An event-based perspective on the development of commitment

Human Resource Management Review 23 (2013) 148–160

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Human Resource Management Review journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/humres

An event-based perspective on the development of commitment☆ Mindy E. Bergman a,⁎, Justin K. Benzer b, Adam H. Kabins a, Alok Bhupatkar c, Daria Panina d a b c d

Department of Psychology, Texas A&M University, United States VA Boston Healthcare System and Boston University, United States American Institutes for Research, United States Department of Management, Texas A&M University, United States

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Keywords: Commitment Events Organizational commitment Values

a b s t r a c t This paper proposes a new perspective on the development of commitment. We propose that organizational events are evaluated relative to a person's values to determine whether the person fits or misfits the organization. The fit information is then organized into commitment elements, which reflect the extent to which workplace events fit (relative to misfit) a particular value across events over time. We propose that elements are organized around values, not events, such that values are the main effect and events are the moderators of said effect on elements. Elements are, in turn, formative indicators of the latent commitment construct. They are the proximal causes of commitment. Multiple elements contribute to a single commitment and they are weighted via the value hierarchy. Our perspective contributes to the literature by: (a) being developmental; (b) focusing on events; and, (c) having implications for both within-person and between-person questions about commitment development. © 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction Despite considerable theoretical and empirical attention to the antecedents of commitment (Cooper-Hakim & Viswesvaran, 2005; Meyer & Allen, 1997; Meyer, Allen, & Smith, 1993; Meyer & Herscovitch, 2001; Meyer, Stanley, Herscovitch, & Topolnytsky, 2002), little is known about how commitment develops over time (Beck & Wilson, 2001; Bergman, 2006). Most research to date on the causes of workplace commitments has focused on either antecedents of commitment or bases of commitment, rather than the development of commitment. Antecedents of commitment are individual or workplace characteristics that have been empirically linked to commitment in cross-sectional studies, but may or may not be causes of commitment (Meyer et al., 2002). Examples of antecedents of commitment include age, locus of control, positive workplace experiences, and role conflict (Meyer et al., 2002). Bases of commitment are processes that have been proposed to contribute to the development of specific mindsets of commitment (Meyer, Becker, & Vandenberghe, 2004) or to commitment as a whole (Mowday, Porter, & Steers, 1982). Several bases of commitment are typically described (e.g., identification, socialization, internalization, and investments), but little research has actually examined these processes in the development of commitment (Bergman, 2006). Further, bases are oftentimes part of the definition of commitment itself (Meyer & Allen, 1997; Mowday et al., 1982; O'Reilly & Chatman, 1986), creating construct confusion (Klein, Molloy, & Cooper, 2009). Finally, some of the bases of commitment (e.g., familial and cultural socializations; Meyer & Allen, 1997) are difficult if not impossible to measure as causal, developmental processes by the time people join organizations and become part of research populations in the organizational sciences. The lack of attention to the development of commitment has hindered the progress of commitment research. The purpose of this paper is to describe a theoretical model of how commitment develops through values that are activated by organizational events. By development, we mean the causal processes (Beck & Wilson, 2001) that transform input information ☆ The authors wish to thank Howard Klein for his invaluable support, constructive criticism, and encouragement in the development of this work. ⁎ Corresponding author. E-mail address: [email protected] (M.E. Bergman). 1053-4822/$ – see front matter © 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2012.07.005

M.E. Bergman et al. / Human Resource Management Review 23 (2013) 148–160

149

Fig. 1. Summary of the proposed framework on the development of commitment.

into commitments over time, and how these commitments become not only relatively stable but also amenable to change. This framework is explicitly causal, not merely correlational. Our individual-centered perspective addresses the development of commitment both at the event level (a.k.a., momentary experience; Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996) and at a summative level, creating a coherent explanation of the development of commitment across intra-individual levels of analysis (i.e., events nested within individuals) over time. The major contribution of our work is the focus on how event-by-event experiences in the workplace inform workers about the organization (or other potential foci) as an object of commitment and how these events, due to their relationship with values, build commitment over time. Our meta-theoretical framework positions events and values as distal antecedents of commitment (Fig. 1). We suggest that the values and goals1 that a person holds are the most important individual differences for commitment and the hierarchical arrangement of these values and goals is essential to understanding the development of commitment. We further propose that the fit of these events to values provides information to workers about a new concept that we call commitment elements, which are more proximal causes of commitment. Elements reflect the extent to which workplace events fit (relative to misfit) a particular value across events over time. We propose that people make sense of the various events relative to their values via person–environment fit processes. That is, new information is organized into elements that summarize information regarding fit or misfit relative to a particular value. Then, multiple elements are weighted and summed to create commitment to a particular target. The weighting of elements reflects the position of the relevant values in the values hierarchy, such that values that are higher in the hierarchy are weighted more heavily. This information and the subsequent elements are necessarily evaluative, because fit/misfit is not simply knowledge but also perceived as good/bad, useful/not useful, etc. It is not simply affective – although affect can be a part – because one can fit with and/or be committed to something one does not like. Explicating this process is the major goal of this paper. Our perspective differs from the previous research and theory on the causes of commitment in three ways. First, our framework focuses on how the interaction between momentary events and values creates commitment. The role of individual differences in commitment has generally been overlooked in the commitment literature (cf. Bergman, Benzer, & Henning, 2009), but we propose that it is a central factor in how commitment develops. As a consequence, our framework has both within-person and between-person implications. Second, our framework incorporates a clear and well-established mechanism (person– environment fit) to explain how values and events are transformed into commitment. Third, our perspective is explicitly developmental, as the focus of the framework is on how events lead people to gain commitments where commitments did not previously exist as well as how those commitments become relatively stable but still amenable to change over time. Although we appeal to “workplace experiences” as previous research has, the reason why workplace experiences matter is clearly articulated. To that end, we review several theories that are relevant to our perspective, including trait activation theory (Tett & Burnett, 2003; Tett & Guterman, 2000), person–environment (PE) fit theory (Kristof, 1996; Kristof-Brown & Guay, 2010; Kristof-Brown et al., 2005), and affective events theory (Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996). Then we describe our perspective whereby person–event interactions cause the creation of commitment elements that are formative indicators of latent commitment and, possibly, other bonds (Klein, Molloy, & Brinsfield, 2012). Next, we examine how commitment elements and the ultimate commitment become relatively stable yet also malleable to change over time. We then provide an exemplar application of our framework to the concept of normative commitment (Meyer, Becker, & van Dick, 2006). Finally, we discuss a research agenda and practical implications for this framework. But first, we turn briefly to a review of the prevailing conceptualization of commitment as well as a recent alternative view that positions commitment as one form of bond that people can experience in the workplace. We also briefly review previous efforts on the development of commitment.

2. Commitment and its development The prevailing conceptualization of commitment was developed by Meyer and colleagues (Meyer & Allen, 1991, 1997; Meyer et al., 2004, 2006; Meyer & Herscovitch, 2001; Meyer & Parfyonova, 2010). According to Meyer and Herscovitch (2001),

1 For simplicity throughout the remainder of the paper, we will refer to values and the value hierarchy to represent both goal and value hierarchies due to the linkages between the two described by Locke (1991).

