a longitudinal analysis of the antecedents of organizational

A C A I) E At Y O F

Management

A L o n g itu d in a l A n a ly sis o f th e A n te c e d e n ts o f O rg a n iz a tio n a l C o m m itm e n t A u tho r(s): T hom as S. B a tem an and S te p h en S tra s s e rSource: The A cadem y o f M an agem en t Jo u r n a l, Vol. 27, No. 1 (M ar., 1984), pp. 95-112 P u b lish ed by : Academy of M anagement S tab le URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/255959 A ccessed: 1 6 /0 6 /2 0 1 4 18:09

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Academy o f Management is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Academy o f Management Journal.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.20 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 18:09:34 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aom

http://www.jstor.org/stable/255959?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.jstor.org


®Academy of Management Journal 1984, Vol. 27, No. 1, 95-112.

A Longitudinal Analysis of the Antecedents

of Organizational Commitment1THOMAS S. BATEMAN

Texas A&M University STEPHEN STRASSER

The Ohio State University

From longitudinal data from 129 nursing department employees, organizational commitment was found to be antecedent to job satisfaction rather than an outcome o f it. Furthermore, several other variables were found to be causally related to satisfaction but not commitment. Implications o f unsubstantiated assumptions regarding causes o f commitment are discussed.

For over a decade now organizational researchers have been studying organizational commitment in its relationships with various stituational characteristics, attitudes, and behaviors of employees. Commitment has been operationally defined in many ways, but one major stream of current research (Angle & Perry, 1981; Mowday, Steers, & Porter, 1979) has viewed this construct as multidimensional in nature, involving an employee’s loyalty to the organization, willingness to exert effort on behalf of the organization, degree of goal and value congruency with the organization, and desire to maintain membership (Porter, Crampon, & Smith, 1976; Porter, Steers, Mowday, & Boulian, 1974). The study reported here attempts to add to the knowledge of organizational commitment by providing the first longitudinal multivariate analysis aimed at deriving causal inferences regarding a number of its presumed antecedents.

Interest in studying organizational commitment has continued for a number of reasons. It consistently has been shown to be related to: (a) employee behaviors, such as job search activities, turnover, absenteeism and, to a lesser extent, performance effectiveness (Abelson & Sheridan, 1981; Angle & Perry, 1981; Bluedorn, 1982; Farrell & Rusbult, 1981; Marsh & Man- nari, 1977; Morris & Sherman, 1981; Porter et al., 1976; Porter et al., 1974;

The authors wish to thank Michael Abelson and two anonymous reviewers for their time and helpful suggestions on earlier drafts o f this paper. This research was supported by research grants from Tulane University's Bio-Medical Research Program and the School of Business Administration. The authors o f this paper wish to be considered as equal contributors.

95

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.20 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 18:09:34 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions


96 Academy o f Management Journal March

Steers, 1977); (b) attitudinal, affective, and cognitive constructs such as job satisfaction, job involvement, and job tension (Hall & Schneider, 1972; Hrebiniak & Alutto, 1972; Porter et al., 1974; Stevens, Beyer, & Trice, 1978; Stone & Porter, 1976); (c) characteristics of the employee’s job and role, including autonomy and responsibility (Koch & Steers, 1978), job variety and task identity (Steers, 1977), and role conflict and ambiguity (Morris & Koch, 1979; Morris & Sherman, 1981); and (d) personal characteristics of the employee, such as age, sex, need for achievement, and job tenure (Angle & Perry, 1981; Hall & Schneider, 1972; Hrebiniak & Alutto, 1972; Koch & Steers, 1978; Sheldon, 1971; Steers, 1977). This range of relationships, coupled with the belief that organizational commitment is a relatively stable attitude over time when compared to job satisfaction (Porter et al., 1974), suggests the importance of pursuing a thorough understanding of the operation of this major construct.

Research Problems

Despite the large number of studies that focus on organizational commitment, a number of research issues remain. First, past research has not empirically established the causal relationships between commitment and those situational variables and attitudes presumed to be its antecedents. Second, the relationship of commitment to external environmental factors, such as perceived availability of other jobs, has gone relatively unstudied. Third, there remain a number of internal organizational variables—most notably, job tension and certain leadership behaviors—that need further integration into organizational commitment research. These shortcomings in the extant literature have important theoretical and applied significance, and they form the basis for this investigation.

The first research problem, that of the lack of clear causal specification, is due to cross-sectional designs employed by the vast majority of studies. Consequently, data analytic plans have relied primarily on zero-order correlations and multiple regression equations that are concurrent rather than predictive in nature. Only Porter and his colleagues (Porter et al., 1974,1976) have employed multiple measurements in longitudinal designs. However, even in these investigations the number of variables studied was quite limited, and there was no specification of any causal ordering, particularly with respect to the antecedents of commitment.

Typically, researchers have relied on explanations that derive from, for example, exchange theory (March & Simon, 1958) and the concept of “side bets” (Becker, 1960) to justify presumed causal linkages from characteristics of the employee and his/her work environment to organizational commitment (Marsh & Mannari, 1977; Steers, 1977). Longitudinal research remains to be conducted to confirm the antecedent nature of these variables. Job satisfaction, too, often is considered to be an attitudinal cause of commitment (Bluedorn, 1982; Price & Mueller, 1981) on the basis of Porter et al.’s (1974) argument that job satisfaction is a less stable and more rapidly formed



1984 Bateman and Strasser 97

construct than commitment. However, the validity of this perspective is not altogether clear. In fact, there exists a viable alternative perspective that suggests that commitment to an organization may be a cause rather than a result of job satisfaction.

