competitive if employees get stuck in neutral when climbing the career ladder.97 Perhaps that’s why companies that are well known for their commitment to promotion-fromwithin policies, like A.G. Edwards and the Principal Financial Group, also enjoy especially low voluntary turnover rates.98 Paying attention to career paths is especially important for star employees and foreign-born employees, both of whom have many options for employment elsewhere.99 From a normative commitment perspective, the employer can provide various training and development opportunities for employees, which means investing in them to create the sense that they owe further service to the organization. As the nature of the employee–employer relationship has changed, opportunities for development have overtaken secure employment on the list of employee priorities.100 IBM is one company with a reputation for prioritizing development. Its “workforce management initiative” keeps a database of 33,000 résumés to develop a snapshot of C H A P T E R 3   Organizational Commitment 81 Ben & Jerry’s, founded by Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield, goes to great lengths to encourage employees to hang out together and have fun during their workweek. Such bonding activities lower turnover and encourage valued employees to remain. ©Rebecca Sapp/Getty Images employee skills.101 IBM uses that snapshot to plan its future training and development activities, with $400 million of the company’s $750 million training budget devoted to giving employees the skills they may need in the future. If employees find developmental activities beneficial and rewarding, they may be tempted to repay those efforts with additional years of service. A final practical suggestion centers on what to do if withdrawal begins to occur. Managers are usually tempted to look the other way when employees engage in minor forms of withdrawal. After all, sometimes such behaviors simply represent a break in an otherwise busy day. However, the progression model of withdrawal shows that even minor forms of psychological withdrawal often escalate, eventually to the point of absenteeism and turnover. The implication is, therefore, to stop the progression in its early stages by trying to root out the source of the reduced commitment. Many of the most effective companies make great efforts to investigate the causes of low commitment, whether at the psychological withdrawal stage or during exit interviews. As one senior oil executive acknowledged, the loss of a talented employee warrants the same sort of investigation as a technical malfunction that causes significant downtime on an oil rig.102 TA K EAWAYS 3.1 Organizational commitment is the desire on the part of an employee to remain a member of the organization. Withdrawal behavior is a set of actions that employees perform to avoid the work situation. Commitment and withdrawal are negatively related to each other—the more committed employees are, the less likely they are to engage in withdrawal. 3.2 There are three types of organizational commitment. Affective commitment occurs when employees want to stay and is influenced by the emotional bonds between employees. Continuance commitment occurs when employees need to stay and is influenced by salary and benefits and the degree to which they are embedded in the community. Normative commitment occurs when employees feel that they ought to stay and is influenced by an organization investing in its employees or engaging in charitable efforts. 3.3 Employees can respond to negative work events in four ways: exit, voice, loyalty, and neglect. Exit is a form of physical withdrawal in which the employee either ends or restricts organizational membership. Voice is an active and constructive response by which employees 82 C H A P T E R 3   Organizational Commitment attempt to improve the situation. Loyalty is passive and constructive; employees remain supportive while hoping the situation improves on its own. Neglect is a form of psychological withdrawal in which interest and effort in the job decrease. 