150

M.E. Bergman et al. / Human Resource Management Review 23 (2013) 148–160

commitment is “a force that binds an individual to a course of action of relevance to one or more targets” (p. 301). Further, Meyer and Herscovitch (2001) proposed that the force of commitment is experienced as a mindset, “a frame of mind or psychological state that compels an individual toward a course of action” (p. 303). Thus, in Meyer's theory, mindsets are the way that the force of commitment is experienced by the individual. Although recent developments in Meyer and colleagues' theory have questioned whether there are two, three, four, or five mindsets (Meyer et al., 2004, 2006; Meyer & Parfyonova, 2010), historically three mindsets have been described. Affective commitment (AC) is the mindset reflecting the affective and affiliative bond toward the organization characterized by a personal involvement (Allen & Meyer, 1990; Meyer & Allen, 1997; Mowday et al., 1982; O'Reilly & Chatman, 1986). AC is often described as maintaining a relationship because one “wants to.” Continuance commitment (CC) is described as maintaining a relationship because one “has to.” CC represents a calculative mindset oriented toward perceived costs of leaving the organization (Becker, 1960). Finally, normative commitment (NC) is a mindset of perceived obligations via socially-based exchanges and is often described as maintaining a relationship because one “should.” Very recently, Klein et al. (2012) proposed that commitment is one of a variety of bonds or attachments that a person can develop in the workplace. Their theory distinguishes commitment (“a volitional psychological bond reflecting dedication to and responsibility for a particular target”; p. 16) from other bonds, such as identification and acquiescence, and draws distinctions between their theory of bonds and other conceptualizations of commitment (e.g., Meyer & Herscovitch, 2001; Mowday et al., 1982; O'Reilly & Chatman, 1986). Because Klein et al.'s theory is so new, there is no empirical evidence at the time of this writing to draw upon to demonstrate how their perspective supports or contradicts our own. We contend that our framework can be applied to any attachment to the organization, whether commitment is accompanied by mindsets (Meyer & Allen, 1997; Meyer & Herscovitch, 2001; Meyer et al., 2006) or is among a continuum of bonds (Klein et al., 2012). The proposition that commitment is a form of attachment that influences actions relevant to a target is common to both conceptualizations and serves as our definition. Our framework explains how commitment arises based on the experiences people have in the workplace and the individual differences people have in their values and goals. Further, both Klein et al.'s (2012) work and Meyer and colleagues' (Meyer & Allen, 1997; Meyer & Herscovitch, 2001; Meyer et al., 2004, 2006;) conceptualization of commitment can be applied to all potential targets of commitment, also known as foci. Although we generally draw on the organizational literature to develop our perspective, we believe that our framework can be applied to any potential focus of commitment (e.g., organization, job, goals, coworkers). We will address this issue further in the discussion of directions for future research. 3. The development of commitment Although much of the work on the causes of commitment focuses on antecedents or bases of commitment rather than developmental processes, some theory and empirical work have addressed the development of commitment. Mowday et al. (1982) suggested a reciprocal relationship between attitudinal commitment and committing behaviors, such that the actions and the attitudes reinforced each other. Further, Mowday et al. (1982) proposed that satisfaction of goals and values leads to commitment, even suggesting that early (i.e., pre-employment and first day) commitment was likely to be based on perceived value congruence between the person and the organization and perceived likelihood of meeting goals on the job; these ideas are clearly forerunners to our work. Meyer and Allen (1997) argued that exchange processes underlie much of commitment, with social exchange in particular underpinning affective and normative commitment and economic exchange and side bets (Becker, 1960) leading to continuance commitment. Further, several authors have demonstrated either changes in commitment over time or differences in commitment across age or tenure cohorts (Allen & Meyer, 1993; Beck & Wilson, 2000; Gregersen, 1993; Lee, Ashford, Walsh, & Mowday, 1992; Morrow & McElroy, 1987; Porter, Steers, Mowday, & Boulian, 1974; Vandenberg & Self, 1993), providing evidence that commitment does indeed develop. Our work differs from this previous work by focusing on the micro-level events that contribute to the development of commitment, by providing clear explanatory mechanisms for the integration of events and person factors into commitment, and by describing how commitment levels can stabilize. Further, our work has an explicit within-person focus, which is essential to understanding developmental trajectories (Beck & Wilson, 2001), rather than focusing on between-person differences in antecedents of commitment. To be clear, our work also has between-person implications, such that individuals who have higher levels of antecedent conditions (e.g., a greater number of positive events fitting with values) should develop higher commitment than those people who have lower levels of antecedent conditions. But the major focus of our work is the developmental trajectory of commitment within person, such that we attempt to explain how individuals come to have commitments where none previously existed as well as how commitments can change once they are established. We turn now to our framework on the development of commitment. 4. A new perspective on the development of commitment Our perspective on the development of commitment was inspired by Meyer and Parfyonova (2010), who noted that value congruence and person–environment (PE) fit are vital factors in the development of commitment, and by Weiss and Rupp's (2011) essay on the psychology of working, which argued that organizational science researchers should embrace a paradigm that honors and examines the phenomenological experiences of people while they are working and how they integrate the information that arises from those experiences. Our theoretical framework focuses on values interacting

M.E. Bergman et al. / Human Resource Management Review 23 (2013) 148–160

151

with organizational events to provide information to the individual regarding their fit to the organization. Individuals make sense of this event-level information to create commitment elements, which we define as the extent to which workplace events fit a particular value. These elements are formative (i.e., causal) indicators of the latent commitment construct. Elements are idiosyncratically weighted, based on value hierarchies, to create commitment. A summary of this perspective appears in Fig. 1. Our view on the development of commitment draws on trait activation theory (Tett & Burnett, 2003; Tett & Guterman, 2000) and PE fit theory (Kristof, 1996; Kristof-Brown & Guay, 2010; Kristof-Brown et al., 2005) to describe how organizational events activate values and in turn create idiosyncratic experiences. The concept of events is drawn from affective events theory (Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996) and the experience sampling (a.k.a., ecological momentary assessment) literature (Beal & Weiss, 2003). In this paradigm, an event is a momentary experience, whether behavioral, psychological, or situational (Beal & Weiss, 2003). “Momentary” is not meant to indicate the fleetingness of nanoseconds, but rather relatively short-term episodes within daily life (e.g., attending a meeting; receiving praise from a supervisor; being presented with a birthday card by coworkers; failing to turn in a project at deadline). The notion of “momentary” distinguishes this paradigm from traditional paradigms where broad attitudes capturing months, years, or careers are the research focus (Weiss & Rupp, 2011). As we will propose below, events provide information to workers relative to their values. We assume for the purposes of our perspective that workers attribute organizationally-based events to organizational life to some extent. That is, we assume that workers believe that events do not happen randomly in organizations, but rather represent the organization's characteristics (e.g., culture, climate) and agents (e.g., supervisors, top management team) and thus are useful for evaluating their fit to the organization. We turn first to trait activation theory to explain why some events matter to commitment development and others do not.