Building on the work of Bern (1967), Salancik and Pfeffer (1978) suggested that commitment to a course of action may determine subsequent attitudes. Commitment initiates a rationalizing process through which individuals “make sense” of their current situation by developing attitudes that are consistent with their commitment. Numerous laboratory and field studies have confirmed this causal sequence. (See Kiesler, 1971, and Salancik, 1977, for reviews.) In the specific case of commitment to an organization, a recent study (O’Reilly & Caldwell, 1981) showed that certain aspects of the initial decision to join an organization were related to subsequent commitment and satisfaction. Although these researchers defined commitment as a behavior (i.e., job choice) rather than a cognitive construct, as in Porter et al. (1974), it is not unlikely that a cognitive outlook such as commitment is rationalized by subsequent attitudes of job satisfaction. Clearly, longitudinal empirical assessments aimed at establishing causality are requisite.

The second research issue alluded to earlier relates to understanding the impact of external environmental factors on organizational commitment. Only recently have researchers begun to look directly at this issue. Blue- dorn (1982) and O’Reilly and Caldwell (1981) found an inverse relationship between commitment and environmental job alternatives, and Farrell and Rusbult (1981) found no direct path between these two variables. The potential significance of an environmental alternatives variable should continue to be pursued in any research on organizational commitment. It seems likely that employees’ perceptions of potential market alternatives will affect the value they place on their current organizational affiliation. Previous writings have invoked market opportunities as a possible explanation for variation in commitment levels (Sheldon, 1971), but few studies have empirically assessed the causal impact of this factor.

The third issue pertains to the scope of the internal organizational variables previously studied in commitment research. For example, only Hrebiniak and Alutto (1972) have investigated the relationship between job tension and commitment, yet the sustained interest in job tension and stress (Abelson & Sheridan, 1981; Brief, Schuler, & Van Sell, 1981) makes this an important area for further inquiry. In addition, there has been only a minimal amount of integration between organizational commitment and research on leadership. To date the focus has been on the initiating structure and consideration dimensions of leader behavior (Morris & Sherman, 1981) to the exclusion of leader reward and punishment behaviors. Recent research (Podsakoff, Todor, & Skov, 1981; Sims, 1980) suggests that leader reward and punishment behaviors are powerful predictors of other outcome variables such as job satisfaction and performance. It would seem justifiable to expect that the receipt of rewards and/or punishment from




one’s organizational superior would also have an effect on commitment, and therefore to include these particular leader variables in any predictive model of organizational commitment.

The study reported in this paper attempts a resolution of these shortcomings in the organizational commitment literature via a multivariate, longitudinal study of the presumed causes of commitment. A set of relevant organizational variables, personal characteristics and attitudes of the employee, and perceptions of environmental alternatives were assessed at two separate times in their relationships with commitment. Multiple regression analyses were performed to validate the explanatory power of the total set of predictor variables, as is customarily done in other studies. Subsequently, in a methodological advance over previous studies, the longitudinal nature of the data was utilized in tests directed towards drawing inferences regarding the presumed causal orderings surrounding the organizational commitment construct.

Method

Research Setting and Sample

This study was originally designed primarily as a predictive study of employee turnover. It included the impact of organizational commitment, job satisfaction, and other predictor variables. It also was originally intended, however, that causal analysis focusing on organizational commitment models would be conducted. Data were collected from nursing department employees from four hospitals located in a large southern city. Two of the hospitals were investor owned, one was a university teaching hospital, and the fourth was a Veterans’ Administration hospital. Self-administered questionnaire responses were solicited from all nursing-related jobs, including nurses’ aides, licensed practical nurses (LPNs), and registered nurses (RNs), representing all types of nursing units (emergency, pediatrics, surgery, etc.). As such, the total sample was representative across nursing department tasks as well as types of hospitals.

Procedure

Questionnaires were originally distributed to approximately 900 nursing employees. Included with each questionnaire was a cover letter explaining the importance of the research, the support of hospital administration, and the strict confidentiality of the responses. Participants were asked to complete the questionnaire on their own time and return it, with the last four digits of their Social Security numbers as a means by which only the researchers would identify them, to a collection box at the sample sites. This box was collected by research assistants on a daily basis over a period of 10 days. A total of 374 identifiable questionnaires were completed at time1 (A) for a response rate of 42 percent.




A second administration of the same questionnaire was conducted approximately five months later (t2). A cover letter explaining that this was the final stage of the study was again distributed with the questionnaire to all nursing department employees at the four hospitals. Of the approximately 900 questionnaires that were again distributed, 412 were returned for a time 2 response rate of 46 percent.

Respondent identification, using the partial Social Security number and other demographic information in several cases in which the numbers were identical, revealed that 129 employees had completed usable questionnaires at both times. The results reported in this paper are based on the responses from only these repeat respondents (Bateman & Strasser, 1983). The average age of the respondents was 35.2 years; the median tenure in nursing and in their current job was 10.83 and 3.85 years, respectively; and 95 percent of the participants were female.

In an effort to assess the representativeness of the repeated measures group to the rest of the study sample, 7-test comparisons were run on a set of study variables. Here, the repeated measures group (n = 129) was compared to the one-time respondents at t\ and t2 (total n - 528). No differences across these three groups would indicate that the repeated measures sample, on which causal analyses were to be conducted, would be representative of over 70 percent (129 + 528) of the total study population of 900. Using a two-tailed f-test at a = .05, the repeated measures group and the one time respondents showed no differences in age, career tenure, satisfaction, commitment, centralization/decentralization, stress, or need for achievement at either ti or t2. The only significant difference to emerge was job tenure at t\ but not at t2. Although comparisons of the repeated measures group to the nonrespondents was not possible, the available data strongly suggest that the repeated measures group is quite similar to a large proportion of the study population.