3.4 Examples of psychological withdrawal include daydreaming, socializing, looking busy, moonlighting, and cyberloafing. Examples of physical withdrawal include tardiness, long breaks, missing meetings, absenteeism, and quitting. Consistent with the progression model, withdrawal behaviors tend to start with minor psychological forms before escalating to more major physical varieties. 3.5 The increased diversity of the workforce can reduce commitment if employees feel lower levels of affective commitment or become less embedded in their current jobs. The employee–employer relationship, which has changed due to decades of downsizing, can reduce affective and normative commitment, making it more of a challenge to retain talented employees. 3.6 Organizations can foster commitment among employees by fostering perceived organiza- tional support, which reflects the degree to which the organization cares about employees’ well-being. Commitment can also be fostered by specific initiatives directed at the three commitment types. K EY TERMS • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Organizational commitment Withdrawal behavior Affective commitment Continuance commitment Normative commitment Focus of commitment Erosion model Social influence model Embeddedness Volunteering Exit Voice Loyalty Neglect p. 62 p. 62 p. 63 p. 63 p. 63 p. 65 p. 65 p. 65 p. 68 p. 69 p. 70 p. 70 p. 70 p. 70 • • • • • • • • • • • • • Stars Citizens Lone wolves Apathetics Psychological withdrawal Physical withdrawal Independent forms model Compensatory forms model Progression model Psychological contracts Transactional contracts Relational contracts Perceived organizational support p. 70 p. 70 p. 70 p. 70 p. 72 p. 72 p. 74 p. 74 p. 74 p. 79 p. 79 p. 79 p. 79 DI SC US SION QUE STION S 3.1 Which type of organizational commitment (affective, continuance, or normative) do you think is most important to the majority of employees? Which do you think is most important to you? 3.2 Describe other ways that organizations can improve affective, continuance, and normative com- mitment, other than the strategies suggested in this chapter. How expensive are those strategies? 3.3 Consider times when you’ve reacted to a negative event with exit, voice, loyalty, or neglect. What was it about the situation that caused you to respond the way you did? Do you usually respond to negative events in the same way, or does your response vary across the four options? 3.4 Can organizations use a combination of monitoring and punishment procedures to reduce psychological and physical withdrawal? How might such programs work from a practical perspective? Do you think they would be effective? C H A P T E R 3   Organizational Commitment 3.5 Can you think of reasons the increased diversity of the workforce might actually increase organizational commitment? Why? Which of the three types of commitment might explain that sort of result? 3.6 Studies suggest that decades of downsizing have lowered organizational commitment levels. Can you think of a way that an organization can conduct layoffs without harming the commitment of the survivors? How? CASE: PWC PwC is certainly not the first group to attempt a large-scale study of Millennial attitudes. Such studies face an inherent challenge, however. Researchers have to be able to separate the effects of generation membership—Millennial, Gen-X, or Baby Boomer—from the effect of stage of life—being twenty-something, thirty-something, or forty/fifty-something. Suppose a given study showed that 25-year olds were especially attracted to firms that offered paid time off for volunteering. Is the explanation for that finding that Millennials value volunteering more than previous generations, or that twenty-somethings value it more than older employees? That’s a critical distinction because Millennials will remain members of their generation for their lifespan, whereas twenty-somethings will eventually turn into thirty-somethings. One study, published in Journal of Management, did an especially good job of teasing apart generation membership and stage of life. The study drew from an annual survey of 15,000 high school seniors—thereby holding stage of