4.1. Trait activation theory and values for work Trait activation theory (Tett & Burnett, 2003; Tett & Guterman, 2000) is a person–situation theory of behavior in which behavior is proposed to be influenced by trait-relevant cues that appear in particular situations. Essentially, the theory proposes that people have many characteristics, only some of which are relevant to particular situations. For example, workers sitting alone have little opportunity to showcase their level of agreeableness, but when they are working on a team project, agreeableness is clearly relevant. When trait-relevant events occur, the individual difference is activated; that is, the individual difference becomes salient and provides an idiosyncratic background against which behavior occurs and the organizational event is judged. For simplicity, we refer to an organizational event–individual difference interaction (i.e., an organizational event that activates an individual difference) as an experience. Although trait activation theory focuses on traits and their effect on behavior, we apply the basic conceptual framework here to commitment (rather than behavior) and to individual differences beyond personality traits. Although any individual difference could be relevant to the development of commitment, we specifically focus on values and goals, proposing that workplace events that activate values are especially important to the development of commitment. Values serve as the link between needs (i.e., innate drives that individuals seek to satisfy) and actions (i.e., chosen behaviors one makes to satisfy those needs) in Locke's (1991) motivation sequence. Further, Locke argued that goals are the manifestation of values such that people strive for what they value and that goals “can be viewed as applications of values to specific situations” (p. 292; see also Vallacher & Wegner, 1987). Values, then, are the conscious link between needs and values whereby idiosyncratically defined values serve as a guide for judgment and future action. Values can take the form of attitude (achievement; McClelland, Atkinson, Clark, & Lowell, 1976), belief (religion), or desire for certain objects (money; Locke, 1991). As will become clear and important later, values and goals are organized hierarchically such that those higher in the hierarchy are more important to the person and take precedence over those lower in the hierarchy; thus, the values hierarchy is depicted separately from values in Fig. 1. Although any values can be satisfied via the employment relationship, two molar categories of values for work have been described: instrumental and psychological. Instrumental values of work “provide for the necessities of life” (MacArov, 1987) whereas psychological values of work serve to meet needs and values beyond instrumental/economic ones (Kalleberg, 1977). Many instrumental and psychological values of work are likely to be similar across people. As an example, many people's instrumental values likely include the economic implications of work, both in the short term (e.g., pay) as well as the somewhat longer term (e.g., training for possible advancement; becoming vested in a retirement plan). In contrast, psychological values of work likely include the so-called higher order needs such as self-esteem and belongingness (Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Locke, 1991; Maslow, 1954, 1968). Drawing on trait activation theory, we propose that although many events occur throughout a workday, only some of which are relevant to the values of work subscribed to by a worker. When events are irrelevant to an individual's values, those traits are not activated and no additional information is integrated into commitment elements. However, when events are relevant to a value, then that value is activated and information about the fit of the event to the person's value is gleaned from the experience. Thus, experiences are tied directly to values for work. Proposition 1. Experiences are organized around values, not events. We propose that when organizational events arise that are relevant to values of work, individuals evaluate the fit of those events with their values for work. The congruence of events and values (i.e., situations and traits in trait activation theory) are evaluated in ways consistent with PE fit theory. We turn to this next.

152

M.E. Bergman et al. / Human Resource Management Review 23 (2013) 148–160

5. PE fit theory The basic notion of PE fit is that there is a “match” between the person and the environment (Kristof, 1996; Kristof-Brown & Guay, 2010; Kristof-Brown et al., 2005). PE fit can take one of two general forms: complementary and supplementary. Complementary fit occurs when either the environment supplies something that the individual needs (i.e., needs-supplies fit) or the individual has abilities and skills that meet the environment's requirements or demands (i.e., demands–abilities fit). In contrast, supplementary fit developed from the literature on value congruence and is defined as when the environment and the individual are similar or match on important characteristics, like values (Cable & Edwards, 2004; Kristof, 1996; Kristof-Brown & Guay, 2010; Muchinsky & Monahan, 1987). We propose that trait activation theory and PE fit theory together explain how people transform event-level work experiences into commitment elements. When instrumental and psychological values of work are activated via organizational events, the worker evaluates whether the events signal that valued or desired outcomes have been provided and/or are more likely in the future. Following from PE fit theory, when the organizational event provides a valued outcome or makes future provisions more likely, there is fit between the person and the organization; when an event (a) does not provide the valued outcome, (b) indicates that a valued outcome is less likely in the future, or even (c) takes away a valued outcome, then there is misfit between the person and the organization. Both supplementary and complementary fit processes are important in evaluating the fit of events to values. Which process is appropriate and useful depends on the particular experience and might be difficult to determine a priori. For example, psychological values and their associated events could be evaluated via supplementary fit or complementary fit. A value for belongingness could be fulfilled via events that demonstrate to the worker that she is welcome, liked, and popular with coworkers. These events and the value for belongingness are likely to be evaluated via complementary fit processes (specifically, needs–supplies fit). In contrast, a value of community involvement might be supported via events such as corporate giving programs, corporate participation in Make a Difference Day, and corporate volunteer programs. Such programs would be evaluated for their fit to the person's values via supplementary fit processes because they signal that the organization and the person hold the same values and not that the organization is providing something that the person lacks. Further, it may be the case that the lack of events to activate a particular value of work throughout one's organizational tenure could be construed by the worker as a sign of misfit; that is, misfit could be perceived not only in the presence of events that negate values but also in the absence of events that match values. For example, a worker might believe that organizations should contribute to the local community; even if the organization does not actively turn down such opportunities, failing to seek out such charitable opportunities might be construed by workers as a sign of misfit between themselves and their organizations. In sum, when an event activates a value, the experience is evaluated via the PE fit process. When there is fit between the event and the value, positive information contributes to the commitment element. When there is misfit between the event and the value, negative information contributes to the commitment element. Events that are irrelevant to a person's characteristics do not provide information toward commitment elements because the event does not activate any traits (Tett & Burnett, 2003). Proposition 2. Experiences are evaluated via fit processes. Events that fit to values provide positive information to commitment elements whereas events that misfit with values provide negative information to commitment elements.

6. Commitment elements As stated above, elements reflect the extent to which workplace events fit (vs. misfit) a particular value across events over time. Based on trait activation theory and PE fit theory, we have proposed that when organizational events are relevant to values, they are evaluated as either fitting (i.e., congruent; meeting the attendant requirements) or misfitting (i.e., incongruent; not meeting the attendant requirements) the value. This provides information to the worker as to whether the organization is meeting the values (and therefore the needs and goals; Locke, 1991) of the worker. Fit feeds positive information to the elements whereas misfit feeds negative information to the elements. Proposition 3. Commitment elements are organized around values, not events.