Measures

The questionnaires measured 13 variables. The focal outcome variable was organizational commitment. The other 12 included 4 demographic and 8 nondemographic predictors.

Organizational commitment was measured with a 15-item scale developed by Porter et al. (1974). The psychometric properties of this scale have been thoroughly investigated (Mowday et al., 1979). In the present study, the scale demonstrated internal consistency reliabilities of a = .90 at time 1 and a = .89 at time 2, and a test-retest reliability of .65.

Leader reward and punishment behaviors were measured with the scales originally developed by Johnson (1973). The psychometric properties and conceptual distinctiveness of these scales have been reported elsewhere (Sims & Szilagyi, 1975). In this study, Cronbach’s alpha for leader reward behavior was .96 and .95 for the two waves of data, and the leader punishment behavior scale’s alpha was .69 at time 1 and .68 at time 2. The test-retest




reliabilities were .54 and .37 for leader reward and punishment behavior, respectively.

Job characteristics were measured with the Job Diagnostic Survey (Hackman & Oldham, 1975). The reliability of the motivational potential scale (MPS) was a = .71 at time 1 and a = .71 at time 2 , and the test-retest reliability was .48.

Centralization was measured with a 6-item scale of perceived participation in decision making used by Morris and Steers (1980) as adapted from Vroom (1960). Coefficient alpha for the present study was .81 at time 1 and .81 at time 2 ; the test-retest reliability was .61.

Need for achievement was measured with Steers’ (1975) short 5-item scale. Cronbach’s alpha at time 1 and time 2 were .43 and .60, respectively. The test-retest reliability was .69.

Perceived environmental alternatives were measured with three items assessing the chances of finding an acceptable alternative job, the desirability of another job in another organization, and a comparison of the desirability of another job to the present job. Internal reliabilities were a = .65 and a =.58 at times 1 and 2; the test-retest reliability was .53.

Job tension was assessed via the job related tension scale developed by Kahn, Wolfe, Quinn, Snoek, and Rosenthal (1964). Items from the scale tap role stressors such as conflict, ambiguity, and overload. In this study, the coefficient alphas were .74 at time 1 and .73 at time 2; the test-retest reliability was .68 .

Job satisfaction was measured with the Job Descriptive Index (JDI) developed by Smith, Kendall, and Hulin (1969). The reliabilities and validities for the several subscales (satisfaction with work, co-workers, supervision, pay, and opportunities for promotion) are extremely well established, and the scale’s usefulness for longitudinal research has been recommended (Schneider & Dachler, 1978). In the present study, internal reliabilities on the overall (combined) scale were a = .64 at time 1 and a = .66 at time 2; the test-retest reliability was .68 .

Age, job tenure, career tenure, and education level were recorded from four single-item self-report responses.

Analysis and Results

Relationships among the focal variables were assessed in several stages. Table 1 presents the means and standard deviations of the nondemographic variables. These variables all proved to be relatively stable over the five- month time interval. Table 2 displays the static zero-order correlations among all variables at time 1 and time 2 , and the test-retest reliabilities. As can be seen, many of the correlations are significant at both time periods.

Multiple regression was next employed as a test of the predictive power of the variables presumed to be antecedent to commitment. This basic approach, which indicates the relative importance of individual predictors when the others are statistically controlled for and which yields summary statistics




Table 1Means and Standard Deviations of the Study Variables

( N = 129)

Time 1 Time 2x S.D. x s. a

Focal outcome variable:Organizational commitment 72.4 15.9 71.4 15.9

Nondemographic causal predictors:Leader reward behavior 79.5 20.5 81.3 20.5Leader punishment behavior 30.3 5.7 32.0 6.0Job characteristics 124.3 72.8 120.4 66.5Centralization 20.2 6.0 20.8 5.9Need for achievement 25.4 3.7 26.0 4.5Environmental alternatives 9.5 2.6 9.2 2.6Job tension 25.2 6.2 25.4 5.9Job satisfaction 31.4 8.7 31.8 8.3

indicating overall explanatory power, typifies the approach taken in the published empirical tests of commitment models (Marsh & Mannari, 1977; Steers, 1977). In the present study several multiple regression analyses were made possible by the collection of two waves of data. An analysis of the time 1 data was followed by a second analysis applied to the time 2 data as a second (replication) test of the power of the set of predictor variables. These static regressions were run for the purpose of comparing the overall predictive power (R2) of the present set of variables to the predictive power of other studies. Additionally, a final multiple regression was performed using the time 1 predictor variables as “independent” variables in a regression equation predicting the time 2 commitment values as the “dependent” variable. The impact of the predictors was assessed hierarchically, after the time 1 value of commitment was controlled for. This time- lagged regression analysis has the effect of removing some method variance inherent to single-administration self-report methodology. Furthermore, because of the temporal ordering of the predictor (time 1) variables and the criterion (time 2 commitment) variable, a multivariate test that is more representative of the presumed causal priorities is created.

The two regressions on the two separate waves of static data yield multiple Rs of .75 (R2 = .57) and .79 (R2= .63), which compare favorably to some studies (Marsh & Mannari, 1977) and rival others (Steers, 1977). There are two significant contributors to the prediction of organizational commitment that reliably arise in both regressions—job satisfaction (t\ 13 = .24, p < . 05; ti (3 = .53, /?< .001) and environmental alternatives (t\ (3 = -.29, /? < .001; t2 /S = —.28, /? < .001). The time-lagged stepwise regression, however, indicates the inability of these variables to predict, longitudinally, subsequent commitment. After entering the t\ commitment variable to partial out the test-retest correlation, the entire set of variables did not add significantly to prediction (A/?2 = .055, F9,94= 1.42, p = .20). Marginal statistical significance of leader reward behavior and job satisfaction are revealed when stepwise regression is used. When this analysis is repeated



This content dow

nloaded from

195.34.79.20 on

Mon, 16

Jun 2014

18:09:34 PM

All use

subject to JSTOR

Terms

and C

onditions

Table 2Intercorrelations Among the Major Study Variables3

Car

eer

Tenu

re

Job

Tenu

re

Edu

catio

n

Age

Nee

dA

chie

vem

ent

Mot

ivat

ing

Pot

entia

lSc

ore

Time 1

* 1

Lea

der

Pun

ishm

ent

Cen

tral

izat

ion

Tens

ion

Satis

fact

ion

Env

iron

men

tal

\ Alte

rnat

ives

|C

omm

itmen

t

Career tenure 50*** .00 .83*** .17* .05 -.06 -.08 .13 -.09 -.01 -.06 .14Job tenure .60*** -.04 .56*** .17* .08 - .12 -.02 .11 -.04 - . 1 1 -.03 .07Education -.07 -T03 .06 .18* .10 .14 .01 32*** .07 .18* .12 .02Age .84*** 5 j *** 1 6 * .06 .10 -.04 -.0 1 .08 -.14 -.04 -.19* .20*Need achievement .2 1* .20* .18* J~2 .70*** .15* .17* -.01 35*** .02 .03 -.02 .13Motivating potential score .33*** .19* .06 .24** .31*** .53*** 44*** .11 5 7 * * * _ 35* * * .52*** -.16* ^2***Leader reward .25** .04 .16* .21* .18* 4 5 * * * 754*** .42*** .60*** _ 32*** .61*** -.32*** .55***Leader punishment .13 .02 -.1 2 .16* .23** .11 .15* .36*** .15* -.14 .27** -.18* 23**Centralization .22** .07 .25** .11 .31*** 58*** .65*** -.05 61*** -.16* .57*** - . 22** 44***

Tension - . 2 1* -.02 .07 -.24** -.08 -.30*** _ *** -.09 -.28** .7i*** _ 34*** 4Q*** -.42***Satisfaction .22** .03 -.0 1 .17* .14 .46*** .60*** .06 54*** -.46*** .68*** -.33*** 5 5 * * *

Environmental alternatives -.09 .06 .18* -.17* .19* -.07 -.28** -.00 -.14* 29*** -.36*** .57*** -.54***Commitment .17* -.0 1 .08 .20* .06 .26** 44***

Time 2.07 30*** - 38*** .63*** -.58*** ^65***

Correlations above the diagonal (—) are for time 1 and below the diagonal (—) are for time 2. Test-retest correlations are entered in the diagonal. Onetailed test of statistical significance.

*/?< .05 **/? < .01

***p<.001

Academy

of M

anagement

Journal M

arch


using pairwise rather than listwise deletion of missing data to capture more of the study sample, these findings become nonsignificant at/?< .05. Again, when these predictors are entered as a block after accounting for the effect of t\ commitment, the result remains nonsignificant (Ai?2=.061, F9tioo = 1.48, p < A 7 ) when the pairwise analysis is used. Despite a high level of concurrent validity, the lack of true (longitudinal) predictive validity casts some doubt on the presumed causal impact of these variables.

The next stage of analysis addressed the issue of causal priorities between organizational commitment and each of the variables that are predicted to be causes of commitment. Eight two-variable systems (each separate nondemographic predictor, coupled with commitment) were created and tested via cross-lagged regression analysis (Rogosa, 1980). With this procedure, contextual information surrounding a given two-variable system is initially provided by six correlations—two static correlations for time 1 and time2 (/-xiyi and r X2y2) , two autocorrelations (rxix2 and r y m ) that indicate the test- retest reliabilities or stabilities of the two variables, and two cross-lagged correlations (rx,y2 and r y m ) between the time 1 value of one variable and the subsequent time 2 value of the other variable.

Causal analysis and tests of spuriousness typically are conducted by statistical correction and comparisons of the magnitudes of the cross-lagged correlations (Kenny, 1975). Recent criticism of cross-lagged correlations (Rogosa, 1980), however, alternatively suggests the use of structural regression models for the analysis of longitudinal panel data. This approach was applied in the present study. For a given pair of variables, x and y, the causal influence from x to y is represented by the regression parameter of the path from x at time 1 to y at time 2. In like manner, the causal influence from y to x is represented by the regression parameter of the path from prior y to a subsequent x. Thus, where:

*2 = &o + PiXi + 7zVi + u

y2 = yo + &2Xi+yiyi+V

the parameters /?i and 71 represent the time-lagged influence of a variable on itself, and j32 and y2 represent the time-lagged causal effects between x and j . Under the usual assumptions governing regression analysis (linearity, additivity, etc.) a nonzero value of a relevant parameter is indicative of a significant causal effect.

Essentially, then, the time-lagged explanatory power of a potentially causal variable is determined only after the “dependent” variable’s time 1 influence upon “itself” is first controlled for. An additional advantage to analyzing the data over two time periods is that some of the method variance of a single collection of self-report data is removed. Finally, the reader should be cautioned that these procedures do not ultimately “prove” causality. However, confidence in making causal inferences is substantially strengthened if one of the pertinent regression parameters is significant,




and reciprocal causation also can be indicated if both /32 and 72 are significant.