life constant. Respondents were classified as Baby Boomers if they were born between 1946 and 1964, as Gen-X if they were born between 1965 and 1981, and as Millennials if they were born between 1982 and 1999. What did the study uncover? One finding was that Millennials valued leisure time more than either Gen-X or Baby Boomers, being more likely to value “A job that leaves a lot of time for other things in your life.” Somewhat surprisingly given existing stereotypes, there were few differences across generations in valuing intrinsic rewards (“A job that is interesting to do”), altruistic rewards (“A job that gives you an opportunity to be directly helpful to others”), or social rewards (“A job that gives you a chance to make friends”). Millennials were less focused on extrinsic rewards (“A job that provides you with a chance to earn a good deal of money”) than Gen-X, but more focused on such things than Baby Boomers. The finding that Millennials value leisure time dovetails nicely with PwC’s own results. Their study showed that 95 percent of Millennials believed that work-life balance was important to them. Moreover, 25 percent of Millennials were disappointed in the work-life balance that PwC was affording them. From a loyalty perspective, those 25 percent can be viewed as “retention risks”—employees who may decide to turn over because they no longer want to stay with PwC. In response, PwC organized a top-down initiative where managers were encouraged to work with their employees to chart out a work schedule that suited them. The good news is that PwC now understands what drives loyalty among Millennials. The bad news is that future interns will soon be members of the next generation! 3.1 Compare the findings described above for Millennials to your own views on Millennial char- acteristics. What surprises you about the findings? What doesn’t surprise you? 3.2 If you think about the three types of commitment—affective, continuance, and normative— which do you think is most changed among Millennials (or twenty-somethings)? In what way? 3.3 Consider all the initiatives and programs PwC uses to inspire employee loyalty. Do most of those seek to “move the needle” on affective commitment, continuance commitment, or normative commitment? Sources: C. Groden, “Five Things You Can Do to Attract Millennial Talent,” Fortune, March 15, 2016; R. Levering, “The 100 Best Companies to Work For,” Fortune, March 15, 2016; M. Moskowitz, and R. Levering, “The 100 Best Companies to Work For,” Fortune, March 15, 2015; P. Thallner, “Where Hours Aren’t Everything,” Great Place to Work, March 29, 2016, https://www.greatplacetowork.com/blog/130-where-hours-aren-t-everything?highlight=WyJwd2MiLCJwd2MncyJd; J.M. Twenge, S.M. Campbell, B.J. Hoffman, and C.E. Lance, “Generational Differences in Work Values: Leisure and Extrinsic Values Increasing, Social and Intrinsic Values Decreasing,” Journal of Management 36, pp. 1117–42; and C. Zillman, “Hot New Perk: Paying Down Student Loans,” Fortune, March 15, 2016. 83 84 C H A P T E R 3   Organizational Commitment EXERCISE: REACTING TO NEGATIVE EVENTS The purpose of this exercise is to explore how individuals react to three all-too-common scenarios that represent negative workplace events. This exercise uses groups, so your instructor will either assign you to a group or ask you to create your own group. The exercise has the following steps: 3.1 Individually read the following three scenarios: the annoying boss, the boring job, and pay and seniority. For each scenario, write down two specific behaviors in which you would likely engage in response to that scenario. Write down what you would actually do, as opposed to what you wish you would do. For example, you may wish that you would march into your boss’s office and demand a change, but if you would actually do nothing, write down “nothing.” 3.2 In groups, compare and contrast your likely responses to the three scenarios. Come to a consensus on the two most likely responses for the group as a whole. Elect one group member to write the two likely responses to each of the three scenarios on the board or on a transparency. 