6.1. How elements are related to commitment Each commitment is derived from a variety of elements that are predicated on values–events interactions. These elements are formative indicators of the latent commitment bond. Most psychological constructs and measures are developed as reflective models, whereby the latent construct causes the observable manifestations that are then measured (Edwards, 2001; Edwards & Bagozzi, 2000; Jarvis, MacKenzie, & Podsakoff, 2003; MacCallum & Browne, 1993; Treiblmaier, Bentler, & Mair, 2011). For example, conscientiousness is conceptualized as a latent construct that causes people to be on time for work, to be neat, and to follow through on promises; each behavior is a reflective indicator of the latent conscientiousness, because the latent personality construct is the cause of the behavior. If the level of conscientiousness changes, then conscientious behavior will also change. In contrast, a formative model is one in which indicators cause the latent construct; changes in the latent construct occur because of changes in the indicators. For example, a child's socioeconomic status is a latent construct caused by such variables as parental

M.E. Bergman et al. / Human Resource Management Review 23 (2013) 148–160

153

education and family income, not the reverse. As another example, sexual harassment events create the overall, latent sexual harassment experience; it is not the overall experience that causes people to be sexually harassed. We propose a formative model here because the combination of organizational experiences and values creates the commitment elements and not the other way around; having developed a particular commitment element does not cause the organization to express particular values or enact particular events. Further, elements cause commitment, intervening between the organizational experiences–values interaction and commitment. In other words, we have explicated a causal model of commitment, where the proximal causes are commitment elements and the distal causes are organizational event–value interactions (i.e., experiences). Proposition 4. Elements are formative (i.e., causal) indicators of the latent commitment construct. 7. Multiple values, events, and elements Our perspective acknowledges that people's day-to-day work experiences are filled with events that cue them to the organization's values, resources, and other relevant characteristics (Weiss & Rupp, 2011) that may provide information relevant to commitment elements and commitment. Individuals are informed regularly and incrementally about how they fit with the organization (Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996; Weiss & Rupp, 2011) and have multiple values that are relevant to the workplace (Kalleberg, 1977; MacArov, 1987). Thus, it is important to recognize that multiple events contribute to each commitment element. Although an element begins to develop following a single event, subsequent events further inform the person regarding fit to the organization. The fit or misfit of the preponderance of events will determine whether an element signals that one should commit (i.e., more fit experiences than misfit experiences) or not (i.e., more misfit experiences than fit experiences). Up to this point, we have not explicitly discussed how the multiplicity of values, events, and elements eventually lead to commitment. That is, how are these multiple streams of information managed? Following Fig. 1, we discuss each link in turn. 7.1. Multiple values and multiple experiences A single event can activate more than one value of work and be congruent with some and incongruent with others. This is because events can be complex phenomena and can be construed in different ways by different people (Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996). When a single event activates multiple values, then that event informs multiple commitment elements. For example, if an organization has a “good ol' boys” climate, then the organization might not only act in ways that encourage the development of broad social networks (congruent with extraversion) but also exclude particular kinds of people (the antithesis of the equality value). For a person who is both an extravert and esteems equality as a value, such a situation would result in positive information for one element (linked to extraversion) and negative information for another element (linked to equality). Proposition 5. A single event can activate more than one value. 7.2. Multiple elements and commitment Locke (1991) argued that when considering in-the-moment behavior, people can only actively pursue one goal at a time, even if they have multiple goals in mind. Locke (1991) also argued that goals and values are arranged hierarchically such that when two goals are in conflict (i.e., two goals that a person wishes to pursue simultaneously), the goal reflecting a value that is higher in the person's value hierarchy is the one that will take precedence. From this perspective, we expect that when elements are combined to create commitment, they should be weighted based on their position in the value hierarchy, such that elements based in values higher in the hierarchy should be weighted more heavily in the development of commitment than those lower in the value hierarchy. There are likely to be numerous instrumental and psychological elements for each person and their position in the value hierarchy will vary across people. Because multiple experiences can contribute to a single commitment element and multiple elements contribute to a single commitment, the recognition that there is a value hierarchy to which experiences and elements are linked is essential to understanding how commitment is developed. Elements will be most influential in determining commitment if they are ranked high in an individual's value hierarchy (Kluger & DeNisi, 1996; Vallacher & Wegner, 1987). That is, people place a premium on those values that reflect their true and central nature more so than those that are less representative of their core selves. Proposition 6. Elements that are related to values higher in the person's value hierarchy will have greater influence on the development of commitment. Importantly, individual differences in value hierarchies can help explain why two people with similar workplace experiences might develop different commitment. First, people differ in the extent to which they value particular workplace experiences because they differ in their instrumental and psychological values of work. Second, even if two people have the same values for work, the values are not necessarily arrayed in the same hierarchy. Two people might have the same experiences of fit and misfit, yet Person A fits on values higher in the hierarchy while Person B fits on values lower in the hierarchy. In this case, Person A would develop a higher level of that commitment element than would Person B.

154

M.E. Bergman et al. / Human Resource Management Review 23 (2013) 148–160

8. Time, development, and change Thus far, we have focused on the process through which experiences inform the development of commitment elements and subsequent commitment, arguing that events are evaluated relative to values via the PE fit process. We now revisit this process to explain not only how commitment stabilizes but also how it can change over time. Above, we suggested that early experiences were highly influential in the development of commitment elements because when they occur, they are among the few pieces of information that individuals have access to regarding the fit of events to values. As experiences accumulate, the total amount of information that underlies commitment elements increases (Vandenberg & Self, 1993). Over time and as experiences converge (through the fit process) on a particular level of commitment element, subsequent events will have lesser impact on the development of commitment elements because of the incremental nature of information (Weick, 1995) and the primacy effect (Ebbinghaus, 1913; Murdock, 1962). Thus, in the early stages of one's tenure with an organization, commitment elements and subsequent commitment should develop relatively quickly through a somewhat volatile period and then stabilize once sufficient experiences occur. When we use the word stabilize in this context, we do not mean to imply that there is no variance in experiences or elements over time, but rather that the variances are relatively small and the means of the elements and commitment following a new event are the same, or nearly so, to the means that existed prior to the new event. Proposition 7. Experiences that lead to the same element will be weighted to reflect the amount of information these interactions provide relative to the amount of information the person already has. The notion that commitment elements and commitment stabilize over time is predicated on three assumptions. The first assumption is that the person's values do not change over time. The second assumption is that the organizational environment has a relatively restricted range of events rather than an extremely wide range and that the location and size of this range of events do not change over time. The final assumption is that the person's value hierarchy does not change over time. At this point in the discussion of our framework, we will relax these assumptions to examine how changes in commitment and commitment elements occur over time. Changes in commitment elements and commitment should follow the same general framework as described thus far and depicted in Fig. 1. Before addressing these assumptions, we first touch on the issue of speed of change, which is an important part of understanding how change happens. 8.1. Speed of change It is important to recognize that the rate of change in commitment can be gradual, rapid, or anywhere in between. Rapid change (often referred to as shocks when considering organizational events or other influences external to individuals; Thompson, 1967) occurs when there is a massive change in events, values, or value hierarchies. Examples of such transformative changes include mergers and acquisitions, being promoted, or having a new supervisor (organizational events) or the birth of a child (values). Such transformative changes should result in radically different information being produced via the fit function, compared to the experiences prior to the change. This is likely to create rapid change in commitment elements because even though later information should have less impact than earlier information, the new information is very different from previous information, which should instigate sensemaking processes (Weick, Sutcliffe, & Obstfeld, 2005). Further, transformative changes in the person's values/value hierarchy should instigate sensemaking even without the presence of new events because the change in values should cue the person via events in other areas of their lives that new information relative to that value is arriving. Thus, the person could retrospectively reevaluate the fit of previously experienced events to their values, reframing the meaning of the events relative to their traits and thus changing the levels and/or domains of their commitment elements. Similarly, a reordering of the value hierarchy could cause individuals to retrospectively reevaluate the weighting of their commitment elements, leading to a change in commitment itself. In contrast, gradual change occurs when there is “creep” from an initial position to a different one. As events, values, or the values hierarchy change slowly, then over time the fit function will provide different information (i.e., fit where there was misfit or misfit where there was fit). This incremental change is likely to be imperceptible at first because each piece of information as well as the totality of information will not appear to stray from the current level of the commitment element nor seem outside the range of experiences relative to the value (depending on the variance of events; as we will describe below, events are not uniform but rather within a range around a mean level). However, over time, it should become clear to the person that the locus of the fit level has changed from what it once was, moving the needle on the commitment element. Thus, while incremental changes will eventually impact the fit of events to personal values, changes in elements are likely to lag incremental changes in values, organizational events, or value hierarchies. Proposition 8. The number of experiences needed to create a change in commitment elements will be proportional to the rate of change of values, events, or the value hierarchy. In other words, incremental change requires a large number of new experiences, whereas transformational change requires fewer new experiences. With these issues in mind, we turn now to each of the components of our model – values, organizational events, and values hierarchies – and how changes in each will cause changes in commitment elements and commitment.

