Normative commitment in the workplace: A theoretical analysis and re-conceptualization

Human Resource Management Review 20 (2010) 283–294

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Human Resource Management Review j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w. e l s ev i e r. c o m / l o c a t e / h u m r e s

Normative commitment in the workplace: A theoretical analysis and re-conceptualization John P. Meyer ⁎, Natalya M. Parfyonova Department of Psychology, The University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada N6A 5C2

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Keywords: Employee commitment Normative commitment Work motivation Organizational support Psychological contracts Authentic leadership

a b s t r a c t Among the components of the Meyer and Allen's [Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1991). A threecomponent conceptualization of organizational commitment. Human Resource Management Review, 1, 64−89] three-component model of organizational commitment, normative commitment (NC) has received the least attention. It is sometimes dismissed as a redundant construct that bears many similarities to affective commitment and does not explain work behaviors beyond other components. In this review, we seek to re-establish the theoretical and practical significance of NC. We argue that NC has a dual nature and that it manifests itself differently depending on the strength of other components in an employee's commitment profile. NC can be experienced either as a moral duty or a sense of indebtedness, each having different implications for work behavior. Drawing on theories of perceived organizational support, motivation, psychological contracts, leadership, and culture, the paper justifies the distinction between two “faces” of NC, delineates organizational factors that could promote a more positive interpretation of NC, and proposes an agenda for future research. © 2009 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

There is an interesting paradox unfolding within the modern workplace — while organizations are becoming increasingly reliant on a committed workforce to gain competitive advantage, many of the changes they introduce in the name of efficiency (e.g., downsizing; reengineering; merger and acquisition) have the potential to undermine that commitment (Meyer, 2009; Mowday, 1998). Thus, it is arguably more important than ever to understand the nature, development and implications of employee commitment. It is now commonly acknowledged that commitment can take different forms (e.g., Meyer & Allen, 1991; O'Reilly & Chatman, 1986) and be directed toward different constituencies within and outside the organization (Reichers, 1985; Becker, 1992). Moreover, we know that not all commitments are equally beneficial (Allen & Meyer, 1996; Meyer, Stanley, Herscovitch, & Topolnytsky, 2002). Our aim here is to shed new light on one form of commitment – normative commitment (NC) – that we believe has been understudied to date, but could be of considerable benefit to organizations. NC is one of the three forms of commitment included in Meyer and Allen's (1991, 1997) three-component model (TCM). This model, which also includes affective (AC) and continuance (CC) commitment, was first introduced to acknowledge the multidimensionality of employee commitment to organizations. More recently, it was extended to apply to workplace commitments in general (Meyer & Herscovitch, 2001). Regardless of its focus, NC is characterized by a mindset of obligation (e.g., obligation to remain with the organization or support a change initiative). Although theoretically distinct from AC (mindset of desire) and CC (mindset of cost-avoidance), NC has been found to correlate strongly with AC and to share many of the same antecedents and consequences (Meyer et al., 2002). As a result, some authors have questioned the value of retaining NC as a distinct component (e.g., Jaros, 1997; Ko, Price, & Mueller, 1997). We argue here that the mindset of obligation underlying NC is distinguishable from a mindset of desire, and that NC is indeed worthy of continued investigation. However, we agree with others who suggest that there may be a need for some re-conceptualization (e.g., Bergman, 2006; González & Guillén, 2008). ⁎ Corresponding author. E-mail address: [email protected] (J.P. Meyer). 1053-4822/$ – see front matter © 2009 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.hrmr.2009.09.001

284

J.P. Meyer, N.M. Parfyonova / Human Resource Management Review 20 (2010) 283–294

Our objective in this review is to clarify the meaning of NC, offer an agenda for future research, and identify some of the practical benefits of NC. We begin by providing a brief history of the construct and its measurement. We then discuss how NC relates to AC and CC within the TCM and summarize research pertaining to its distinctiveness and contributions to the understanding of organizational behavior. Next, we review recent research findings that shed new light on the nature and implications of NC (e.g., Gellatly, Meyer, & Luchak, 2006; Somers, 2009, 2010; Wasti, 2005), as well as on the meaning and implications of obligation more generally (e.g., Assor, Vansteenkiste, & Kaplan, 2009; Sideridis, 2008). We also provide evidence suggesting that NC is experienced differently, and relates differently to other variables, in non-Western cultures (e.g., Fischer & Mansell, 2009; Stanley et al., 2007). In light of these findings, we propose that NC has two “faces” — moral duty and indebted obligation. We draw on theories of work motivation, psychological contracts, leadership, and culture to justify and explain this reconceptualization, and offer several propositions to guide future research. We conclude with a discussion of implications for theory, research and practice. 1. A brief history of normative commitment NC is perhaps best known as one of the components of commitment in the TCM (Meyer & Allen, 1991; Meyer & Herscovitch, 2001). However, the notion of commitment based on obligation has a much longer history, dating back to sociological theory and research in the 1960s and 1970s. For example, Kanter (1968, p. 501) described evaluative-control commitment as “commitment to norms, the values and inner convictions which morally obligate the individual,” and argued that it was conceptually distinct from cohesion commitment (attachment to social relationships based on strong positive affect) and continuance commitment (commitment to social roles based on weighting of costs and rewards). Similarly, Etzioni (1975, 1999) described moral involvement in an organization as a positive orientation of high intensity that develops through the internalization of organizational goals, values, and norms. He argued that moral involvement binds individuals to the organization with a sense of duty and has a stronger influence on individual behavior than cost-based commitment when circumstances change (Etzioni, 1975, 1999). Finally, writing within a Japanese context, Marsh and Mannari (1977, p. 59) argued that employees who accept the norm of lifetime commitment “consider it morally right to stay in the company, regardless of how much status enhancement or satisfaction the firm gives him over the years.” In the 1980s, Wiener and his colleagues conducted a series of studies based on what they described as a “normative view” of organizational commitment (Vardi, Wiener, & Popper, 1989; Wiener, 1982; Wiener & Vardi, 1980). Wiener (1982, p. 421) defined commitment as reflecting “the totality of internalized normative pressures to act in a way that meets organizational goals and interests” and argued that committed employees are willing to make personal sacrifices for the sake of the organization because they “believe it is the ‘right’ and moral thing to do.” This contrasts with instrumental motivation where behavior is guided more by an evaluation of personal costs and benefits. According to Wiener, (normative) commitment develops as the result of both cultural/familial and organizational socialization processes. Like Wiener, Scholl (1981) argued that commitment must be clearly distinguished from instrumental motivation. He defined commitment as “a stabilizing force that acts to maintain behavioral direction when expectancy/equity conditions are not met and do not function” (p. 593). Although Scholl did not view commitment as necessarily reflecting an internalization of norms, he did implicate one particularly powerful norm as an underlying mechanism, namely the norm of reciprocity (Gouldner, 1960). Specifically, he argued that, to the extent that this norm is operating, “we would expect that the debt incurred through advance rewards would act to hold the individual into a particular system until the debt was repaid” (Scholl, 1981, p. 594). Although there are differences in the foregoing definitions, Meyer and Allen (1991) noted that they reflected a common theme of obligation. Given a general agreement that this sense of obligation derives from the internalization of normative influences, they adopted the term “normative commitment.” They argued that “employees with strong normative commitment will remain with an organization by virtue of their belief that it is ‘the right’ and moral thing to do” (p. 67). More recently, Meyer and Herscovitch (2001) proposed that the TCM can be applied to other workplace commitments and defined NC more generally as “the mindset that one has an obligation to pursue a course of action of relevance to a particular target” (p. 316). In their application of this model to organizational change initiatives, Herscovitch and Meyer (2002) defined NC as “a sense of obligation to provide support for the change” (p. 475). 2. Measurement of normative commitment Among the first measures of a normative-type commitment to an organization were Marsh and Mannari's (1977) four-item measure of life-time commitment and Wiener and Vardi's (1980) three-item measure of normative commitment. Items in Marsh and Mannari's measure addressed perceptions of the prevalence of lifetime commitment, approval or disapproval of voluntary turnover, adherence to the norm of lifetime employment, and intention to remain. Wiener and Vardi's measure assessed beliefs about whether employees should be loyal to, make sacrifices for, and refrain from criticizing the organization. Unfortunately, both measures had low reliabilities and little other evidence of their psychometric properties was reported (Meyer & Allen, 1991). Allen and Meyer (1990) developed an eight-item measure of NC designed to reflect the internalization of normative influences as described by Wiener (1982). Meyer, Allen, and Smith (1993) subsequently developed a revised six-item measure of NC to the organization along with a parallel six-item measure of occupational commitment. The revision was extensive and was motivated by two considerations. The first was to eliminate items that might more appropriately be considered antecedents of NC. For example, the item “I was taught to believe in the value of remaining loyal to one organization” arguably reflects the cultural/

J.P. Meyer, N.M. Parfyonova / Human Resource Management Review 20 (2010) 283–294

285

familial socialization that Wiener (1982) implicated in the development of NC. The second consideration was to measure felt obligation more generally, including obligation based on the need to reciprocate for benefits received from the organization (Scholl, 1981). The original and revised measures of NC have been used extensively in research within and outside North America. These measures also served as the basis for the development of measures of NC to other foci including occupations (Meyer et al., 1993), supervisors and work teams (Clugston, Howell, & Dorfman, 2000; Stinglhamber, Bentein, & Vandenberghe, 2002), customers (Stinglhamber et al., 2002), and organizational change initiatives (Herscovitch & Meyer, 2002). In sum, like the construct itself, measures of NC have taken various forms and have evolved somewhat over time. This situation has contributed to difficulties in the interpretation of research findings and perhaps to the disenchantment with the construct (cf. Bergman, 2006). For purposes of the following discussion, we focus primarily on NC as conceptualized and measured within Meyer and Allen's (1991, 1997) TCM. We return to a discussion of broader measurement issues later. 3. NC within the TCM framework As initially conceptualized within the TCM (Allen & Meyer, 1990; Meyer & Allen, 1991), AC, NC, and CC reflect relatively distinct psychological states that develop in different ways and make unique contributions to behavior. In this section, we review findings from traditional variable-centered research conducted to evaluate these claims. We begin with a comparison of NC and AC, and then shift our focus to NC and CC. In a subsequent section, we review the findings of more recent research using a person-centered (profile) approach. NC vis-à-vis AC: the most direct evidence pertaining to the distinctiveness of NC and AC comes from exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses of the measures as they pertain to the organization (e.g., Allen & Meyer 1990; Dunham, Grube, & Castaneda, 1994; Hackett, Bycio, & Hausdorf, 1994; Ko et al., 1997) and other foci, including one's occupation, work group, supervisor, customer, and organizational change initiatives (e.g., Herscovitch & Meyer, 2002; Meyer et al., 1993; Stinglhamber et al., 2002). These studies generally reveal that NC and AC items define separate factors. However, the factors tend to be highly correlated. Moreover, the patterns of correlations of AC and NC with other variables are quite similar (Allen & Meyer, 1996; Meyer et al., 2002). The latter findings have led to concerns about the contribution of NC and questions about whether it warrants continued consideration (e.g. Jaros, 1997; Ko et al., 1997). To address these concerns, we look first at possible reasons for the high correlation between the two components and the similarities in their correlations with various antecedent variables. Meyer and Allen (1997) noted that a given antecedent variable can contribute to the development of any or all of AC, NC, or CC depending on how it is perceived by employees. For example, training opportunities can contribute to a sense of desire, obligation, or a need to remain with the organization depending on whether it is viewed as a reflection of organizational support, a benefit requiring reciprocation, or an investment of time to acquire organization-specific skills, respectively. These interpretations are not mutually exclusive, of course, and therefore a given experience can lead to the development of more than one form of commitment. The fact that AC and NC correlate particularly strongly suggests that the interpretations that promote the mindsets of desire and obligation might co-occur. To illustrate, consider the case of perceived organizational support (POS: Einsenberger, Huntington, Hutchison, & Sowa, 1986; Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002). POS has consistently been found to relate positively to AC and in a recent meta-analysis was identified as one of its strongest correlates (ρ = .63; Meyer et al., 2002). According to organizational support theory, POS contributes to the development of AC by helping to satisfy employees' socio-emotional needs and creating a felt obligation to the organization (Armeli, Eisenberger, Fasolo, & Lynch, 1998). One might argue, however, that creating an obligation to reciprocate is more likely to create NC than AC. Indeed, although there have been considerably fewer studies, POS was also found to correlate quite strongly with NC (ρ = .47; Meyer et al., 2002). If POS creates conditions conducive to the development of both AC (through need satisfaction) and NC (by creating felt obligation), the two forms of commitment should correlate even though they are conceptually distinct. Unfortunately, there has been very little attention given to testing Meyer and Allen's (1997) hypothesis that different psychological processes are involved in the development of AC and NC. Therefore, at this point, we can only speculate that the co-activation of underlying mechanisms is one explanation for the strong correlation between otherwise distinguishable constructs. Even if the correlation can be explained, there would be little reason to consider both AC and NC if their links to other variables were identical and, more importantly, if NC did not contribute meaningfully to our understanding of behavior. A closer look at the empirical evidence suggests that this is not the case. In their meta-analytic review of relations with theoretical antecedents and consequences of commitment, Meyer et al. (2002) found that, although the patterns of correlations were similar, correlations with NC were generally weaker than those with AC. Moreover, some studies examining the combined effects of antecedents revealed differences in the relative contribution of specific predictors of AC and NC (e.g., Dunham et al., 1994; Finegan, 2000; Iverson & Buttigieg, 1999). Finally, although AC is generally found to explain more variance in behavior, some studies reported unique contributions made by NC (e.g., Herscovitch & Meyer, 2002; Kondratuk, Hausdorf, Korabik, & Rosin, 2004; Lee, Allen, Meyer, & Rhee, 2001; Meyer et al., 1993; Snape & Redman, 2003; Somers, 1995). Evidence for the distinction between NC and AC can also be found in cross-cultural research. For example, in their metaanalysis, Fischer and Mansell (2009) found that the correlation between AC and NC varied across cultures differing in per capita income, and that the mean levels of AC and NC were affected differently by cultural values — AC was greater in countries scoring high on individualism and low on power distance, whereas NC was greater in collectivist and high power distance cultures. They also found that AC correlated more strongly with turnover intention in individualist countries, whereas NC correlated more

286

J.P. Meyer, N.M. Parfyonova / Human Resource Management Review 20 (2010) 283–294

strongly in collectivist countries. In another cross-cultural meta-analysis, Stanley et al. (2007) found that the correlation between NC and turnover intention varied as a function of cultural values and practices, whereas correlations with AC did not. Consistent with this cross-national comparison, research has shown that cultural values measured at an individual level (i.e., reflecting the internalization of these values) relate differently to AC and NC. For example, Clugston et al. (2000) found that power distance values positively predicted NC to the supervisor and the workgroup, but did not predict AC to corresponding foci. Using a sample of Turkish employees, Wasti (2003) found that ideocentrism (i.e., the internalization of individualist values; Triandis, Leung, Villareal, & Clack, 1985) moderated the relation between turnover intention and NC, but did not moderate the relation with AC. These findings have led to speculation that the distinction between NC and AC will become clearer as more research is conducted in non-Western cultures (Bergman, 2006; Wasti & Önder, 2009). In sum, although conceptually distinct, AC and NC are highly correlated and relate similarly with other variables. However, these similarities can be explained, at least in part, on theoretical grounds. Moreover, the correlations with other variables are not identical, and some of the differences vary as a function of culture. NC vis-à-vis CC: there has been less concern about conceptual and empirical overlap between NC and CC. NC and CC to the organization have consistently emerged as separate factors (e.g., Dunham et al., 1994; Hackett et al., 1994; Meyer et al., 1993). Moreover, the correlation between NC and CC is modest (ρ = .18), and their correlations with antecedent, correlate, and consequence variables are generally quite different (Meyer et al., 2002). Similar findings have been reported for NC and CC to other foci (e.g., Herscovitch & Meyer, 2002; Stinglhamber et al., 2002). Nevertheless, there is some evidence that NC and CC have common antecedents (e.g., Powell & Meyer, 2004) and that they correlate more strongly in some cultures than in others (Stanley et al., 2007). Hence, a short discussion of NC vis-à-vis CC is warranted. CC as conceptualized within the TCM is rooted in Becker's (1960) side-bet theory (see Meyer & Allen, 1984). Research pertaining to the development of CC has focused primarily on the economic costs of discontinuing a course of action (e.g. leaving an organization). These costs might include the loss of pension benefits or wasted time and effort invested in the acquisition of nontransferable skills (Luchak & Gellatly, 2001; Powell & Meyer, 2004; Shore, Tetrick, Shore, & Barksdale, 2000). However, Becker (1960, p. 33) noted that employees can also incur social costs when they deviate from consistent lines of activity that are regarded “as right and proper in their society or social group.” These same social costs might be implicated in the development of NC, raising the possibility of overlap with CC (Powell & Meyer, 2004). The role of social norms in the development of NC and CC might also explain why they have been found to correlate more strongly in countries outside North America, particularly those scoring high on collectivism and power distance (Fischer & Mansell, 2009; Stanley et al., 2007). Perhaps the need to meet expectations in these cultures simultaneously increases felt obligation to the organization and perceived social costs associated with leaving. Consistent with this idea, Clugston et al. (2000) found that employees who internalized high power distance values displayed higher levels of both NC and CC to the organization, supervisor and work group; those who endorsed collectivist values displayed higher levels of both NC and CC to the work group. To summarize, NC and CC are distinguishable forms of commitment. For the most part, they have different antecedents and relate differently to behavior. However, they may both be sensitive to social norms and expectations, especially in cultures where social interdependence is very salient. 4. New developments in theory and research pertaining to normative commitment To this point, our arguments in support of the conceptual distinctiveness of NC have been based largely on factor analytic findings and patterns of relations with other variables. The unique properties of NC become even more apparent when we consider recent research examining commitment profiles. Although it has long been argued that employees can experience varying degrees of all three forms of commitment, and that the three components combine (interact) to influence organizational behavior (Meyer & Allen, 1991), tests for interaction effects have been relatively rare (e.g., Jaros, 1997; Randall, Fedor, & Longenecker, 1990; Somers, 1995). Moreover, it was only recently that a specific set of propositions was offered to guide the investigation of commitment profiles (see Meyer & Herscovitch, 2001). Meyer and Herscovitch's (2001) profile hypotheses were first tested in the context of commitment to organizational change initiatives. Herscovitch and Meyer (2002) conducted two studies with Canadian nurses to examine how commitment to a change relates to behavioral support for that change. Nurses were classified as being high or low on each of the three components of commitment relative to the scale median and were assigned to one of eight profile groups based on their levels (high or low) on all three components. The investigators found that nurses with AC-dominant profiles (i.e., strong AC and weak CC and NC) and NCdominant profiles (i.e., strong NC and weak AC and CC) reported higher levels of discretionary support for the change than did those with CC-dominant profiles (i.e., strong CC and weak AC and NC) and the uncommitted. Moreover, although not significantly different from the AC-dominant and NC-dominant groups, the highest levels of discretionary support were reported by nurses with profiles characterized by strong AC and NC. These basic findings were replicated in studies conducted with Australian public service employees (Albion, 2006), Canadian energy workers, and Indian managers (Meyer, Srinivas, Lal, & Topolnytsky, 2007). Wasti (2005) was one of the first to conduct profile group comparisons for organizational commitment. She used k-means cluster analysis to identify profile groups among Turkish employees and found that intention to stay with the organization and loyal boosterism (a form of OCB) were greater in the AC/NC-dominant profile group (i.e., strong AC and NC and weak CC) than in the AC-dominant group. This finding suggests that NC contributes beyond AC to stay intentions and discretionary behavior. More recently, Gellatly et al. (2006) measured the organizational commitment of Canadian hospital employees along with their intentions to stay and self-reported OCB. Like Herscovitch and Meyer (2002), they used a median split approach to create eight

J.P. Meyer, N.M. Parfyonova / Human Resource Management Review 20 (2010) 283–294

287

profile groups. Of particular interest for present purposes, Gellatly et al. found that employees with profiles combining strong AC and NC reported greater intention to stay and OCB than those with an AC-dominant profile. Both outcomes were also greater for those in the AC/NC-dominant profile group than in the CC/NC-dominant group. Parallel moderated multiple regression analyses revealed that NC was positively related to OCB under conditions of strong AC, but was negatively related to OCB when CC was strong but AC was weak. In light of these findings, Gellatly et al. (2006, p. 342) proposed that “an employee's commitment profile provides a “context” that can influence how a particular component of commitment is experienced.” In the case of NC, it appears that the inherent sense of obligation to a target can be experienced as a “moral imperative” (i.e., a desire to do the right thing) when accompanied by strong AC, or as an “indebted obligation” (i.e., something that must be done to avoid social costs) when accompanied by strong CC and weak AC. In other words, there may be two “faces” of normative commitment. More recent profile studies (Somers, 2009; 2010; Stanley et al., 2009) have reported findings largely consistent with those of Gellatly et al. (2006). Although not conducted specifically to test the hypothesized implications of two faces of NC, it is interesting to consider them in light of these hypotheses. Somers (2009) created profile groups using k-means cluster analysis and found that turnover intention was lowest among the fully-committed and AC/NC-dominant profile groups. Turnover intention for these groups was significantly lower than in the uncommitted and CC-dominant groups — more importantly, it was also lower than in the AC-dominant and CC/NC-dominant groups. Somers (2010) and Stanley et al. (2009) reported similar findings. When Somers (2010) compared profile groups on actual turnover, he again found the lowest rates in the fully-committed and AC/NC-dominant profile groups, although only the former differed significantly from the other groups. While the primary focus of these profile studies was on organization-relevant outcomes, a few also included outcomes of relevance to employees. Wasti (2005) found that Turkish employees with AC-dominant and AC/NC-dominant profiles experienced less job stress than those with a CC-dominant profile. In a second study, she found that fully-committed employees experienced less stress than all other profile groups. Somers (2009) found that US nurses with an AC/NC-dominant profile were among the lowest of any profile group in job stress, and the lowest in carry-over stress (i.e., work-related stress that persists outside the workplace). Finally, in a study of Greek public service employees, Marcovitz, Davis, and van Dick (2007) found the highest levels of intrinsic job satisfaction among those with fully-committed, AC-dominant, and AC/NC-dominant profiles. The satisfaction of employees with CC/NC-dominant profiles was considerably lower and similar to that for the uncommitted and CCdominant profile groups. Considered together, the findings of these profile studies suggest that, when combined with AC, NC tends to be associated with more positive outcomes (e.g., intention to stay, OCB, support for change, and employee well-being) than when it is combined with CC. Moreover, in some cases, the strong AC/NC combination appears to be associated with higher levels of these desired outcomes than the AC-dominant profile. Although research pertaining to the dual nature of NC is still in its infancy, it is interesting to note that there is some corroborating evidence from research on obligations more generally. For example, Assor et al. (2009) and Sideridis (2008) recently found that the obligation to achieve goals can be accompanied by either an approach or an avoidance orientation, and that the former is associated with more positive affect, greater persistence, and better performance. Berg, Janoff-Bulman, and Cotter (2001) found that individuals can experience obligations as something they should do and/or as something they want to do, and that obligations experienced as wants were associated with greater satisfaction and goal success than those experienced as shoulds. Finally, Bontempo, Lobel, and Triandis (1990) found cultural differences in the way social obligations are experienced. Individuals from a collectivist culture (Brazil) were more likely than those from an individualist culture (US) to want to do what they felt they should do. Together these findings suggest that, like NC, obligations can be experienced differently and consequently have different implications for task enjoyment and performance.

5. A new look at normative commitment: directions for future research We believe that the findings reviewed above warrant a new look at the nature and implications of NC. Our objective here is to provide a theoretical framework to help explain these findings – particularly those pertaining to the dual nature of NC – and to offer an agenda for future research. In developing their propositions concerning the behavioral implications of commitment profiles, Meyer and Herscovitch (2001) suggested that a mindset of obligation (NC) might temper the positive effects of the mindset of desire (AC). It seems, however, that this is not necessarily the case — the combination of AC and NC has actually been found to lead to more positive behavioral outcomes than AC alone (e.g., Herscovitch & Meyer, 2002; Somers, 2009; Wasti, 2005). But, it was also observed that, when combined with strong CC and weak AC, NC can have negative implications for OCB (Gellatly et al., 2006). Thus, the unique combinations of AC, CC, and NC appear to produce qualitatively different mindsets that have important implications for behavior. Following Gellatly et al. (2006), we propose that the AC/NC-dominant and CC/NC-dominant profiles are characterized by distinct mindsets, the former reflecting a sense of moral duty and the latter a sense of indebted obligation. A moral duty mindset carries with it a strong sense of desire to pursue a course of action (e.g., OCB) of benefit to a target (e.g., organization) because it is the right and moral thing to do. An indebted obligation mindset reflects a sense of having to pursue a course of action of benefit to a target to avoid the social costs of failing to do so. To date, the existence of these mindsets has been inferred from differences in behavior. However, it would be useful to validate these inferences by demonstrating that the AC/NC-dominant and CC/NC-

288

J.P. Meyer, N.M. Parfyonova / Human Resource Management Review 20 (2010) 283–294

dominant profiles are associated with different cognitive and affective reactions to the target and behaviors associated with the commitment. Therefore, we offer the following proposition to be tested in future research. Proposition 1. The AC/NC-dominant profile is characterized by a moral duty mindset and is associated with positive beliefs (e.g., inherent goodness; meaningfulness) and affect (e.g., optimism, inspiration) with regard to the target and behavioral implications of the commitment. Proposition 1b. The CC/NC-dominant profile is characterized by an indebted obligation mindset and is associated with less positive beliefs (e.g., indebtedness; inconvenience) and affect (e.g., guilt, frustration) with regard to the target and behavioral implications of the commitment. In an effort to explain differences in the behavioral consequences of the three components of commitment, Meyer, Becker, and Vandenberghe (2004) proposed a set of motivational mechanisms based in part on self-determination theory (SDT: Deci & Ryan, 1985; Ryan & Deci, 2000). We argue here that this theory might help to explain the two faces of NC and their implications for behavior. According to SDT, motivation varies along a continuum of autonomy, from external regulation (i.e., to attain externally controlled rewards or avoid punishment), through introjected regulation (i.e., to meet one's own or others' expectations and avoid shame), to fully autonomous regulation (i.e., to achieve valued goals and self-expression). Moreover, it has been shown that autonomous forms of motivation lead to more favorable job outcomes than less autonomous forms (e.g., Otis & Pelletier, 2005; Richer, Blanchard, & Vallerand, 2002). Meyer et al. (2004) proposed links between the motivational states identified in SDT and the commitment mindsets described in the TCM. More specifically, they suggested that CC would be associated with externally regulated motivation, NC with introjected regulation, and AC with autonomous regulation. We agree with the proposed associations involving AC and CC. However, based on findings regarding the dual nature of NC, we argue that the proposed association between NC and introjected regulation requires modification. Introjected regulation occurs when individuals begin to internalize external controls in a way that allows them to monitor and evaluate the appropriateness of their own behavior (Gagné & Deci, 2005). However, the values associated with the behavior are not fully accepted and therefore the individual does not experience his or her behavior as completely autonomous (i.e., as a reflection of deeply held values and/or a genuine expression of self). Consequently, introjection has a conflicted nature and is associated with feelings of shame and guilt (Koestner & Losier, 2002). It is unlikely that such a form of motivation will lead to high levels of discretionary effort and, as such, cannot account for the evidence linking NC to OCB (Gellatly et al., 2006; Meyer et al., 2002) and discretionary support for organizational change (Albion, 2006; Herscovitch & Meyer, 2002; Meyer et al., 2007). Therefore, in contrast to Meyer et al. (2004), we propose that introjected motivation underlies only one of the two faces of NC — the one that in combination with strong CC manifests itself as an indebted obligation. We propose that in combination with strong AC, NC is associated with autonomous regulation. Those individuals who experience their obligation as a moral duty are likely to fully endorse their goals (because they are value congruent) and be willing to exert effort toward their attainment, even under conditions of adversity. Thus, we propose that the link between NC and one's motivational state varies depending on how the obligation is experienced. Proposition 2a. Employees with an AC/NC-dominant commitment profile experience more autonomous forms of regulation (i.e., intrinsic and integrated) as they engage in activities of relevance to the target of their commitment. Proposition 2b. Employees with a CC/NC-dominant commitment profile experience more controlled forms of regulation (i.e., external and introjected) as they engage in activities of relevance to the target of their commitment. If our propositions regarding the mindsets and motivational mechanisms implicated in the two faces of NC are accurate, it is important to consider how the mindsets develop and what organizations can do to foster the more desirable form. Researchers are only now beginning to address the issue of profile development. For example, Somers (2010) found that perceptions of personal and organizational value congruence were significantly higher among employees with an AC/NC-dominant profile than they were in any other profile group. Although it was impossible to determine whether value congruence was an antecedent or a consequence of commitment in this study, value congruence is commonly considered an integral part of P-O fit (Kristof-Brown, Zimmerman, & Johnson, 2005) and, as such, an important contributor to the development of commitment (see Meyer & Allen, 1997). Gellatly, Hunter, Luchak, and Meyer (2007) used multinomial logit analysis to determine whether POS and job autonomy ratings could be used to account for profile group membership in a sample of academic physicians. They found that physicians who reported high levels of POS had a greater likelihood of being in the AC/NC-dominant profile group and a lower likelihood, albeit not significant, of being in the CC/NC-dominant profile group. Thus, rather than merely feeling a need to reciprocate, those who experienced strong POS appear to have had a sense of moral duty to the organization. With regard to perceived autonomy, Gellatly et al. found that physicians who reported high autonomy were less likely to have a CC/NC- or CC-dominant profile, but autonomy scores had no implications for membership in the AC/NC-dominant profile group. Thus, having autonomy may have reduced the sense of being “trapped,” through a feeling of indebtedness or otherwise, but was not sufficient to create a sense of moral duty. The Somers (2010) and Gellatly et al. (2007) findings are important for at least two reasons. First, the fact that the likelihood of membership in the AC/NC-dominant and CC/NC-dominant profile groups related differently to potential antecedents provides further evidence for the two faces of NC. Second, the findings suggest that the nature of employees' commitment can be influenced

J.P. Meyer, N.M. Parfyonova / Human Resource Management Review 20 (2010) 283–294

289

by work experiences under organizational control. In light of these findings, and the fact that POS (Meyer et al., 2002; Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002) and value congruence (Kristof-Brown et al., 2005) have been identified as major contributors to the development of commitment, we offer the following proposition to guide future research on the development of commitment profiles. Proposition 3. Employees who experience high levels of organizational support and share the values of the organization are more likely than those who do not to develop an AC/NC-dominant profile than a CC/NC-dominant profile. Value congruence, POS, and autonomy are only a few of the many factors that might be leveraged to influence the nature of employees' commitment profile. To illustrate, we focus here on two additional factors: the psychological contract between the employer and employees, and the style of leadership. We selected these factors because they are particularly relevant to making the case for a distinction between the two faces of NC. However, we also hope to illustrate how making this distinction can be helpful in understanding the processes by which psychological contracts and leadership exert their influence on other employee attitudes and behaviors. A psychological contract is an individual's belief regarding the terms of a reciprocal exchange agreement between the person and another party (Rousseau, 1989). The currency of this agreement can be both economic (e.g., employees' attendance and performance in exchange for pay and benefits) and socio-emotional (e.g., employees' loyalty in exchange for fair organizational treatment). These two currencies serve as the basis for transactional and relational types of psychological contracts, respectively (MacNeil, 1985; Rousseau & McLean Parks, 1993). Although psychological contracts have been studied primarily in relation to AC (Bunderson, 2001; Lester, Turnley, Bloodgood, & Bolino, 2002; Sels, Janssens, & Van den Brande, 2004), they are arguably more relevant to the NC component (Meyer & Allen, 1997; McInnis, Meyer, & Feldman, 2009). Moreover, we propose that the nature of the contract – transactional or relational – can have implications for the way NC is experienced. Employees with a relational contract are likely to value the relationship for its own sake and experience a sense of moral duty to consider the organization's interests even when it requires personal sacrifice. However, employees' with a purely transactional contract may experience their obligation to the organization as indebtedness (assuming that the organization has fulfilled its obligations to them). Consequently, they may reciprocate out of necessity rather than desire and restrict their contributions to what is required. Therefore, we offer the following propositions to be tested in future research. Proposition 4a. Employees with a relational psychological contract with their organization are more likely to develop an AC/NCdominant profile than a CC/NC-dominant profile. Proposition 4b. Employees with a purely transactional psychological contract with their organization are more likely to develop a CC/ NC-dominant profile than an AC/NC-dominant profile. More recently, Thompson and Bunderson (2003) proposed a new form of psychological contract – an ideology-infused contract – that is founded on a shared employer–employee obligation to advance a valued cause or ideology. An ideology is a set of beliefs that binds organizational actors together by providing them with a shared meaning or purpose (Beyer, 1981; Simons & Ingram, 1997). It is important to stress that while ideology can include a variety of values, an ideology-infused psychological contract is built on those values that have social significance. When employees recognize that they are contributing to the attainment of a greater good, they are less likely to search for better alternatives and have higher intrinsic motivation for work (Thompson & Bunderson, 2003). Commitment to worthwhile objectives evokes moral motives that can foster satisfaction even in the absence of economic or relational benefits (Aguilera, Rupp, Williams, & Ganapathi, 2007; Shamir, 1990). Because “the mere pursuit of the ideology is itself an intrinsic reward” (Thompson & Bunderson, 2003, p. 581), employees may find working in an organization with a strong ideology very rewarding even if other aspects of their daily experiences are not. In other words, they may be willing to make some sacrifices (e.g., turning down more interesting or higher paying jobs elsewhere) and continue to cooperate with the organization because it is the “right” thing to do for the cause (Shamir, 1990; Thompson & Bunderson, 2003). To date, ideology-infused contracts have only been studied in relation to AC (Bunderson, 2001). Using a sample of medical professionals, Bunderson found that perceived breach of organizational role obligations grounded in professional work ideology (e.g., to foster clinical excellence and provide accessible health care for the community) was negatively related to employees' AC to the organization. We believe the ethical underpinnings of an ideology-infused contract make it particularly useful for understanding the development of NC, especially the sense of moral duty characterizing the AC/NC-dominant profile. Therefore, we offer the following proposition: Proposition 5. Employees who have an ideology-infused psychological contract with the organization, are more likely to have an AC/ NC-dominant profile than a CC/NC-dominant profile. Another organizational factor that might have a bearing on the way NC is experienced by employees is leadership. Several leadership theories, including transformational (Bass, 1985; Avolio, 1999), charismatic (Conger & Kanungo, 1988), and authentic leadership (Luthans & Avolio, 2003), emphasize its ethical underpinnings and describe leaders as displaying high moral standards, honesty and integrity. For example, Bass and Steidlmeier (1999) noted that truly transformational leaders base their vision for followers on a strong moral foundation of legitimate values such as social justice and equality (Bass & Steidlmeier, 1999). Similarly,

290

J.P. Meyer, N.M. Parfyonova / Human Resource Management Review 20 (2010) 283–294

Gardner, Avolio, and Walumbwa (2005) argued that authentic leaders have a high level of moral development, hold selftranscendent values, and behave in accord with these values. In light of these descriptions, it follows that authentic, transformational, and charismatic leadership should contribute to the development of an AC/NC-dominant commitment profile in employees. Moreover, the sense of moral duty characterizing this profile could be a major factor in explaining the effectiveness of these forms of leaderships. Although transformational leadership has been found to relate positively to AC (Bycio, Hackett, & Allen, 1995; Whittington, Goodwin, & Murray, 2004) and NC (Moss, McFarland, Ngu, & Kijowska, 2007; Moss & Ritossa, 2007), and authentic leadership has been linked to AC (Walumbwa, Avolio, Gardner, Wernsing, & Peterson, 2008), we are unaware of any efforts to determine whether they are instrumental in fostering an AC/NC-dominant profile. Therefore, we offer the following proposition to guide future research. Proposition 6. Transformational, charismatic, and authentic leaders will be more likely to have followers with an AC/NC-dominant than a CC/NC-dominant commitment profile. By way of contrast, we argue that leaders who rely on transactional rather than transformational leadership strategies will be less likely to foster an AC/NC-dominant profile. In particular, those who emphasize the use of punishment for poor performance are more likely to foster a sense of controlled motivation and a CC/NC- or CC-dominant profile. Leaders who use a contingent reward strategy might instill a willingness to follow directions but, if not accompanied by transformational behaviors, they are unlikely to foster the sense of moral duty inherent in the AC/NC-dominant profile. Proposition 7. In the absence of accompanying transformational behaviors, transactional leaders are more likely to foster a CC/NCdominant profile in followers than an AC/NC-dominant profile. Psychological contracts and leadership are only two factors that are likely to be instrumental in shaping employees' commitment profiles. There are likely to be many more, and the factors to be considered will vary depending on the target and desired outcome of the commitment. Earlier, we identified potentially important mediating mechanisms based on SDT (Deci & Ryan, 1985; Ryan & Deci, 2000). By considering these mechanisms, it should be possible to formulate hypotheses concerning the implications of any personal or situational factor for the formation of a commitment profile. More specifically, any factor that helps to foster autonomous regulation is likely to contribute to the creation of an AC/NC-dominant profile, whereas any factor that fosters a sense of controlled regulation is more likely to contribute to the creation of a CC/NC-dominant profile. Proposition 8a. Any personal or situational characteristic that contributes to the experience of autonomous regulation is likely to be instrumental for the development of an AC/NC-dominant commitment profile. Proposition 8b. Any personal or situational characteristic that contributes to the experience of controlled regulation is more likely to contribute to the formation of a CC/NC-dominant commitment profile than an AC/NC-dominant profile. Finally, although a detailed discussion goes beyond the scope of this manuscript, we believe it is important to consider culture as a factor that might be relevant to the way NC is experienced by employees. Based on the findings of recent meta-analyses (Fischer & Mansell, 2009; Stanley et al., 2007), we expect NC to be greater and to relate more strongly to behavior in collectivist as opposed to individualist cultures. However, Wasti (2003; Wasti & Önder, 2009) noted that members of collectivist cultures are particularly sensitive to group status, and might experience NC differently depending on whether it is directed at an in-group or an out-group. That is, they are more likely to internalize the values of the in-group and experience NC as a moral duty than would be the case for an out-group. There are many other cultural factors (e.g., power distance; future orientation) that could potentially influence the interpretation and implications of NC, and therefore we encourage more research to address cultural differences. For now we offer the following propositions. Proposition 9a. NC will be greater and relate more strongly to behavior among employees in collectivist cultures than among those in individualist cultures. Proposition 9b. Employees in collectivist cultures are more likely to develop an AC/NC-dominant profile for commitments made to ingroup members than for commitments made to out-group members. 6. Implications for theory, research, and practice Our objective in this review was to shed new light on the meaning and importance of NC. In the process, we demonstrated that NC has two faces, one reflecting a sense of moral duty, and the other a sense of indebted obligation. We also illustrated how the behavioral implications of these two faces of NC can be quite different. The evidence in support of these claims comes from recent research examining commitment profiles (e.g., Herscovitch & Meyer, 2002; Gellatly et al., 2006; Gellatly et al., 2007; Somers 2009; 2010; Wasti, 2005), and is corroborated by other psychological research on social obligations (e.g., Assor et al., 2009; Berg et al., 2001; Sideridis, 2008). These new findings help to explain inconsistencies in, and possible misinterpretations of, earlier research. They also suggest that those who dismiss NC as redundant with AC may be overlooking a potentially powerful and beneficial form of commitment — commitment as a moral duty. Our analysis and re-conceptualization of NC has important implications for commitment theory itself, and for theory pertaining to related constructs. Beyond the basic suggestion that NC has two faces, the findings we reviewed here challenge some of the propositions offered by Meyer and Herscovitch (2001) in their general model of workplace commitments. Most

J.P. Meyer, N.M. Parfyonova / Human Resource Management Review 20 (2010) 283–294

291

notably, the findings suggest that obligations need not mitigate the positive effects of AC, and, under some conditions, might amplify them (e.g., Somers, 2009; Wasti, 2005). As our understanding of commitment changes, there are spillover implications for related theory. For example, we noted earlier that the strong correlation between POS and NC has received relatively little attention, perhaps because it was assumed to be an artifact of the even stronger correlation between POS and AC. The latter has typically been explained as reciprocation within a social exchange relationship. However, by taking a profile approach, Gellatly et al. (2007) were able to demonstrate that POS might contribute to more than a simple need to reciprocate — it appears to instill a sense of moral duty to a mutually caring relationship. This suggests the need for some refinement in POS theory. Similar modifications might be needed to other theories (e.g., leadership; psychological contract; organizational identification; strategic human resource management) that include commitment as an outcome or mediating mechanism. At a minimum, we suggest that researchers look beyond AC as the primary and/or most desirable outcome and also consider NC and, more importantly, their combination. The empirical evidence for the two faces of NC is admittedly preliminary. Therefore, in this review we drew on other established theories to explain their existence and to direct future research. Specifically, based on SDT we argued that autonomous motivation should characterize those who experience NC as a moral duty, while controlled motivation should describe those who experience it as an indebted obligation. We also posited that the positive face of NC is promoted by authentic transformational and charismatic leaders as well as psychological contracts based on a positive relationship with the organization and an obligation to pursue broader social goals. These are hypotheses that we believe warrant testing in future research. If supported, they could have important implications for the management of workplace commitments as we discuss below. The research findings on which our propositions were based, the results of profile analyses in particular, were obtained using existing measures of commitment. Therefore, the same measures could be used to test our new propositions. However, there have been concerns expressed about current approaches to the measurement of commitment in general (e.g., Jaros, 2009; Solinger et al., 2008), and normative commitment in particular (e.g., Bergman, 2006; González & Guillén, 2008). It might be advisable to consider modifications or alternative ways of measuring commitment. One alternative is suggested by our first proposition — that different commitment profiles are characterized by different beliefs and affective reactions to the commitment. If this is indeed the case, then the assessment of these beliefs and affective reactions might be a more direct way to measure commitment, including the two faces of NC highlighted here. For present purposes, our assessment of NC was conducted in the context of the TCM. Although the TCM has arguably been the dominant multidimensional model of organizational commitment (Cohen, 2007), it is not without its critics, some of which have proposed alternative frameworks (e.g., Cohen, 2007; González & Guillén, 2008; Solinger et al., 2008). Our objective here was not to defend or promote one particular model over another. Rather, it was to clarify the meaning and implications of NC so that its future as a meaningful component of commitment can be evaluated in full light. However, the results of our analysis do have some implications for the TCM and its competitors. We addressed the implications for the TCM above, and therefore focus here on the competitors. Cohen (2007) argued that NC might best be considered a commitment propensity rather than a component of commitment. As such, it is best measured pre- or early post-employment and can be viewed as a precursor to AC. He noted, and we agree, that this is most likely to be the case for NC as it was conceptualized by Wiener (1982) and operationalized in the original NC scale (Allen & Meyer, 1990). Our findings suggest that NC continues to influence behavior beyond the early employment period and can contribute beyond AC to our ability to understand and predict employee behavior. Therefore, it might be premature to eliminate NC as an influence throughout an individual's career. Solinger et al. (2008) argued that commitment can be reconceptualized as an attitude within the framework proposed by Eagly and Chaiken (1993). As such, AC is viewed as an attitude toward a target (e.g., organization) that influences one's attitude toward a behavior (e.g., staying) — the latter directly affects behavioral intention and ultimately behavior. CC is reconceptualized as the perception of utilitarian outcomes and NC as the perception of normative and self-identity outcomes, and these perceptions are included as additional antecedents of attitude toward a behavior. Thus, in this framework, AC, NC, and CC (in their reconceptualized forms) all combine to shape a single attitude toward behavior, and there is no distinction made with regard to how this attitude is experienced as a function of the relative contributions of AC, NC, and CC. Our review of commitment profile studies suggests that this could be a potential limitation of the model. For example, the nature of the attitude an employee has about staying with an organization could be quite different depending on the extent to which it is based on a positive attitude toward the organization and/or an assessment of utilitarian, normative, or self-identity outcomes. Finally, González and Guillén (2008) argued that the three components of commitment identified in the TCM have roots in Aristotelian philosophy, with AC corresponding most closely to Aristotle's notion of pleasure as the basis for human relationships, CC to the notion of utility, and NC to the notion of moral value. While this philosophical underpinning provides some legitimacy to the model, the authors noted that there are also discrepancies that might be helpful in understanding and addressing some of the concerns that have been expressed with regard to the model. For example, they argued that AC as conceptualized within the TCM framework goes beyond pleasure and has moral overtones (e.g., value congruence and identification) that infringe on NC, perhaps contributing to the strong correlation. For its part, NC as currently conceptualized focuses too much on moral judgment (i.e., norms) and not enough on moral virtue. Interestingly, these two aspects of morality discussed by Aristotle correspond somewhat to the two faces of NC discussed here — indebted obligation reflecting a moral judgment (e.g., the need to reciprocate) and moral duty reflecting the belief in a valued cause. As we noted above, whether this distinction is made by developing new measures or conducting profile analyses can only be answered through further research — however, we agree with González and Guillén that it should be made.

292

J.P. Meyer, N.M. Parfyonova / Human Resource Management Review 20 (2010) 283–294

The practical implications of our analysis of NC will ultimately depend on how well our propositions are supported. However, based on the findings of recent profile studies and the strong theoretical underpinnings for our propositions, we believe that more immediate recommendations are warranted. First and foremost, we argue that NC is an important motivational force that has been overlooked and underutilized. However, to have its most powerful and beneficial effects for employers and employees, NC must be experienced as a sense of moral duty rather than an indebted obligation. So what can organizations do to instill a sense of moral duty? As we noted earlier, POS and value congruence were found to be greater among employees in the AC/NC-dominant profile group. When employers provide a supportive environment and promote values that employees can relate to, they are more likely to foster a relationship built on mutual caring and concern (i.e., where meeting the organization's needs is valued for its own sake). A strong sense of moral duty might also be achieved by emphasizing an organizational ideology and commitment to worthwhile objectives. Socially valued goals appeal to employees' collective identity and moral motives, which in turn provide the basis for the development of a strong identification with the organization and a moral obligation to support the organization in its efforts. Authentic transformational/charismatic leaders can do a great deal to facilitate this process. Although a more detailed discussion goes beyond the objectives of this paper, it should be kept in mind that employees develop multiple workplace commitments. Therefore, in cases where fostering moral commitment to a long-term relationship with the organization is not possible, organizations might benefit from helping to build a strong moral commitment to other foci (e.g., policies, professions, customers) whose goals overlap with those of the organization (see Meyer, 2009). Indeed, as we mentioned earlier, there is evidence that employees with strong AC and NC to a change initiative report the highest levels of discretionary support for the initiative (Albion, 2006; Herscovitch & Meyer, 2002; Meyer et al., 2007). 7. Conclusion We noted at the outset that organizations are becoming increasingly reliant on a committed workforce to gain competitive advantage, and that it is arguably more important than ever to understand the nature, development and implications of employee commitment. Several early theorists (e.g., Etzioni, 1975; Kanter, 1968; Wiener, 1982) argued that commitments with a strong moral underpinning tend to guide behavior in a way that transcends self-interest and benefits the broader collective (e.g., organization, work group). Research pertaining to NC within the TCM appears to have moved away from emphasis on moral duty, or to have blurred its distinction from indebted obligation. Recent research examining profiles of commitment reveals two faces of NC and suggests that there may be substantially greater benefits for both employers and employees when NC is experienced as a moral duty. Indeed, the evidence seems to suggest that the benefits derived from commitment experienced as a moral duty (i.e., an AC/NC-dominant profile) can exceed those resulting from AC alone. In this paper we provided a theoretical rationale for these findings and provided a set of propositions to guide future research. If supported, the findings of this research will have important implications for commitment theory as well as for related theories that include commitment as a mediating mechanism or outcome. They will also have implications for organizations and managers in their efforts to achieve competitive advantage through a committed workforce. Acknowledgement Preparation of this article was supported by a research grant from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada to the first author. References Aguilera, R. V., Rupp, D. E., Williams, C. A., & Ganapathi, J. (2007). Putting the s back in corporate social responsibility: A multilevel theory of social change in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 32, 836−863. Albion, M. J. (2006). The impact of person and environment variables on behavioral support for workplace change. Paper presented at the 26th Annual Congress of Applied Psychology, Athens, Greece. 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. (1996). Affective, continuance, and normative commitment to the organization: An examination of construct validity. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 49, 252−276. Armeli, S., Eisenberger, R., Fasolo, P., & Lynch, P. (1998). Perceived organizational support and police performance: The moderating influence of socioemotional needs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 288−297. Assor, A., Vansteenkiste, M., & Kaplan, A. (2009). Identified versus introjected approach and introjected avoidance motivations in school and sports: The limited benefits of self-worth strivings. The Journal of Educational Psychology, 101, 482−497. Avolio, B. J. (1999). Full leadership development. Building the vital forces in organizations. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: Free Press. Bass, B. M., & Steidlmeier, P. (1999). Ethics, character, and authentic transformational leadership behavior. Leadership Quarterly, 10, 181−217. Becker, H. S. (1960). Notes on the concept of commitment. American Journal of Sociology, 66, 32−40. Becker, T. E. (1992). Foci and bases of commitment: Are these distinctions worth making? Academy of Management Journal, 35, 232−244. Berg, M., Janoff-Bulman, R., & Cotter, J. (2001). Perceiving value in obligations and goals: Wanting to do what should be done. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 982−995. Bergman, M. E. (2006). The relationship between affective and normative commitment: Review and research agenda. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27, 645−663. Beyer, J. M. (1981). Ideologies, values, and decision-making in organizations. In P. C. Nystrom & W. H. Starbuck (Eds.), Handbook of organizational design (pp. 166−202). New York: Oxford University Press. Bontempo, R., Lobel, S., & Triandis, H. (1990). Compliance and value internalization in Brazil and the U.S.: Effects of allocentrism and anonymity. Journal of CrossCultural Psychology, 21, 200−213.

J.P. Meyer, N.M. Parfyonova / Human Resource Management Review 20 (2010) 283–294

293

Bunderson, J. S. (2001). How work ideologies shape the psychological contracts of professional employees: Doctors' responses to perceived breach. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22, 717−741. Bycio, P., Hackett, R. D., & Allen, J. S. (1995). Further assessments of Bass's (1985) conceptualization of transactional and transformational leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 468−478. Clugston, M., Howell, J. P., & Dorfman, P. W. (2000). Does cultural socialization predict multiple bases and foci of commitment? Journal of Management, 26, 5−30. Cohen, A. (2007). Commitment before and after: An evaluation and reconceptualization of organizational commitment. Human Resource Management Review, 17, 336−354. Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. (1988). Charismatic leadership: The elusive factor in organizational effectiveness. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New York: Plenum. Dunham, R. B., Grube, J. A., & Castaneda, M. B. (1994). Organizational commitment: The utility of an integrative definition. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 370−380. Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of attitudes. Orlando, FL: Harcourt. Einsenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchison, S., & Sowa, D. (1986). Perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 500−507. Etzioni, A. (1975). A comparative analysis of complex organizations. New York: Free Press. Etzioni, A. (1999). Essays in socio-economics. New York: Springer. Finegan, J. E. (2000). The impact of person and organizational values on organizational commitment. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 73, 149−169. Fischer, R., & Mansell, A. (2009). Commitment across cultures: A meta-analytical approach. Journal of International Business Studies, 40, 1339−1358. Gagné, M., & Deci, E. L. (2005). Self-determination theory and work motivation. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, 331−362. Gardner, W. L., Avolio, B. J., & Walumbwa, F. O. (2005). Authentic leadership development: Emergent trends and future directions. In W. L. Gardner, B. J. Avolio, & F. O. Walumbwa (Eds.), Authentic leadership theory and practice: Origins, effects, and development (pp. 387−406). Oxford, UK: Elsevier Science. Gellatly, I. R., Hunter, K. H., Luchak, A. A., & Meyer, J. P. (2007, April). Predicting commitment profile membership: The role of perceived organizational support and autonomy. Poster presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, New York, NY. Gellatly, I. R., Meyer, J. P., & Luchak, A. A. (2006). Combined effects of the three commitment components on focal and discretionary behaviors: A test of Meyer and Herscovitch's propositions. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 69, 331−345. González, T. F., & Guillén, M. (2008). Organizational commitment: A proposal for a wider ethical conceptualization of ‘normative commitment’. Journal of Business Ethics, 78, 401−414. Gouldner, A. W. (1960). The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. American Sociological Review, 25, 161−178. Hackett, R. D., Bycio, P., & Hausdorf, P. A. (1994). Further assessments of Meyer and Allen's (1991) three-component model of organizational commitment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 15−23. Herscovitch, L., & Meyer, J. P. (2002). Commitment to organizational change: Extension of a three-component model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 474−487. Iverson, R. D., & Buttigieg, D. M. (1999). Affective, normative, and continuance commitment: Can the “right kind” of commitment be managed? Journal of Managerial Studies, 36, 307−333. Jaros, S. J. (1997). An assessment of Meyer and Allen's (1991) three-component model of organizational commitment and turnover intentions. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 51, 319−337. Jaros, S. J. (2009). Measurement of commitment. In H. J. Klein, T. E. Becker, & J. P. Meyer (Eds.), Commitment in organizations: Accumulated wisdom and new directions (pp. 347−381). Florence, KY: Routledge/Taylor and Francis Group. Kanter, R. M. (1968). Commitment and social organization: A study of commitment mechanisms in utopian communities. American Sociological Review, 33, 499−517. Ko, J. W., Price, J. L., & Mueller, C. W. (1997). Assessment of Meyer and Allen's three component model of organizational commitment in South Korea. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 961−973. Koestner, R., & Losier, G. F. (2002). Distinguishing three ways of being highly motivated: A closer look at introjection, identification, and intrinsic motivation. In E. L. Deci & R. M. Ryan (Eds.), Handbook of self-determination research (pp. 101−121). Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press. Kondratuk, T. B., Hausdorf, P. A., Korabik, K., & Rosin, H. M. (2004). Linking career mobility with corporate loyalty: How does job change relate to organizational commitment? Journal of Vocational Behavior, 65, 332−349. Kristof-Brown, A. L., Zimmerman, R. D., & Johnson, E. C. (2005). Consequences of individual's fit at work: A meta-analysis of person–job, person–organization, person–group, and person–supervisor fit. Personnel Psychology, 58, 281−342. Lee, K., Allen, N. J., Meyer, J. P., & Rhee, K. Y. (2001). The three-component model of organizational commitment: An application to South Korea. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 50, 596−614. Lester, S. W., Turnley, W. H., Bloodgood, J. M., & Bolino, M. C. (2002). Not seeing eye to eye: Differences in supervisor and subordinate perceptions of and attributions for psychological contract breach. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23, 39−56. Luchak, A. A., & Gellatly, I. R. (2001). What kind of commitment does a final-earnings pension plan elicit? Industrial Relations, 56, 394−417. Luthans, F., & Avolio, B. J. (2003). Authentic leadership development. In K. S. Cameron, J. E. Dutton, & R. E. Quinn (Eds.), Positive organizational scholarship (pp. 241−258). San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler. MacNeil, I. R. (1985). Relational contract: What we do and do not know. Wisconsin Law Review, 1985, 483−525. Marcovitz, Y., Davis, A. J., & van Dick, R. (2007). Organizational commitment profiles and job satisfaction among Greek private and public sector employees. International Journal of Cross-cultural Management, 7, 77−99. Marsh, R. M., & Mannari, H. (1977). Organizational commitment and turnover: A prediction study. Administrative Science Quarterly, 22, 57−75. McInnis, K. J., Meyer, J. P., & Feldman, S. (2009). Psychological contracts and their implications for commitment: A feature-based approach. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 74, 165−180. Meyer, J. P. (2009). Commitment in a changing world of work. In H. J. Klein, T. E. Becker, & J. P. Meyer (Eds.), Commitment in organizations: Accumulated wisdom and new directions (pp. 37−68). Florence, KY: Routledge/Taylor and Francis Group. Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1984). Testing the “side-bet theory” of organizational commitment: Some methodological considerations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 372−378. Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1991). A three-component conceptualization of organizational commitment. Human Resource Management Review, 1, 64−89. 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., & Vandenberghe, C. (2004). Employee commitment and motivation: A conceptual analysis and integrative model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 991−1007. Meyer, J. P., & Herscovitch, L. (2001). Commitment in the workplace: Toward the general model. Human Resource Management Review, 11, 299−326. Meyer, J. P., Srinivas, E. S., Lal, J. B., & Topolnytsky, L. (2007). Employee commitment and support for an organizational change: Test of the three-component model in two cultures. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 80, 185−211. 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. Moss, S. A., McFarland, J., Ngu, S., & Kijowska, A. (2007). Maintaining an open mind to closed individuals: The effect of resource availability and leadership style on the association between openness to experience and organizational commitment. Journal of Research in Personality, 41, 259−275. Moss, S. A., & Ritossa, D. A. (2007). The impact of goal orientation on the association between leadership style and follower performance, creativity and work attitudes. Leadership, 3, 433−456. Mowday, R. T. (1998). Reflections on the study and relevance of organizational commitment. Human Resource Management Review, 8, 387−401.

294

J.P. Meyer, N.M. Parfyonova / Human Resource Management Review 20 (2010) 283–294

O'Reilly, C. A., & Chatman, J. A. (1986). Organizational commitment and psychological attachment: The effects of compliance, identification, and internalization on prosocial behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 492−499. Otis, N., & Pelletier, L. G. (2005). A motivational model of daily hassles, physical symptoms, and future work intentions among police officers. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 35, 2193−2214. Powell, D. M., & Meyer, J. P. (2004). Side-bet theory and the three-component model of organizational commitment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 65, 157−177. Randall, D. M., Fedor, D. B., & Longenecker, C. O. (1990). The behavioral expression of organizational commitment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 36, 210−224. Reichers, A. E. (1985). A review and reconceptualization of organizational commitment. Academy of Management Review, 10, 465−476. Rhoades, L., & Eisenberger, R. (2002). Perceived organizational support: A review of the literature. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 698−714. Richer, S. F., Blanchard, C., & Vallerand, R. J. (2002). A motivational model of work turnover. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32, 2089−2113. Rousseau, D. M. (1989). Psychological and implied contracts in organizations. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 2, 121−139. Rousseau, D. M., & McLean Parks, J. M. (1993). The contracts of individuals and organizations. In B. Staw & R. M. Kramer (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior, Vol. 15 (pp. 1—43). Greenwhich, NY: JAI Press. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55, 68−78. Scholl, R. W. (1981). Differentiating commitment from expectancy as a motivating force. Academy of Management Review, 6, 589−599. Sels, L., Janssens, M., & Van den Brande, I. (2004). Assessing the nature of psychological contracts: A validation of six dimensions. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 461−488. Shamir, B. (1990). Calculations, values, and identities: The sources of collectivistic work motivation. Human Relations, 43, 313−332. Shore, L. M., Tetrick, L. E., Shore, T. H., & Barksdale, K. (2000). Construct validity of measures of Becker's side bet theory. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 57, 428−444. Sideridis, G. D. (2008). Feeling obligated to “do well” or “not to fail”? The distinction between approach and avoidance dimensions of oughts. Learning and Individual Differences, 18, 176−186. Simons, T., & Ingram, P. (1997). Organization and ideology: Kibbutzim and hired labor, 1951–1965. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42, 784−813. Snape, E., & Redman, T. (2003). An evaluation of a three-component model of occupational commitment: Dimensionality and consequences among United Kingdom human resource management specialists. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 152−159. Solinger, O. N., van Olffen, W., & Roe, R. A. (2008). Beyond the three-component model of organizational commitment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 70−83. Somers, M. J. (1995). Organizational commitment, turnover and absenteeism: An examination of direct and interaction effects. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 16, 49−58. Somers, M. J. (2009). The combined influence of affective, continuance, and normative commitment on employee withdrawal. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 74, 75−81. Somers, M. J. (2010). Patterns of attachment to organizations: Commitment profiles and work outcomes. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 83, 443−453. Stanley, D. J., Meyer, J. P., Jackson, T. A., Maltin, E. R., McInnis, K., Kumsar, Y., et al. (2007, April). Cross-cultural generalizability of the three-component model of commitment. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, New York, NY. Stanley, D. J., Vandenberg, R. J., Vandenberghe, C., & Bentein, K. (2009). Profiles of commitment: A multidimensional perspective. Poster presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, New Orleans, LA. Stinglhamber, F., Bentein, K., & Vandenberghe, C. (2002). Extension of the three-component model of commitment to five foci: Development of measures and substantive test. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 18, 123−138. Thompson, J. A., & Bunderson, J. S. (2003). Violations of principle: Ideological currency in the psychological contract. Academy of Management Review, 4, 571−586. Triandis, H. C., Leung, K., Villareal, M. J., & Clack, F. L. (1985). Allocentric and idiocentric tendencies: Convergent and discriminant validation. Journal of Research in Personality, 19, 395−415. Vardi, Y., Wiener, Y., & Popper, M. (1989). The value content of organizational mission as a factor in the commitment of members. Psychological Reports, 65, 27−34. Walumbwa, F. O., Avolio, B. J., Gardner, W. L., Wernsing, T. S., & Peterson, S. J. (2008). Authentic leadership: Development and validation of a theory-based measure. Journal of Management, 34, 89−126. Wasti, S. A. (2003). Organizational commitment, turnover intentions and the influence of cultural values. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 76, 303−321. Wasti, S. A. (2005). Commitment profiles: Combinations of organizational commitment forms and job outcomes. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 67, 290−308. Wasti, S. A., & Önder, Ç. (2009). Commitment across cultures: Progress, pitfalls and propositions. In H. J. Klein, T. E. Becker, & J. P. Meyer (Eds.), Commitment in organizations: Accumulated wisdom and new directions (pp. 309−343). Florence, KY: Routledge/Taylor and Francis Group. Whittington, J. L., Goodwin, V. L., & Murray, B. (2004). Transformational leadership, goal difficulty, and job design: Independent and interactive effects on employee outcomes. Leadership Quarterly, 15, 593−606. Wiener, Y. (1982). Commitment in organizations: A normative view. Academy of Management Review, 7, 418−428. Wiener, Y., & Vardi, Y. (1980). Relationships between job, organization, and career commitments and work outcomes — An integrative approach. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 26, 81−96.