3.3 Class discussion (whether in groups or as a class) should center on where the likely responses fit into the exit–voice–loyalty–neglect framework. What personal and situational factors would lead someone to one category of responses over another? Are there any responses that do not fit into the exit–voice–loyalty–neglect framework? Annoying Boss You’ve been working at your current company for about a year. Over time, your boss has become more and more annoying to you. It’s not that your boss is a bad person, or even necessarily a bad boss. It’s more a personality conflict—the way your boss talks, the way your boss manages every little thing, even the facial expressions your boss uses. The more time passes, the more you just can’t stand to be around your boss. Two likely behaviors: Boring Job You’ve been working at your current company for about a year. You’ve come to realize that your job is pretty boring. It’s the first real job you’ve ever had, and at first it was nice to have some money and something to do every day. But the “new job” excitement has worn off, and things are actually quite monotonous. Same thing every day. It’s to the point that you check your watch every hour, and Wednesdays feel like they should be Fridays. Two likely behaviors: Pay and Seniority You’ve been working at your current company for about a year. The consensus is that you’re doing a great job—you’ve gotten excellent performance evaluations and have emerged as a leader on many projects. As you’ve achieved this high status, however, you’ve come to feel that you’re underpaid. Your company’s pay procedures emphasize seniority much more than job performance. As a result, you look at other members of your project teams and see poor performers making much more than you, just because they’ve been with the company longer. Two likely behaviors: C H A P T E R 3   Organizational Commitment EN DN OTES 3.1 Shepherd, L. “Focusing Knowledge Retention on Millennials.” Workforce Management, August 2010, p. 6. 3.2 Allen, D.G.; P.C. Bryant; and J.M. Vardaman. “Retaining Talent: Replacing Misconceptions with Evidence-Based Strategies.” Academy of Management Perspectives 24 (2010), pp. 48–64. 3.3 Meyer, J.P., and N.J. Allen. Commitment in the Workplace. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1997; and Mowday, R.T.; R.M. Steers; and L.W. Porter. “The Measurement of Organizational Commitment.” Journal of Vocational Behavior 14 (1979), pp. 224–47. 3.4 Hulin, C.L. “Adapta- tion, Persistence, and Commitment in Organizations.” In Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 2, ed. M.D. Dunnette and L.M. Hough. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press, 1991, pp. 445–506. 3.5 Allen, N.J., and J.P. Meyer. “The Measurement and Antecedents of Affective, Continuance and Normative Commitment to the Organization.” Journal of Occupational Psychology 63 (1990), pp. 1–18; Meyer, J.P., and N.J. Allen. “A Three-Component Conceptualization of Organizational Commitment.” Human Resource Management Review 1 (1991), pp. 61–89; and Meyer and Allen, Commitment in the Workplace. 3.6 Ibid. 3.7 Ibid. 3.8 Meyer and Allen, Commitment in the Workplace. 3.9 Mowday et al., “The Measurement of Organizational Commitment.” 3.10 Ashforth, B.E.; S.H. Harrison; and K.G. Corley. “Identification in Organizations: An Examination of Four Fundamental Questions.” Journal of Management 34 (2008), pp. 325–74. 3.11 Ibid. 3.12 Meyer, J.P.; D.J. Stan- ley; L. Herscovitch; and L. Topolnytsky. “Affective, Continuance, and Normative Commitment to the Organization: A MetaAnalysis of Antecedents, Correlates, and Consequences.” Journal of Vocational Behavior 61 (2002), pp. 20–52. 3.13 Mathieu, J.E., and D.M. Zajac. “A Review and Meta-Analysis of the Antecedents, Correlates, and Consequences of Organizational Commitment.” Psychological Bulletin 108 (1990), pp. 171–94. 3.14 Johns, G. “The Psy- chology of Lateness, Absenteeism, and Turnover.” In Handbook of Industrial, Work, and Organizational Psychology, ed. N. Anderson; D.S. Ones; H.K. Sinangil; and C. Viswesvaran. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2001, pp. 232–52. 