M.E. Bergman et al. / Human Resource Management Review 23 (2013) 148–160

155

8.2. Values As the ultimate basis of commitment elements, any change in values will result in changes in commitment elements and therefore commitment. Because values are idiosyncratic manifestations of needs (Locke, 1991), many values are likely to be present throughout a person's lifetime. However, because different values and goals can be used to meet the same needs, values are not fixed across a lifetime (or across people). People marry or divorce, become parents, lose parents, survive car crashes, witness acts of terrorism, and otherwise live their lives; these events influence the values that people have and, therefore, their commitment elements and overall commitment. Changes in values can include the appearance of a new value, the disappearance of a value, or a “drift” in a current value. First, the appearance of a new value, when relevant to commitment, would result in a new commitment element, assuming (as described above) that there are events to activate that value or that the absence of these events is perceived as a misfit. For example, having a schedule that allows for spending time with their children is a new goal that appears for many new parents. This would not have been relevant to most people prior to their parenting; thus, a new value or goal has appeared. Thus, events that activate this new value will be evaluated via the PE fit process and create a new commitment element, which will then contribute to the commitment. Second, the disappearance of a value occurs when a particular value no longer meets needs or is no longer desirable to a person. For example, a person could quit smoking and therefore no longer want a smoking area available to use or a daily schedule that permits smoke breaks. The effect of the disappearance of a value on elements and commitment could take several forms, depending on how and why the value disappeared. If the value merely is no longer present in the person, then the element that was based upon the value will no longer be reinforced. However, if the values were replaced by an opposing value (e.g., not only has a person stopped smoking, but the person has also become strongly anti-smoking—essentially, the appearance of the opposite value when the original disappears), then what was positive fit information would become negative misfit information, and vice versa, via retrospective reevaluation. Finally, there can be drift in a value, which we conceptualize as relatively small changes in a general value. That is, if one were to compare the value today with its state over long periods of time, the overall difference would be apparent, but the difference is not apparent over relatively short periods of time (e.g., weeks or months). This could also be conceptualized as the disappearance of a value and reappearance of a similar, but not quite the same, value. As an example, consider a person whose blood pressure has slowly increased over a five year period. In that time, the person's goals and values surrounding healthy lifestyle factors (e.g., exercise, eating a healthy diet, low stress) might also change slowly over that time. Overall, the person values healthy lifestyle factors, but the level (and, probably, prioritization) of these values will change over time. In summary, to the extent that values are the same over time, all else being equal, commitment elements and commitment will not change either. However, changes in values–whether it is the addition of new values, the subtraction of values, or drift in the related goals of a value–will result in changes in commitment elements and therefore commitment. 8.3. Events Stability in commitment and commitment elements is also influenced by the events in an organization. The time needed for an employee to reach a stable level of a commitment element is a function of the frequency of events relevant to that element and the range of events around the mean level of events. Assuming no changes in values or the value hierarchy and no changes in the mean level of events relative to values, the range of events associated with values influences how much information is needed to achieve stability for commitment elements, with larger ranges of events requiring a greater amount of information (i.e., a greater number of events) for the commitment element to stabilize. That is, to the extent that the event–value interactions result in the same level of fit across the various events, then stability in the resultant commitment element should occur more quickly. In contrast, if there is a wide range of events that result in different levels of fit on the same value, then it will take longer for the commitment element to level off. This is because the fit information produced from the experiences will have greater variance around the “true score” of the fit between the events and the value, making each incremental piece of information less consistent with the totality of information (compared to when there is less variance in the information). Thus, greater variance in events leads to a higher amount of information needed for individuals to determine their overall level of fit to the organization. Changes in events can activate a new value, indicate that a value is no longer supported by the organization, or specify a change in the true score of the fit between events and a value. First, changes in organizational events can cause the creation of new commitment elements by activating a value that had not been activated previously. That is, from among the totality of values a person holds, only some of them are activated in the workplace—although any and all of them could be. New organizational events could therefore cue values that had not been cued before. This would instigate the development of a new commitment element, as described throughout this paper and depicted in Fig. 1. Such new elements would then enter into the weighting scheme via the value hierarchy and would provide additional positive or negative information to the commitment as a whole. Second, due to changes in the organization, events could cease to cue values that had been activated previously. However, when values stop being activated, the related commitment element does not simply disappear. Instead, the absence of events is likely to be construed opposite to how their presence was perceived. That is, when silence replaces a stream of information, that silence is not likely to be interpreted as “neutral” but rather as the opposite of the previous information. As an example, a person's value for esteem could be cued via recognition moments at a weekly staff meeting, resulting in positive information in the commitment element for esteem because the recognition moments fit to the person's value for esteem. Doing away with these

156

M.E. Bergman et al. / Human Resource Management Review 23 (2013) 148–160

recognition moments is more likely to be seen as misfit to the person's value, rather than neutral or no information, because the events that fit the person's value no longer occur. Finally, the true score of the fit of events to the person's value can change because of changes in the organization, causing changes to previously developed commitment elements. For example, if a person has experienced fit between their belongingness need and the workplace events in the past, then the person would have a positive commitment element based on belongingness. However, if there are changes in the workplace relative to the belongingness value (e.g., a new coworker or supervisor with whom the person does not get along), then the fit of the events to the person's value can change (i.e., the amount of misfit experiences increases) and, subsequently, the commitment element pegged to belongingness will change. In summary, to the extent that events cue values in the same way over time, all else being equal, commitment elements and commitment will not change either. However, changes in events and their activation of traits can lead to the creation of new elements, the reevaluation of prior elements, or a change in fit of events to values and therefore a change in the overall valence of an element. Each kind of change in events results in a specific change in commitment elements and therefore commitment. 8.4. Values hierarchy The final assumption was that the values hierarchy does not change over time. However, the prioritization of people's values does change over time as they experience life's ups-and-downs; the episodes and changes of life influence the hierarchical arrangement that people have for their goals and values. To the extent that value hierarchies change over time, the weighting of elements into subsequent commitment changes over time. Thus, the major effect of changes in the values hierarchy (holding constant the values that are in the hierarchy) is in which elements are most heavily weighted–and, therefore, which experiences are most important–in the creation of the commitment. In summary, all else being equal, changes in the value hierarchy will not influence changes in commitment elements per se, but will change the way the commitment elements are combined to create commitments. Additionally, it is important to recognize that any changes in values will also cause changes in the values hierarchy, so it is never possible to hold the value hierarchy constant when value changes occur. 9. An example of the development of commitment: normative commitment We argued that our new framework on the development of commitment can be applied to any model of commitment or related bonds (e.g., Klein et al., 2012; Meyer et al., 2004, 2006). As an example of our framework, we next describe how normative commitment mindsets (Meyer & Allen, 1997; Meyer & Herscovitch, 2001) – and, in particular, normative commitment as indebted obligation (i.e., employees feel that they should perform prescribed behaviors to avoid socially-based costs) or moral imperative (i.e., employees feel that they want to perform prescribed behaviors because doing so is right; Meyer & Parfyonova, 2010; Meyer et al., 2006) – are caused by commitment elements. Indebted obligation and moral imperative have been proposed to represent differences in exchange-based versus value-based normative commitment, respectively. According to Meyer et al. (2006), exchange-based commitments (e.g., indebted obligation) are based in situational identification, which last as long as situational cues are present. When such cues are removed, the situational identity is diminished and the exchange-based commitment is reduced. In contrast, value-based commitments (e.g., moral imperative) are developed via deep-seated identification, which occurs via a deeper internalization of organizationally-based cues (Gagne & Deci, 2005), such that individuals perceive that they have values, goals, or other self-important factors that are relevant to the organization—whether developed prior to organizational entry or internalized over time as the worker is exposed to the organization's values. The distinction between exchange-based and value-based commitment is grounded in self-determination theory (Gagne & Deci, 2005). Self-determination theory proposes values that are important to the self-concept are more likely to be internalized (i.e., value-based) and therefore drive behaviors that are experienced as freely chosen. In contrast, behaviors that are based on values that are less internalized (i.e., exchange-based) are thought to be experienced as controlling. Our event-based model of the development of commitment can be applied to these constructs. As described above, instrumental values of work are more economically-oriented whereas psychological values focus on needs and values beyond economic ones, such as belongingness or competence (Kalleberg, 1977; MacArov, 1987). Thus, instrumental values of work are likely to be the values that are linked to elements that cause exchange-based commitments (e.g., indebted obligation) whereas psychological values for work are likely to be the values that are linked to elements that cause value-based commitments (e.g., moral imperative). 9.1. Indebted obligation Indebted obligation is fulfilled by meeting expectations such as those defined via the norm of reciprocity. Reciprocity is an exchange-based implicit agreement that investments will be repaid and is therefore an instrumental value. Workers who value reciprocity will attend to organizational events that signal whether the organization also values reciprocity. Such events could include examples such as: (a) supervisors using performance appraisals to acknowledge hard work; (b) employees trading multiple shifts in ways that differentially benefit each of the trading partners for the different trades; or (c) supervisors rewarding coworkers who do not reciprocate. The fit (examples a and b) or misfit (example c) of the reciprocity information will be used to develop a commitment element for reciprocity. This reciprocity element as well as other elements related to indebted obligation

M.E. Bergman et al. / Human Resource Management Review 23 (2013) 148–160

157

(e.g., work ethic) will combine to create indebted obligation commitment; the elements will be ranked and combined via their placement vis a vis the value hierarchy. Over time, the reciprocity commitment element can be influenced by changes in the degree to which events signal reciprocity or the worker's acceptance of the reciprocity value. The influence of the reciprocity element on indebted obligation will depend on the position of the reciprocity value in the value hierarchy, relative to other values that are important to indebted obligation. 9.2. Moral imperative Moral imperative commitment occurs when one wants to do what is right, and what is perceived as “right” is aligned with organizational values, programs, or goals (Meyer & Herscovitch, 2001; Meyer & Parfyonova, 2010). It is experienced as a perceived match of an organization's values with the employee's own idiosyncratic values. For example, workers might believe that they (and organizations) should contribute to the local community, be environmentally responsible, or avoid using international outsourcing labor practices. Organizational events that activate those values will provide information, via the fit function, about the organization relative to the worker's value and create a commitment element for that value. These elements, as well as any others related to moral imperative, will be weighted via the value hierarchy and compose the moral imperative commitment mindset. Over time, the deep-seated value commitment elements can be influenced by changes in the degree to which events signal support for those values and the worker's endorsements of the values. These elements influence moral imperative commitment via weightings from the value hierarchy. 10. Directions for future research Our final thoughts focus on directions for future research on commitment elements. In the following, we specify four broad research questions that will allow testing of this theoretical framework. This research will require scale development as well as both qualitative and multilevel quantitative research methods. 10.1. How do events and values create commitment elements? We have defined commitment-relevant experiences as the activation of values by organizational events. This concept is the lynchpin of our theoretical framework. We proposed that: (a) experiences are organized around values, not events (Proposition 1); (b) events can activate more than one value (Proposition 5); (c) the fit or misfit of the events to these values forms the foundational elements of commitment (Proposition 2); and, (d) elements are organized around values (Proposition 3). Theoretical sampling could be conducted either to select individuals with similar values to determine whether events are experienced in a similar manner, or to select individuals who will experience similar events (or expose individuals to similar events) to examine whether values determine how an event influences commitment. These types of designs can be implemented with either quantitative or qualitative methodologies. We recommend that interested researchers begin with qualitative research designs to ask penetrating questions about how events influence the interpretation of the person's fit to the organization (Proposition 1), what events lead to these interpretations and how they are organized (Propositions 1, 3, and 5), and how this fit influences commitment (Proposition 2). Such work would be informative for our model overall as well as for the development of any needed scales of work-relevant values, value-relevant characteristics of events, and commitment elements for further quantitative research. The values and work-related values literature may be informative to this research (Kalleberg, 1977; Locke, 1991; MacArov, 1987). Regarding commitment elements, because our framework proposes that experiences and elements are directly linked to values (Propositions 1 and 3), research on instrumental and psychological values of work should be informative for elements. Clearly, this is an idea in its infancy and numerous questions abound. First, are there some elements that can be expected, a priori, without asking people to list their instrumental and psychological values for working? It may be that there are some elements that are universal – for example, those tied to the basic economic aspects of work or to the need for belongingness, which is purportedly basic and universal (Baumeister & Leary, 1995) – whereas others are more individualized, such as the idiosyncratic values that all people develop via their long term familial and socialization experiences. Further, there may be some elements that are based in values that are culturally etic whereas others might be based in values that are culturally emic, such as the Indian concepts of daan and karma or the Chinese concept of guanxi. However, because values are likely to vary widely across people, a priori determination by researchers will probably capture only part of the set. Thus, a framework of commitment elements should also be informed by research participants from a variety of backgrounds and through qualitative research methods. Additionally, what does a measure of commitment elements look like, if elements can even be directly measured? The framework presented here proposes that elements are the result of values being activated by congruent and incongruent events and are organized via the values themselves; that is, elements correspond directly to values (Proposition 3). In the PE fit literature, there are a variety of ways to measure fit between the person and the organization; as noted above, the fit between the person's characteristics and the events that activate them also follow a fit function. In the PE fit literature, respondents can report directly on the elements that create the fit or they can report on their overall perceptions of fit (Arthur, Bell, Villado, & Doverspike, 2006; Edwards, Cable, Williamson, Lambert, & Shipp, 2006). For example, individuals can report on their characteristics and these can be compared to reports about the organization, either supplied by the person or by another source. Or, people can rate the extent to which they perceive fit between themselves and the organization. These general strategies can be applied to this framework as well; future

158

M.E. Bergman et al. / Human Resource Management Review 23 (2013) 148–160

research should examine which of these measurement approaches has the greatest utility in understanding the development of commitment. 10.2. Can this framework be applied to any focus of commitment? Although we have generally drawn on the organizational commitment literature (e.g., Klein et al., 2012; Meyer & Allen, 1997; Meyer & Herscovitch, 2001; Meyer et al., 2002, 2006) and the person-organization fit component of the PE fit literature (Kristof, 1996; Kristof-Brown & Guay, 2010; Kristof-Brown et al., 2005), there is little reason to believe that our perspective must be limited to organizations as a focus of commitment. To the extent that people (a) hold values relative to other foci, (b) have experiences relative to other foci, (c) evaluate the fit of their values to these other foci, based on the events they experience, and (d) have a value hierarchy that weighs the multiple values relevant to those foci, then our framework should be applicable. We suspect that the particular values that are relevant to each foci as well as the events that people experience relative to those values are likely to differ across foci, especially as one moves away from the more impersonal “organization” toward more interpersonal relationships such as with supervisors, coworkers, or perhaps even romantic partners and friends. As we noted above, it is very difficult to determine a priori what values people hold relative to a foci. It may be easier to anticipate some values for some foci than for others, such as the case of the economic contingencies associated with paid work, the social contingencies associated with marriage vs. divorce, or the emotional contingencies associated with having children and arranging custody. Again, these are not universals so much as likely value domains that many people will probably hold to some extent. However, it is easy to conceive of the person who does not need to work for money, the person who does not worry about the social fallout and stigmatization following divorce, or the person who is happy to be a non-custodial parent to his or her offspring. It is also worth noting that events seemingly in one domain could activate values in another domain. For example, an organizational event that signals a possible promotion or transfer to an exotic locale might activate values for work associated with achievement, competency, and pay, but it might also activate familial values about childrearing or marital roles. The extent to which the goals and values associated with different foci are in congruence or in conflict (or irrelevant to each other) would moderate the effect of a single event on the various commitments. The relationships among foci and their values are an important and understudied issue in the entire commitment domain and one that requires additional research attention, whether using our framework or others' (e.g., Meyer et al., 2006). 10.3. What is the relationship between elements and commitment? One of the major contributions of this paper is the proposal of elements as formative indicators of commitment (Proposition 4) that are determined by the perceived fit or misfit of events to values. The formative nature of the relationships between values and elements (as moderated by events) and, subsequently, between elements and commitment is a challenging measurement problem. Formative models are notoriously difficult to identify and estimate (Edwards & Bagozzi, 2000; MacCallum & Browne, 1993). Treiblmaier et al. (2011) have recently suggested an approach for estimating formative models via common factors, allowing for appropriate identification of the model and therefore the ability to test the hypothesized relationships. Complicating matters here, however, is the multilevel nature of the data, with multiple events cuing a value which leads to an element of commitment. While the Treiblmaier et al. (2011) approach can probably be extended to the within-person repeated event model described here, mathematical proofs supporting this assertion have yet to appear in the literature. We proposed that commitment is caused by elements that are weighted by the relative ranking of that element on an employee's value hierarchy (Proposition 6). Research could compare the predictive validity of different combinations of commitment elements to determine the degree to which weighted combinations are superior to unweighted averages, or whether the weighting depends on the commitment focus. It may be the case, for example, that an employee highly values pay, but the pay element is only relevant for determining exchange-based behaviors. Such research could ask people to rank their values and examine whether such rankings are consistent with empirical weights produced via general linear model techniques. 10.4. How does commitment change over time? Because our framework focuses on individuals' experiences of multiple events over time, one of the more promising methodological approaches to examine our framework would be to examine within-person effects using experience sampling methodology approach (Beal & Weiss, 2003). Such an approach would draw on the frameworks for both organizational events and values. The extent to which these individual differences are fulfilled by organizational events should create elements that, in turn, create overall commitment. An experience sampling approach would allow for the tracing of specific events to values and the congruence between the two, the subsequent incremental change in related elements, and, ultimately, the commitment. At its core, the framework presented here is multilevel such that multiple events interact with values to create an element (level 1) and multiple elements in turn form commitment (level 2). Testing these relationships using multilevel methodologies would require researchers to assess values hierarchies so that elements can be appropriately weighted. Doing so could account for why individuals persist in organizational membership and high levels of commitment when negative experiences occur. Our elements approach suggests that this may be because (a) the amount of positive information outweighs the negative information (Proposition 7), some negative events are not as important to individuals as positive events because the positive events are tied to more important values of work (Proposition 6), or the rate of change from positive to negative information is not yet strong