Table 3 indicates the cross-lagged correlations and regression coefficients (static correlations and test-retest reliabilities are found in Table 2). Although the static correlations generally are highly significant, only two of the eight pairs of regression parameters show indication of any causal ordering. Leader punitive behavior is shown to have a negative causal impact on commitment, and commitment is indicated to have a positive causal impact on job satisfaction. Furthermore, given the weakness of the leader punitive behavior effect, especially within the context of unstable and nonnegative static correlations and low test-retest reliabilities of the leader punitive behavior scale, in total there is little to argue for the presumed antecedent nature of this set of predictor variables. Particularly noteworthy, however, is that job satisfaction, most commonly considered a cause of organizational commitment, is shown to result from commitment. Subanalyses on the five facets of satisfaction revealed that only one—satisfaction with pay—did not show at least a trend in this direction. Satisfaction with opportunities for promotion was significant at p < .07; and the other three subscales—satisfaction with work, co-workers, and supervision—were all strongly significant results of commitment.

Table 3Cross-Lagged Correlations and Regression Parameters for

Commitment and Predictor Variables

Predictor Variables (x) with Commitment (y)

Cross-Lagged CorrelationsTime-Lagged

Regression Parameters*

r*jy2 ryjx2 02 72

Job satisfaction .39*** 5̂4*** .02 .25**Environmental alternatives -.43*** -.39*** -.10 -.13Job tension -.27*** -.33*** .00 -.04Need achievement .08 .09 .00 .00Centralization .22** .25*** - . 1 1 -.03Motivating potential score .27** .22** .00 .00Leader reward behavior .26*** .33*** -.14 .04Leader punishment behavior .01 .01 -.14* -.08

aTwo-tailed /-tests of statistical significance.*/?< .05

**/?< .01 ***/?<.001

A final set of cross-lagged regression analyses was performed using satisfaction, rather than commitment, as the focal variable. This was done for three a priori reasons and one post hoc reason. First, there are strong arguments for expecting satisfaction to result from many of the variables presumed also to be antecedent to commitment. Second, the strong relationship between commitment and satisfaction is well established, and the possibility that this may obscure other relationships with commitment was reinforced by the multiple regressions in which satisfaction was such a




consistently powerful and significant predictor. Third, testing these causal linkages might afford more contextual information within which results from the commitment analyses could be more appropriately viewed. Finally, the results that reveal commitment as a cause of satisfaction suggest the pursuit of satisfaction as a relatively more important outcome variable than commitment in this study.

Table 4 shows these results. Five of the eight two-variable analyses suggest job satisfaction as an outcome variable. Organizational commitment and the motivating potential of the job have positive causal impacts; and job tension, leader punitive behavior, and environmental alternatives have negative impacts. Thus, the overall pattern of causal conclusions from these results suggests that several variables are antecedent not to commitment but to job satisfaction, and that commitment is one of the several causes of satisfaction.

Table 4Cross-Lagged Correlations and Regression Parameters for

Job Satisfaction and Predictor Variables

Predictor Variables (x) with Job Satisfaction (y)

Cross-Lagged CorrelationsTime-Lagged

Regression Parametersa

r*iy2 rx&i & 12

Organizational commitment .5 4 *** .3 9 *** .25 ** .02Environmental alternatives - .3 6 * * * - .2 4 * * * -.14* -.05Job tension - .4 3 * * * - !2 9 ** * - .2 3 ** -.07Need achievement !n .03 .10 .02Centralization .4 7 *** .3 6 *** .12 .00Motivating potential score .5 2 *** .3 3 *** .18* -.05Leader reward behavior .3 2 *** .4 0 *** -.14 .09Leader punishment behavior -.01 -.04 - .2 1 ** -.15

aTwo-tailed /-tests of statistical significance.*/?<. 05

**p < .01 ***/?<. 001

In order to assess the possibility of artifactual results in Tables 3 and 4 due to aggregating these data across four hospitals, additional analyses were conducted. For each statistically significant result reported, dummy variables representing each hospital were entered into the regression equation as blocking variables. The results were unaffected except for one minor exception: the gamma for leader punishment behavior in Table 4 changes from -.15 to -.19, now significant at p < .05.

Finally, the complete set of ty predictor variables were combined in a time-lagged multiple regression with t2 job satisfaction as the dependent variable. After the initial entry of t\ job satisfaction into the equation, the set of other ti variables added significantly to the prediction of subsequent (t2) satisfaction (A/?2 = .158, =4.627, p < .0001). Significant individual variables included (in order of entry) organizational commitment (/?=.25, A/?2 = .044, F2,98 = 8.64, p < .01); leader punishment behavior




(/3 = -.22, A/?2=.043, ^ 3,97 = 9.28, /><.01); job tension (/3 = -.17, AR2 =.023, 7*4,98 = 5.09, p < . 05); leader reward behavior (/3 = -.20, AR2 =.021, 7̂ ,95 = 4.73, /><.05); and motivating potential of the job (/3 = .15, A7?2= .015, 7̂ ,94 = 3.55, p < .07). The negative coefficient for leader reward behavior is apparently indicative of a (net) suppression effect that can occur when the correlation among two predictor variables (in this case A satisfaction and leader reward behavior) and the dependent variable (t2 satisfaction) are all positive (Cohen & Cohen, 1975). Multi- collinearity among the predictors served to diminish the predictive power of environmental alternatives. However, these results are not contrary to the significant bivariate findings in Table 4; they serve only to indicate the relative power of the causal predictors.