3.15 Ibid. 3.16 Flint, J. “Analyze This.” Bloomberg Businessweek, February 21–27, 2011, pp. 82–83. 3.17 Ladika, S. “Socially Evolved.” Workforce Management, September 2010, pp. 18–22. 3.18 Kanter, R.M. “Commitment and Social Organization: A Study of Commitment Mechanisms in Utopian Communities.” American Sociological Review 33 (1968), pp. 499–517. 3.19 Stebbins, R.A. Commit- ment to Deviance: The Nonprofessional Criminal in the Community. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1970. 3.20 Becker, H.S. “Notes on the Concept of Commitment.” American Journal of Sociology 66 (1960), pp. 32–42. 3.21 Rusbult, C.E., and D. Farrell. “A Longitudinal Test of the Investment Model: The Impact of Job Satisfaction, Job Commitment, and 85 86 C H A P T E R 3   Organizational Commitment Turnover of Variations in Rewards, Costs, Alternatives, and Investments.” Journal of Applied Psychology 68 (1983), pp. 429–38. 3.22 Meyer and Allen, Commitment in the Workplace. 3.23 Meyer et al., “Affective, Continuance, and Normative Commitment.” 3.24 Mitchell, T.R.; B.C. Holtom; T.W. Lee; C.J. Sablynski; and M. Erez. “Why People Stay: Using Job Embeddedness to Predict Voluntary Turnover.” Academy of Management Journal 44 (2001), pp. 1102–21. 3.25 Felps, W.; T.R. Mitchell; D.R. Hekman; T.W. Lee; B.C. Holtom; and W.S. Harman. “Turnover Contagion: How Coworkers’ Job Embeddedness and Job Search Behaviors Influence Quitting.” Academy of Management Journal 52 (2009), pp. 545–61; and Hom, P.W.; A.S. Tsui; J.B. Wu; T.W. Lee; A.Y. Zhang; P.P. Fu; and L. Li. “Explaining Employment Relationships with Social Exchange and Job Embeddedness.” Journal of Applied Psychology 94 (2009), pp. 277–97. 3.26 Burton, J.P.; B.C. Holtom; C.J. Sablynski; T.R. Mitchell; and T.W. Lee. “The Buffering Effects of Job Embeddedness on Negative Shocks.” Journal of Vocational Behavior 76 (2010), pp. 42–51. 3.27 Ramesh, A., and M.J. Gelfand. “Will They Stay or Will They Go? The Role of Job Embeddedness in Predicting Turnover in Individualistic and Collectivistic Cultures.” Journal of Applied Psychology 95 (2010), pp. 807–23. 3.28 Ng, T.W.H., and D.C. Feldman. “Organizational Embeddedness and Occupational Embeddedness across Career Stages.” Journal of Vocational Behavior 70 (2007), pp. 336–51. 3.29 Levering, R., and M. Moskowitz. “The 100 Best Companies to Work For.” Fortune, January 24, 2005, pp. 64–94. 3.30 Allen and Meyer, “The Measurement and Antecedents of Affective, Continuance and Normative Commitment to the Organization”; Meyer and Allen, “A Three-Component Conceptualization”; and Meyer and Allen, Commitment in the Workplace. 3.31 Wiener, Y. “Commit- ment in Organizations: A Normative View.” Academy of Management Review 7 (1982), pp. 418–28. 3.32 Meyer and Allen, “A Three-Component Conceptualization.” 3.33 Rodell, J.B. “Finding Meaning through Volunteering: Why Do Employees Volunteer and What Does It Mean for Their Jobs?” Academy of Management Journal 56 (2013), pp. 1274–94. 3.34 Rodell, J.B., and J.W. Lynch. “Perceptions of Employee Volunteering: Is It ‘Credited’ or ‘Stigmatized’ by Colleagues?” Academy of Management Journal 56 (2016), pp. 611–35. 3.35 Grow, B. “The Debate over Doing Good.” BusinessWeek, August 15, 2005, pp. 76–78. 3.36 Ibid. 3.37 Rafter, M.V. “Appealing to Workers’ Civic Side.” Workforce Management, August 2010, p. 3. 3.38 Frauenheim, E. “The Manager Question.” Workforce Management, April 2010, pp. 19–24. 3.39 Hirschman, A.O. Exit, Voice, and Loyalty: Responses to Decline in Firms, Organizations, and States. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1970; and Farrell, D. “Exit, Voice, Loyalty, and Neglect as Responses to Job Dissatisfaction: A Multidimensional Scaling Study.” Academy of Management Journal 26 (1983), pp. 596–607. 3.40 Hirschman, Exit, Voice, and Loyalty; Farrell, “Exit, Voice, Loyalty, and Neglect”; and Rusbult, C.E.; D. Farrell; C. Rogers; and A.G. Mainous III. “Impact of Exchange Variables on Exit, Voice, Loyalty, and Neglect: An Integrating Model of Responses to Declining Job C H A P T E R 3   Organizational Commitment Satisfaction.” Academy of Management Journal 31 (1988), pp. 599–627. 