M.E. Bergman et al. / Human Resource Management Review 23 (2013) 148–160

159

enough to prompt a change in commitment (Proposition 8). Thus, in addition to the multilevel nature of the research, longitudinal research on the stability (or change) of elements are needed. We suggest this avenue as an important piece of the commitment development puzzle. Once a measurement framework for commitment elements is validated, longitudinal studies should be conducted to estimate the relationship between the occurrence of organizational events, the congruence of those events with values, and changes in commitment elements. We encourage studies that are designed to test Proposition 7 by selecting contexts where the amount of information is low such as studies of organizational newcomers, or contexts where values are likely to change such as marriage or the birth of children, or contexts where events are likely to change such as mergers and acquisitions. 11. Conclusion Theoretical and empirical work on the development of commitment – that is, how commitment grows and changes over time – has been scant. Our framework provides an event-level, within-person perspective on how commitments develop. Our work differs from previous research and theory in that it: (a) is explicitly developmental rather than merely antecedent and thus able to explain how commitment can not only become relatively stable but also amenable to change over time; (b) focuses on event-level experiences rather than comprehensive, retrospective recollections; and, (c) provides a within-person account of commitment development as well as a between-person account for how exposure to the same events can result in different commitment levels. We hope that this framework spurs the commitment field to move beyond cross-sectional and multi-wave longitudinal designs to examine the development of commitment and the quotidian work experiences that affect workers' commitment. References Allen, N. J., & Meyer, J. P. (1990). The measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance, and normative commitment to the organization. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 63, 1–18. Allen, N. J., & Meyer, J. P. (1993). Organizational commitment: Evidence of career stage effects? Journal of Business Research, 26, 49–61. Arthur, W., Jr., Bell, S. T., Villado, A. J., & Doverspike, D. (2006). The use of person–organization fit in employment decision making: An assessment of its criterion-related validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 786–801. Baumeister, R., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 497–529. Beal, D. J., & Weiss, H. M. (2003). Methods of ecological momentary assessment in organizational research. Organizational Research Methods, 6, 440–464. Beck, K., & Wilson, C. (2000). Development of affective organizational commitment: A cross-sequential examination of change with tenure. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 56, 114–136. Beck, K., & Wilson, C. (2001). Have we studied, should we study, and can we study the development of commitment? Methodological issues and the developmental study of work-related commitment. Human Resource Management Review, 11, 257–278. Becker, H. S. (1960). Notes on the concept of commitment. American Journal of Sociology, 66, 32–42. Bergman, M. E. (2006). The relationship between affective and normative commitment: Review and research agenda. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27, 645–663. Bergman, M. E., Benzer, J. K., & Henning, J. B. (2009). The role of individual differences as contributors to the development of commitment. In H. J. Klein, T. E. Becker, & J. P. Meyer (Eds.), Commitment in organizations: Accumulated wisdom and new directions (pp. 217–252). New York: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group. Cable, D. M., & Edwards, J. R. (2004). Complementary and supplementary fit: A theoretical and empirical integration. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 822–834. Cooper-Hakim, A., & Viswesvaran, C. (2005). The construct of work commitment: Testing an integrative framework. Psychological Bulletin, 131, 241–259. Ebbinghaus, H. (1913). On memory: A contribution to experimental psychology. New York: Teachers College. Edwards, J. R. (2001). Multidimensional constructs in organizational behavior research: An integrative analytical framework. Organizational Research Methods, 4, 144–192. Edwards, J. R., & Bagozzi, R. P. (2000). On the nature and direction of relationships between constructs and measures. Psychological Methods, 5, 155–174. Edwards, J. R., Cable, D. M., Williamson, I. O., Lambert, L. S., & Shipp, A. J. (2006). The phenomenology of fit: Linking the person and environment to the subjective experience of person–environment fit. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 802–827. Gagne, M., & Deci, E. L. (2005). Self-determination theory and work motivation. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, 331–362. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/job.322. Gregersen, H. B. (1993). Multiple commitments at work and extra-role behavior during three stages of organizational tenure. Journal of Business Research, 26, 31–47. Jarvis, C. B., MacKenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, P. M. (2003). A critical review of construct indicators and measurement model misspecification in marketing and consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 30, 199–218. Kalleberg, A. (1977). Work values and job satisfaction: A theory of job satisfaction. American Sociological Review, 42, 124–143. Klein, H. J., Molloy, J. C., & Brinsfield, C. T. (2012). Reconceptualizing workplace commitment to redress a stretched construct: Revisiting assumptions and removing confounds. Academy of Management Review, 37, 130–151. Klein, H. J., Molloy, J. C., & Cooper, J. T. (2009). Conceptual foundations: Construct definitions and theoretical representations of workplace commitments. In H. J. Klein, T. E. Becker, & J. P. Meyer (Eds.), Commitment in organizations: Accumulated wisdom and new directions (pp. 3–36). New York: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group. Kluger, A. N., & DeNisi, A. (1996). The effects of feedback interventions on performance: A historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 254–284. Kristof, A. L. (1996). Person-organization fit: An integrative review of its conceptualizations, measurement, and implications. Personnel Psychology, 49, 1–49. Kristof-Brown, A. L., & Guay, R. P. (2010). Person–environment fit. In S. Zedeck (Ed.), APA handbook of industrial and organizational psychology. Building and developing the organization, Vol. III, . Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Lee, T. W., Ashford, S. J., Walsh, J. P., & Mowday, R. T. (1992). Commitment propensity, organizational commitment, and voluntary turnover: A longitudinal study of organizational entry processes. Journal of Management, 18, 15–32. Locke, E. A. (1991). The motivation sequence, the motivation hub, and the motivation core. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 288–299. MacArov, D. (1987). Changing values of work and leisure. European Journal of Education, 22, 233–246. MacCallum, R. C., & Browne, M. W. (1993). The use of causal indicators in covariance structure models: Some practical issues. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 533–541. Maslow, A. H. (1954). Motivation and personality. New York: Harper. Maslow, A. H. (1968). Toward a psychology of being. New York: Van Nostrand. McClelland, D. C., Atkinson, J. W., Clark, R. A., & Lowell, E. L. (1976). The achievement motive. Oxford, England: Irvington. Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1991). A three-component conceptualization of organizational commitment. Human Resource Management Review, 1(1), 61–89. Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1997). Commitment in the workplace: Theory, research, and application. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Meyer, J. P., Allen, N. J., & Smith, C. A. (1993). Commitment to organizations and occupations: Extension and test of a three-component conceptualization. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 538–551. Meyer, J. P., Becker, T. E., & van Dick, R. (2006). Social identities and commitment at work: Toward an integrative model. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27, 665–683.

160

M.E. Bergman et al. / Human Resource Management Review 23 (2013) 148–160

Meyer, J. P., & Herscovitch, L. (2001). Commitment in the workplace: Toward a general model. Human Resource Management Review, 11, 299–326. Meyer, J. P., & Parfyonova, N. M. (2010). Normative commitment in the workplace: A theoretical analysis and re-conceptualization. Human Resource Management Review, 20, 283–294. Meyer, J. P., Stanley, D. J., Herscovitch, L., & Topolnytsky, L. (2002). Affective, continuance, and normative commitment to the organization: A meta-analysis of antecedents, correlates, and consequences. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 61, 20–52. Meyer, J. P., Becker, T. E., & Vandenberghe, C. (2004). Employee commitment and motivation: A conceptual analysis and integrative model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(6), 991–1007. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.89.6.991. Morrow, P. C., & McElroy, J. C. (1987). Work commitment and job satisfaction over three career stages. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 30, 330–346. Mowday, R. T., Porter, L. W., & Steers, R. M. (1982). Organizational linkages: The psychology of commitment, absenteeism, and turnover. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Muchinsky, P. M., & Monahan, C. J. (1987). What is person environment congruence? Supplementary versus complementary models of fit. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 31, 268–277. Murdock, B. B., Jr. (1962). The serial position effect of free recall. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 64, 482–488. O'Reilly, C. A. I. I. I., & Chatman, J. (1986). Organizational commitment and psychological attachment: The effects of compliance, identification, and internalization on prosocial behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 492–499. Porter, L. W., Steers, R. M., Mowday, R. T., & Boulian, P. V. (1974). Organizational commitment, job satisfaction, and turnover among psychiatric technicians. Journal of Applied Psychology, 59, 603–609. Tett, R. P., & Guterman, H. A. (2000). Situation trait relevance, trait expression, and cross-situational consistency: Testing a principle of trait activation. Journal of Research in Personality, 34, 397–423. Tett, R. P., & Burnett, D. D. (2003). A personality trait-based interactionist model of job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(3), 500–517. Thompson, J. D. (1967). Organizations in action: Social science bases of administration. New York: McGraw-Hill. Treiblmaier, H., Bentler, P. M., & Mair, P. (2011). Formative models implemented via common factors. Structural Equation Modeling, 18, 1–17. Vallacher, R. R., & Wegner, D. M. (1987). What do people think they're doing? Action identification and human behavior. Psychological Review, 94, 3–15. Vandenberg, R. J., & Self, R. M. (1993). Assessing newcomers' changing commitments to the organization during the first 6 months of work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 557–568. Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Weick, K. E., Sutcliffe, K. M., & Obstfeld, D. (2005). Organizing and the process of sensemaking. Organization Science, 16, 409–421. Weiss, H. M., & Cropanzano, R. (1996). Affective events theory: A theoretical discussion of the structure, causes, and consequences of affective experiences at work. In M. Staw, & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior, 18. (pp. 1–74). Weiss, H. M., & Rupp, D. E. (2011). Experiencing work: An essay on a person-centric work psychology. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 4, 83–97.