Discussion

The multiple regression results clearly show that the presumed predictors of commitment account for a large proportion of the variance in this construct. The explanatory power of the variables used in this study, as noted earlier, compares quite favorably with previous organizational commitment research (Marsh & Mannari, 1977; Morris & Sherman, 1981; Steers,1977). The stability of this set of predictors over time is also evident. Of the 12 variables investigated, however, only 2 account for most of the variance in organizational commitment: overall job satisfaction and environmental alternatives. This outcome is reliably demonstrated in both the time 1 and time 2 regressions, and it is consistent with the findings of Farrell and Rusbult (1981) in the survey component of their research.

These results differ from previous research, in part, in terms of the minor role played by personal characteristics of the employee in explaining variation in commitment. Age and education, significant predictors in the multivariate models offered by Morris and Sherman (1981) and Steers (1977), are not significant in this investigation when the other predictors are statistically controlled. Nor is need for achievement, which arises as an important variable in Steer’s (1977) study, a significant contributor to the explained variance here. However, this may simply be due to weak psychometric properties of the scale. Furthermore, age has significant zero-order correlations with commitment at both time periods. The subsequent lack of significance in the multiple regression analyses probably is due to the strong predictive power of satisfaction and environmental alternatives, which were not in the models of Morris and Sherman (1981) and Steers (1977).

The results of the initial time-lagged multiple regression analyses indicate a relative inability to predict organizational commitment with variables other than prior commitment, suggesting that the theoretical causal presumptions behind the set of predictor variables may be invalid. The cross-lagged bivariate regression results shed additional light on this suspicion of incorrect causal specification. Two important findings arise. First, with the




possible exception of leader punitive behavior, none of the predictors emerges as being antecedent to organizational commitment. This finding (nonfinding) runs counter to what previous researchers have believed to be the causal priorities among these variables—theoretical models of organizational commitment validated only by static correlational analysis (Marsh & Mannari, 1977; Steers, 1977) would have predicted otherwise. Second, there is evidence that overall satisfaction is not a cause of commitment but rather a result of it. Although the marginal relationship (AR2) revealed in the stepwise multiple regression of commitment on the predictor variables suggests a need for some restraint and further test, the unequivocal result of the bivariate analysis brings into question arguments made by previous researchers who view commitment as a time-lagged outcome of employee satisfaction (Marsh & Mannari, 1977; Porter et al., 1974). Perhaps employees become committed to the organization before attitudes of satisfaction can meaningfully emerge. This is consistent with previous work that suggests that the employee may come to develop attitudes that are consistent with his or her existing level of commitment to the employing organization (Staw, 1980). In fact, organizational commitment may start quite early, perhaps even as a function of pre-entry experiences (O’Reilly & Caldwell, 1981; Schein, 1968). To the extent that this occurs, the stability of the commitment construct noted by Porter et al. (1974) also becomes more understandable.

When comparing the cross-lagged bivariate regressions surrounding organizational commitment with those surrounding job satisfaction (Tables3 and 4), at least two primary points surface. First, the comparison of job satisfaction and commitment as dependent variables is useful because it suggests that the lack of causal findings pertaining to commitment is not due to inherent limitations of the methodological and analytical procedures employed. Had a similar pattern of insignificant results emerged with the cross-lagged bivariate analyses surrounding job satisfaction, this possibility would have been more compelling. As it was, though, 5 of the 8 bivariate regressions (more accurately, 8 of 12—from subanalyses) were statistically significant.

Nonetheless, one cannot altogether rule out the possibility that commitment may have been shown to be caused by some of the study variables if some different time lag had been used. Perhaps five months is more appropriate for uncovering the causes of satisfaction than of commitment. The choice of an “appropriate” lag is an empirical question, but little has been written about guidelines in choosing the best lag. However, Sims and Wilkerson (1977) found that the cross-lagged test was fairly robust with respect to “missing” the appropriate lag. This conclusion, coupled with the several significant outcomes (one of which included commitment as a causal variable), helps to provide confidence in the utility of the study design.

The second point is based on the conceptual overlap between existing models of job satisfaction and of commitment. A general trend underlying past research into the antecedents of organizational commitment and




of job satisfaction is that characteristics of the job, work setting, and the individual are presumed to be causal to the formation of each of these attitudes. For example, Hackman and Lawler (1971) report a positive relationship between job characteristics and employee satisfaction for employees with higher need strength. Similarly, Steers (1977), Buchanan (1974), and Koch and Steers (1978) show job characteristics such as task identity and job challenge to be related to organizational commitment. In essence, when the literatures surrounding job satisfaction and commitment are compared, one sees a similar set of (presumed) antecedent factors emerging. Indeed, the conclusion that those factors that cause job satisfaction are similar to those causing commitment is appealing. However, the results of this investigation do not support this assertion. The set of predictor variables generally is shown to be antecedent to job satisfaction but not to commitment.

The temporal relationship of environmental alternatives to satisfaction is especially noteworthy because it supports Bluedorn’s (1982) placement of this variable in his turnover model. Yet, despite the strong demonstration of the negative relationships between environmental alternatives and commitment and satisfaction, and the causal priority from alternatives to dissatisfaction, questions remain regarding the role of alternatives in the process of attitude formation and in explaining behaviors such as turnover. For example, the existence of job alternatives may provide an explanation for some of the relationships between demographic characteristics of the employee and commitment and turnover (Price, 1977). Table 2 correlations provide possible support for this notion with respect to age, as suggested by Sheldon (1971), and possibly career tenure but not the other demographic variables. Furthermore, the timing of the existence of job alternatives may affect even the direction of the relationships. O’Reilly and Caldwell’s (1981) data suggest that the presence of alternatives at the time of job choice (i.e., before entry into the organization) has a positive impact on subsequent commitment to the organization; however, the availability of job alternatives after organizational membership has been established may exert a negative impact on commitment (O’Reilly & Caldwell, 1981) and satisfaction (present study). Without doubt, the recent attention paid to environmental alternatives (Farrell & Rusbult, 1981; O’Reilly & Caldwell, 1981; Pfeffer & Lawler, 1980), after a long period of neglect, is worthy of continued pursuit in uncovering some of these process issues.

Conclusions

Virtually all of the published articles in the organizational commitment literature have contained static correlational relationships between commitment and its presumed antecedents. And, as with so many other streams of organizational literature, researchers appropriately have called for longitudinal designs in order to demonstrate causality more clearly. As an initial response to this call, the longitudinal data presented here revealed significant findings. The study variables causally predicted job satisfaction




much better than they predicted subsequent commitment. The findings also suggest that commitment may be a construct that is neither simultaneous with nor a consequence of job satisfaction. Rather, organizational commitment appears to be one of the many causes of satisfaction.

Future commitment research must continue to move away from static correlational studies. More panel or other longitudinal designs are needed to: (1) provide replication and generalization tests of the findings reported here and (2) continue to specify the causes of commitment. More specifically, an important generalization issue emerges when considering the longitudinal results of this investigation. The present study focused on the causal antecedents of a psychological measure of organizational commitment. An alternative measure of commitment, based on exchange theory, has a different conceptual foundation and set of presumed antecedents (Hrebiniak & Alutto, 1972; Stevens et al., 1978). For example, Stevens et al. (1978) found job involvement, attitude toward change, work overload, and skill levels of subordinates to have significant static relationships with exchange commitment. Hrebiniak and Alutto (1972) also found two of the variables in the present study—job tension and job satisfaction—to be significant static predictors of exchange commitment. In the present investigation, no time-lagged causal impact of these variables on psychological commitment was found. The causal effects of these and other variables on exchange commitment remain to be tested via longitudinal designs. In short, three related avenues for future longitudinal research are suggested: (1) the pursuit of other causal antecedents of psychological commitment; (2) the testing of hypothesized antecedents of exchange commitment; and (3) the simultaneous investigation of both commitment constructs within the same studies. If such a protocol is followed, the antecedents of both psychological and exchange commitment can be meaningfully compared for their congruence or noncongruence.

Appropriate causal specification will improve the models of commitment, which apparently have inadequately and/or erroneously identified its antecedents; empirically unsubstantiated causal assumptions presently need to be viewed with more caution. For example, the temporal ordering from commitment to satisfaction suggested by the present data is the reverse of that suggested by others (Marsh & Mannari, 1977; Porter et al., 1974), although it is consistent with the theoretical discussions of Bern (1967) and Salancik and Pfeffer (1978). More importantly, until other antecedents of commitment are more reliably established, organizational interventions aimed at increasing commitment and its consequential beneficial employee behaviors may not realize their intended effects.

The present findings suggest that the interventions implied by models of commitment—for example, improving the job itself or reducing job tension—may result in higher satisfaction but not commitment. The costs of such interventions thus will not be salvaged through their intended gains. If future research continues to fail to demonstrate longitudinally the causes of commitment other than demographic variables such as age and education




(Steers, 1977) or the existence of other job alternatives at the time of job choice (O’Reilly & Caldwell, 1981), then it may be that employee commitment can be influenced only through job selection techniques. Subsequent interventions may be incapable of increasing commitment levels and therefore may be a waste of organizational resources.

On the other hand, it is known that commitment does decrease prior to turnover (Porter et al., 1974, 1976). If further research can reveal other causes of commitment that the organization can influence directly, a number of benefits will accrue. First, the costs associated with misspecified interventions can be reduced. Second, appropriate interventions may have their intended results. Finally, direct improvements in commitment levels may have not only positive behavioral consequences but, according to the present results, the indirect outcome of increased employee satisfaction as well.

References

Abelson, M. A ., & Sheridan, J. E. Catastrophe model of employee withdrawal leading to job termination among nursing home staff. Paper presented at the National Academy of Management Meetings, San Diego, 1981.

Angle, H. L., & Perry, J. L. An empirical assessment of organizational commitment and organizational effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1981, 26, 1-13.

Bateman, T., & Strasser, S. A cross-lagged regression test of the relationship between job tension and employee satisfaction. Journal o f Applied Psychology, 1983, 68, 439-445.

Becker, H. S. Notes on the concept of commitment. The American Journal o f Sociology, 1960, 66, 32-42.Bern, D. J. Self-perception: An alternative interpretation of cognitive dissonance. Psychological Review,

1967, 74, 183-200.

Bluedorn, A. C. A unified model of turnover from organizations. Human Relations, 1982, 35, 135-153.Brief, A ., Schuler, R., & Van Sell, M. Managing jo b stress. Boston: Little, Brown, 1981.

Buchanan, B. Building organizational commitment: The socialization of managers in work organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1974, 22, 533-546.

Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. A pplied multiple regression /correlation analysis fo r the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1975.

Farrell, D., & Rusbult, C. E. Exchange variables as predictors of job satisfaction, job commitment and turnover: The impact of rewards, costs, alternatives, and investments. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 1981, 27, 78-95.

Hackman, J. R., & Lawler, E. E. Employee reactions to job characteristics. Journal o f Applied Psychology, 1971, 55, 259-286.

Hackman, R., & Oldham, G. Development of the Job Diagnostic Survey. Journal o f Applied Psychology, 1975, 60, 159-170.

Hall, D. T., & Schneider, B. Correlates of organizational identification as a function of career pattern and organizational type. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1972, 17, 340-350.

Hrebiniak, L. G., & Alutto, J. G. Personal and role-related factors in the development of organizational commitment. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1972, 17, 555-573.

Johnson, R. D. An investigation o f the interaction effects o f ability and motivational properties on task performance. Unpublished dissertation, Indiana University, 1973.

Kahn, R. L., Wolfe, D. M., Quinn, R. P., Snoek, J. D., & Rosenthal, R. A. Organizational stress: Studies in role conflict and ambiguity. New York: Wiley, 1964.

Kenny, D. A. Cross-lagged panel correlation: A test for spuriousness. Psychological Bulletin, 1975, 82, 887-903.

Kiesler, C. A. (Ed.). The psychology o f commitment: Experiments linking behavior to belief. New York: Academic Press, 1971.




Koch, J. D., & Steers, R. M. Job attachment, satisfaction and turnover among public sector employees. Journal o f Vocational Behavior, 1978, 12, 119-128.

March, J. G., & Simon, H. A. Organizations. New York: Wiley, 1958.

Marsh, R. M., & Mannari, H. Organizational commitment and turnover: A prediction study. Adm inistrative Science Quarterly, 1977, 22, 57-75.

Morris, J. H., & Koch, J. L. Impacts of role perceptions on organizational commitment, job involvement and psychosomatic illness among three vocational groupings. Journal o f Vocational Behavior,1979, 14, 88-101.

Morris, J. H., & Sherman, J. D. Generalizability of an organizational commitment model. Academy o f Management Journal, 1981, 24, 512-526.

Morris, J. H., & Steers, R. M. Structural influences on organizational commitment. Journal o f Vocational Behavior, 1980, 17, 50-57.

Mowday, R. T., Steers, R. M., & Porter, L. The measurement of organizational commitment. Journal o f Vocational Behavior, 1979, 14, 224-247.

O ’Reilly, C. A ., Ill, & Caldwell, D. F. The commitment and job tenure of new employees: Some evidence of post-decisional justification. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1981, 26, 597-616.

Pfeffer, J., & Lawler, J. Effects o f job alternatives, extrinsic rewards and behavioral commitment on attitude toward the organization. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1980, 25, 38-56.

Podsakoff, P. M., Todor, W. D., & Skov, R. Effects of leader reward and punishment behaviors on subordinate performance and attitudes. Proceedings o f the Academy o f Management, 1981, 151-155.

Porter, L. W., Crampon, W. J., & Smith, F. W. Organizational commitment and managerial turnover: A longitudinal study. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 1976, 15, 87-98.

Porter, L. W., Steers, R. M., Mowday, R. T., & Boulian, P. V. Organizational commitment, job satisfaction, and turnover among psychiatric technicians. Journal o f A pplied Psychology, 1974, 5, 603-609.

Price, J. L. The study o f turnover. Ames, Iowa: Iowa State University Press, 1977.

Price, J. L., & Mueller, C. W. A causal model of turnover for nurses. Academy o f Management Journal, 1981, 24, 543-565.

Rogosa, D. A critique of cross-lagged correlations. Psychological Bulletin, 1980, 88, 245-258.

Salancik, G. R. Commitment and control of organizational behavior and belief. In B. Staw & G. Salancik (Eds.), New directions in organizational behavior. Chicago: St. Clair Press, 1977, 1-54.

Salancik, G. R., & Pfeffer, J. A social information processing approach to job attitudes and task design. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1978, 23, 224-235.

Schein, E. Organizational socialization and the profession of management. Industrial Management Review , 1968, 9, 1-6.

Schneider, B., & Dachler, H. A note on the stability of the job descriptive index. Journal o f Applied Psychology, 1978, 63, 650-653.

Sheldon, M. E. Investments and involvements as mechanisms producing commitment to the organization. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1971, 16, 143-150.

Sims, H. P ., Jr. Further thoughts on punishment in organizations. Academy o f Management Review ,1980, 5, 133-138.

Sims, H. P ., Jr., & Szilagyi, A. D. Leader reward behavior and satisfaction and performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 1975, 14, 426-438.

Sims, H. P., Jr., & Wilkerson, D. Time-lag in cross-lag correlation: A computer simulation. Decision Sciences, 1977, 8, 630-644.

Smith, P. C., Kendall, L. M., & Hulin, C. L. The measurement o f satisfaction in work and retirement. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1969.

Staw, B. M. Rationalization and justification in organizational life. In B. M. Staw& L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior. Greenwich, Conn.: JAI Press, 1980, 45-80.




Steers, R. M. Effects of need achievement on the job performance-job attitude relationship. Journal o f A pplied Psychology, 1975, 60, 678-682.

Steers, R. M. Antecedents and outcomes of organizational commitment. Administrative Science Quarterly , 1977, 22, 46-56.

Stevens, J. M., Beyer, J. M., & Trice, H. M. Assessing personal, role, and organizational predictors of managerial commitment. Academy o f Management Journal, 1978, 21, 380-396.

Stone, S. F., & Porter, L. W. Job characteristics and job attitudes: A multivariate study. Journal o f Applied Psychology, 1976, 60, 57-64.

Vroom, V. H. Some personality determinants o f the effects o f participation. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1960.

Thomas S. Bateman is Assistant Professor, Department o f Management at Texas A& M University.

Stephen Strasser is Assistant Professor, Hospital and Health Services Administration Division, Ohio State University.



a longitudinal analysis of the antecedents of organizational

Documents

outcome o f

causes o f commitment

cadem y o f

n te c e d e n ts o

earlier drafts o f

academy o f management

y o fmanagementa

ly sis o f th e