3.41 Ibid. 3.42 Ibid. 3.43 Farrell, “Exit, Voice, Loyalty, and Neglect”; and Rusbult et al., “Impact of Exchange Variables.” 3.44 Withey, M.J., and W.H. Cooper. “Predicting Exit, Voice, Loyalty, and Neglect.” Administrative Science Quarterly 34 (1989), pp. 521–39; and Burris, E.R.; J.R. Detert; and D.S. Chiaburu. “Quitting Before Leaving: The Mediating Effects of Psychological and Detachment on Voice.” Journal of Applied Psychology 93 (2008), pp. 912–22. 3.45 Griffeth, R.W.; S. Gaertner; and J.K. Sager. “Taxonomic Model of Withdrawal Behaviors: The Adaptive Response Model.” Human Resource Management Review 9 (1999), pp. 577–90. 3.46 Ibid. 3.47 Ibid. 3.48 Ibid. 3.49 Cherrington, D. The Work Ethic. New York: AMACOM, 1980. 3.50 Hulin, C.L.; M. Roznowski; and D. Hachiya. “Alternative Opportunities and Withdrawal Decisions: Empirical and Theoretical Discrepancies and an Integration.” Psychological Bulletin 97 (1985), pp. 233–50. 3.51 Fisher, A. “Turning Clock-Watchers into Stars.” Fortune, March 22, 2004, p. 60. 3.52 Hulin et al., “Alterna- tive Opportunities and Withdrawal Decisions.” 3.53 Lim, V.K.G. “The IT Way of Loafing on the Job: Cyberloafing, Neutralizing, and Organizational Justice.” Journal of Organizational Behavior 23 (2002), pp. 675–94. 3.54 Jackson, M. “May We Have Your Attention, Please?” BusinessWeek, June 23, 2008, p. 55. 3.60 Blau, G. “Develop- ing and Testing a Taxonomy of Lateness Behavior.” Journal of Applied Psychology 79 (1994), pp. 959–70. 3.61 Muchinsky, P.M. “Employee Absenteeism: A Review of the Literature.” Journal of Vocational Behavior 10 (1977), pp. 316–40; and Harrison, D.A. “Time for Absenteeism: A 20-Year Review of Origins, Offshoots, and Outcomes.” Journal of Management 24 (1998), pp. 305–50. 3.62 Fichman, M. “Motiva- Given Monday.” Bloomberg Businessweek, September 13–19, 2010, pp. 81–83. tional Consequences of Absence and Attendance: Proportional Hazard Estimation of a Dynamic Motivation Model.” Journal of Applied Psychology 73 (1988), pp. 119–34. 3.56 Gerdes, L. “Nothin’ But 3.63 Martocchio, J.J., and 3.55 Spitznagel, E. “Any Net.” BusinessWeek, March 26, 2007, p. 16. 3.57 Source: Lim, Vivien KG. “The IT way of loafing on the job: cyberloafing, neutralizing and organizational justice.” Journal of Organizational Behavior 23.5 (2002): 675-694. 3.58 Hulin et al., “Alterna- tive Opportunities and Withdrawal Decisions.” 3.59 Koslowsky, M.; A. Sagie; M. Krausz; and A.D. Singer. “Correlates of Employee Lateness: Some Theoretical Considerations.” Journal of Applied Psychology 82 (1997), pp. 79–88. D.I. Jimeno. “Employee Absenteeism as an Affective Event.” Human Resource Management Review 13 (2003), pp. 227–41. 3.64 Nicholson, N., and G. Johns. “The Absence Climate and the Psychological Contract: Who’s in Control of Absence?” Academy of Management Review 10 (1985), pp. 397–407. 3.65 Spitznagel, E. “The Sick-Day Bounty Hunters.” Bloomberg Businessweek, December 6–12, 2010, pp. 93–95. 3.66 Lucas, S. “The Shock and Awe of IKEA’s 87 88 C H A P T E R 3   Organizational Commitment Employee Spying Program.” Inc., December, 2013. 3.67 Ibid. 3.68 Campion, M.A. “Meaning and Measurement of Turnover: Comparison of Alternative Measures and Recommendations for Research.” Journal of Applied Psychology 76 (1991), pp. 199–212. 3.69 Lee, T.W., and T.R. Mitchell. “An Alternative Approach: The Unfolding Model of Voluntary Employee Turnover.” Academy of Management Review 19 (1994), pp. 51–89; Lee, T.W., and T.R. Mitchell. “An Unfolding Model of Voluntary Employee Turnover.” Academy of Management Journal 39 (1996), pp. 5–36; Lee, T.W.; T.R. Mitchell; B.C. Holtom; L.S. McDaniel; and J.W. Hill. “The Unfolding Model of Voluntary Turnover: A Replication and Extension.” Academy of Management Journal 42 (1999), pp. 450–62; and Lee, T.H.; B. Gerhart; I. Weller; and C.O. Trevor. “Understanding Voluntary Turnover: Path-Specific Job Satisfaction Effects and the Importance of Unsolicited Job Offers.” Academy of Management Journal 51 (2008), pp. 651–71. 3.70 Mobley, W. “Intermedi- ate Linkages in the Relationship Between Job Satisfaction and Employee Turnover.” Journal of Applied Psychology 62 (1977), pp. 237–40; and Hom, P.W.; R. Griffeth; and C.L. Sellaro. “The Validity of Mobley’s (1977) Model of Employee Turnover.” Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 34 (1984), pp. 141–74. 3.71 Lee and Mitchell, “An Alternative Approach”; Lee and Mitchell, “An Unfolding Model of Voluntary Employee Turnover”; Lee and Mitchell, “The Unfolding Model of Voluntary Turnover”; and Porter, L.W., and R.M. Steers. “Organizational, Work, and Personal Factors in Employee Turnover and Absenteeism.” Psychological Bulletin 80 (1973), pp. 151–76. 3.72 Johns, “The Psychology of Lateness, Absenteeism, and Turnover.” 3.73 Rosse, J.G. “Relations among Lateness, Absence, and Turnover: Is There a Progression of Withdrawal?” Human Relations 41 (1988), pp. 517–31. 3.74 Mitra, A.; G.D. Jenkins Jr.; and N. Gupta. “A Meta-Analytic Review of the Relationship Between Absence and Turnover.” Journal of Applied Psychology 77 (1992), p. 879–89; Koslowsky et al., “Correlates of Employee Lateness”; and Griffeth, R.W.; P.W. Hom; and S. Gaertner. “A Meta-Analysis of Antecedents and Correlates of Employee Turnover: Update, Moderator Tests, and Research Implications for the Next Millennium.” Journal of Management 26 (2000), pp. 463–88. 3.75 Koslowsky et al., “Cor- relates of Employee Lateness.” 3.76 Burns, C.; K. Barton; and S. Kerby. “The State of Diversity in Today’s Workforce.” Center for American Progress, July 2012. 3.77 Ibid. 3.78 Coy, P. “Old. Smart. Productive.” BusinessWeek, June 27, 2005, pp. 78–86. 3.79 Fisher, A. “Holding on to Global Talent.” BusinessWeek, October 31, 2005, p. 202. 3.80 Fisher, “Holding on to Global Talent.” 3.81 Morris, J.R.; W.F. Cascio; and C.E. Young. “Downsizing after All These Years: Questions and Answers about Who Did It, How Many Did It, and Who Benefited from It.” Organizational Dynamics 27 (1999), pp. 78–87. 3.82 Ibid. 3.83 Devine, K.; T. Reay; L. Stainton; and R. Collins-Nakai. “Downsizing Outcomes: Better a Victim Than a Survivor?” Human Resource C H A P T E R 3   Organizational Commitment Management 42 (2003), pp. 109–24. 3.84 Ibid. 3.85 Conlin, M. “When the Laid-Off Are Better Off.” BusinessWeek, November 2, 2009, p. 65. 3.86 Rousseau, D.M. “Psy- chological and Implied Contracts in Organizations.” Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal 2 (1989), pp. 121–39. 3.87 Rousseau, D.M. “New Hire Perceptions of Their Own and Their Employer’s Obligations: A Study of Psychological Contracts.” Journal of Organizational Behavior 11 (1990), pp. 389–400; Robinson, S.L.; M.S. Kraatz; and D.M. Rousseau. “Changing Obligations and the Psychological Contract: A Longitudinal Study.” Academy of Management Journal 37 (1994), pp. 137–52; and Robinson, S.L., and E.W. Morrison. “Psychological Contracts and OCB: The Effect of Unfulfilled Obligations on Civic Virtue Behavior.” Journal of Organizational Behavior 16 (1995), pp. 289–98. 3.88 Ibid. 3.89 Robinson, S.L. “Violat- ing the Psychological Contract: Not the Exception but the Norm.” Journal of Organizational Behavior 15 (1994), pp. 245–59; Robinson, S.L. “Trust and Breach of the Psychological Contract.” Administrative Science Quarterly 41 (1996), pp. 574–99; Zhao, H.; S.J. Wayne; B.C. Glibkowski; and J. Bravo. “The Impact of Psychological Contract Breach on WorkRelated Outcomes: A Meta-Analysis.” Personnel Psychology 60 (2007), pp. 647–80; and Bal, P.M.; A.H. De Lange; P.G.W. Jansen; and M.E.G. Van der Velde. “Psychological Contract Breach and Job Attitudes: A MetaAnalysis of Age as a Moderator.” Journal of Vocational Behavior 72 (2008), pp. 143–58. 3.90 Eisenberger, R.; R. Huntington; S. Hutchison; and D. Sowa. “Perceived Organizational Support.” Journal of Applied Psychology 71 (1986), p…


(USA, AUS, UK & CA PhD. Writers)


The Best Custom Essay Writing Service

About Our Service

We are an online academic writing company that connects talented freelance writers with students in need of their services. Unlike other writing companies, our team is made up of native English speakers from countries such as the USA, UK, Canada, Australia, Ireland, and New Zealand.

Qualified Writers

Our Guarantees: