Employee RelationsEmployee commitment: academic vs practitioner perspectivesJeryl L. Shepherd Brian P. Mathews

Article information:To cite this document:Jeryl L. Shepherd Brian P. Mathews, (2000),"Employee commitment: academic vs practitionerperspectives", Employee Relations, Vol. 22 Iss 6 pp. 555 - 575Permanent link to this document:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/01425450010379199

Downloaded on: 10 October 2014, At: 23:00 (PT)References: this document contains references to 41 other documents.To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.comThe fulltext of this document has been downloaded 3052 times since 2006*

Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:Gillian Maxwell, Gordon Steele, (2003),"Organisational commitment: a study of managers in hotels",International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 15 Iss 7 pp. 362-369Stephen Swailes, (2004),"Commitment to change: Profiles of commitment and in#role performance",Personnel Review, Vol. 33 Iss 2 pp. 187-204David A. Foote, Scott J. Seipel, Nancy B. Johnson, Michelle K. Duffy, (2005),"Employee commitment andorganizational policies", Management Decision, Vol. 43 Iss 2 pp. 203-219

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by 198285 []

For AuthorsIf you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald forAuthors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelinesare available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.

About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.comEmerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The companymanages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well asproviding an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.

Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committeeon Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archivepreservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

Dow

nloa

ded

by N

ew Y

ork

Uni

vers

ity A

t 23:

00 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

(PT

)

Employeecommitment

555

Employee Relations,Vol. 22 No. 6, 2000, pp. 555-575.

# MCB University Press, 0142-5455

Received July 2000Revised August 2000

Accepted August 2000

Employee commitment:academic vs practitioner

perspectivesJeryl L. Shepherd and Brian P. Mathews

University of Luton, Luton, UK

Keywords Employees, Commitment, Employers, Human resource management,Private sector, United Kingdom

Abstract Employee commitment has been extensively researched by academics. Theories aboutcommitment towards the organisation have enjoyed much interest. The concept is a central partof HR models. Research to date, however, has not examined the extent to which such `̀ academic''perspectives are compatible with the views of practitioners. Hence, this research establishespractitioner's understanding of employee commitment in a variety of UK private sectororganisations. The findings of a national survey, distributed to 300 HRM managers (responserate 32 per cent), indicate a wide recognition of the desirability and benefits of commitment, butclear disparity between the way academics and practitioners conceptualise and measure it. Despitethe variety of formal measuring tools available, organisational monitoring of commitment can bedescribed as ad hoc and subjective. We conclude that the subjective approach adopted bypractitioners could inform the approaches of academics just as the structured `̀ objective''approaches of academics should inform practitioners.

IntroductionResearch into employee commitment has generated much debate and extensiveliterature of late. The desire for employee commitment is supported bynumerous human resource management (HRM hereafter) writers, for example:Bratton and Gold; 1999; Beardwell and Holden (1997); Beer et al. (1985); Guest(1995; 1998); Legge (1995b); Sisson (1994); Tyson (1995) and Wood (1995).

Bratton and Gold (1999, p. 357) suggest that `̀ . . . the new HRM model seeksto elicit high commitment from workers and thereby cultivate proactivebehaviour with committed workers expending effort levels `beyond contract'for the enterprise''. Moreover, according to the philosophy of HRM, employeecommitment is a shared responsibility between line management and the HRfunction, indeed this is one of the characteristics that differentiates HRM fromthe traditions of personnel management. The classical notion of corporateloyalty suggests that individuals are recruited for a specific task for which theyshould show their gratitude by behaving in a loyal and committed manner(Kiechel, 1985). However, where once the objective was employee compliance toorganisational rules and regulations this has been superseded by employersstriving for the much more ambitious aim of obtaining commitment to theorganisation expressed voluntarily by employees (Storey, 1995; Tyson, 1995).Nevertheless, despite an extensive academic literature on the subject ofcommitment there appears to be little, if any, attention paid to managerialpractice or opinion in the area.

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available athttp://www.emerald-library.com

Dow

nloa

ded

by N

ew Y

ork

Uni

vers

ity A

t 23:

00 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

(PT

)

EmployeeRelations22,6

556

This paper seeks to explore academic and employer perspectives ofcommitment and how the parties might learn more about commitment fromeach other. In particular, it investigates employer perceptions of employeecommitment and establishes if, and how, commitment is measured in practice.The imperative of the HRM model (discussed below) places commitment as acentral issue and so we also explore the means by which it is engendered inpractice and the location of responsibility within the organisation.

We compare and contrast the perspectives of employers in UK private sectororganisations with current academic standpoints about the construct. This isimportant since it appears that it is the HRM rhetoric, derived principally fromacademics, that provides the context and focus of our understanding ofcommitment rather than managerial perspectives of the construct.

Employee commitment and human resource managementWriters in the UK concerned with employee commitment, for example Guest(1995), Storey (1995) and Tyson (1995), have identified that committedemployee behaviour is at the heart of human resource management and is a`̀ central feature that distinguishes HRM from traditional personnelmanagement'' (Guest, 1995, p. 112). Similarly, Legge (1995b, p. 174) states that,`̀ employee commitment is contrasted favourably with the resigned behaviouralcompliance seen as characteristic of employment relationships underconventional personnel management. Compliance is maintained by externallyimposed bureaucratic control systems'' which generate reactive rather thanproactive employee behaviours. Commitment on the other hand, is aninternalised employee belief, often associated with `̀ soft HRM'' and a high trustorganisational culture.

HRM has been described as a philosophy centred on emphasising themutuality between employer and employee in the workplace (Farnham andPimlott, 1990; Legge, 1995b; Walton, 1985). It has increased in popularity inrecent years since the aim of managing people at work, `̀ no longer appears to becontainment and compliance [orientated] but competence and commitment''(Farnham and Pimlott, 1990, p. 354).

Beer et al.'s (1985, p. 16) Map of Harvard Territory (shown as Figure 1) is a`̀ broad causal mapping underlying the determinants and consequences of HRMpolicies,'' which demonstrates, `̀ implicit theory in the listing and the advocacyof four HR outcomes'' (Guest, 1987, p. 510). Commitment towards theorganisation results from the maximisation of human resources and increasingemployee loyalty, and this in turn results in less absenteeism from theworkplace and lower labour turnover. These elements, when coupled together,ultimately lead to improved performance for the organisation.

Employee commitment has been further highlighted in the more recentworks of Storey (1995) Tyson (1995) and Legge (1995a; 1995b). These havereinforced the importance that the concept of commitment occupies within theHRM framework.

Dow

nloa

ded

by N

ew Y

ork

Uni

vers

ity A

t 23:

00 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

(PT

)

Employeecommitment

557

Defining employee commitment`̀ The use of the term commitment to describe very different constructs has ledto considerable confusion in the literature'' (Allen and Meyer, 1990, p. 14).Academic research in this area has proved both inconsistent and confusingbecause studies in the area do not seem to be guided by a consistent andspecific model of commitment (Coopey and Hartley, 1991).

Many researchers (for example, Buchanan, 1975; Mowday et al., 1982; Porteret al., 1974, Staw and Salancik, 1977; Steers, 1977) have developed definitionsidentifying the key characteristics considered to be demonstrated bycommitted individuals, yet there are notable differences between the variousconceptualisations of commitment.

The following sections present the main approaches to defining employeecommitment. The academic literature also contains a range of measurementtools for commitment. Most are questionnaire-based. In the following sectionswe also provide a very brief summary of the best known approaches for each ofthe conceptualisations.

Attitudinal commitment. Probably the most popular method of examiningthe concept is through an individuals' attitudes and feelings towards his or heremploying organisation (Legge, 1995b). Featured in the works of Buchanan(1974) and extended by Porter et al. (1974) and Mowday et al. (1982), attitudinalcommitment is, `̀ . . . the relative strength of an individual's identifications withand involvement in a particular organisation'' (Porter et al., 1974, p. 604). It ischaracterised by three components namely identification, involvement andloyalty. These translate to: an understanding and strong belief in andacceptance of the organisation's goals and values; a willingness to exertconsiderable effort on behalf of the organisation, or to `̀ go the extra mile''(Guest, 1995, p. 113) for the good of the company and; a strong desire tomaintain membership in the employing organisation, or the aspiration toremain in the employ of the organisation.

Figure 1.A broad causal mappingof the determinants and

consequences of HRMpolicies

Dow

nloa

ded

by N

ew Y

ork

Uni

vers

ity A

t 23:

00 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

(PT

)

EmployeeRelations22,6

558

Findings from studies using the attitudinal commitment model have shownthat it is negatively correlated with employee turnover (Allen and Meyer, 1990;Mowday et al., 1982). It is also considered that committed individuals will havea good attendance record and work hard for the good of the organisation(Mowday et al., 1982). All in all, this makes attitudinal commitment mostdesirable for employers.

Amongst the most popular of scales in the field is that of the OrganisationalCommitment Questionnaire (OCQ) developed by Porter et al., in 1974. It uses 15items rated on a seven point Likert scale to measure three components:

(1) identification ± pride in the organisation and the internalisation of itsgoals and values;

(2) involvement ± psychological absorption in the actives of one's role forthe good of the employing organisation; and

(3) loyalty ± affection for, and attachment to the organisation; a sense ofbelongingness manifested as a wish to stay.

Cook and Wall (1980; 1981) argue that since the OCQ was designed foremployees in the USA, the phrasing may not be for a wider global audience.This has led to their development of the British Organisational CommitmentScale. This also measures commitment on the three dimensions ofidentification, involvement and loyalty but uses only three scale items for each.Its strength lies in the clarity of its language and wording, being developedspecifically for the needs of blue collar workers.

Normative commitment. The concept of normative commitment developedin the works of Wiener and Vardi (1980) and Wiener (1982) (and later furtheredby Allen and Meyer, 1990) suggests that individuals attach themselves to oneorganisation since this is the proper way to behave. Normative commitment isdefined as, `̀ . . . the totality of internalised normative pressures to act in a waythat meets organisational goals and interests and suggests that individualsexhibit behaviours solely because they believe this is the right and moral wayin which to behave'' (Wiener, 1982, p. 421). Thus, normative commitment is oneof obligation.

Normative commitment is presented within a motivational framework as anextension of the largely accepted identification approach to viewingcommitment which has been shown to underpin the attitudinal commitmentmodel. Wiener (1982) refers to identification as the acceptance of organisationalexpectations and values by the individual, which in turn guide employeebehaviour. Hence, commitment is based on the strength of an individual'spersonal obligations. There is little evidence in the literature to demonstrate thetake-up of the normative view. Weiner and Vardi (1980) however, developed anearly measure for this construct, comprising of three items. Given thatCronbach's alpha increases in relation to the number of items in a scale it wasnot surprising that this scale obtained a low reliability score. A more robustversion, the Normative Commitment Scale (NCS) was constructed by Allen and

Dow

nloa

ded

by N

ew Y

ork

Uni

vers

ity A

t 23:

00 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

(PT

)

Employeecommitment

559

Meyer in 1990. It comprises eight items, three of which are negatively worded(and reversed scored so that all answers relating to high commitment receivehigh ratings) in an attempt to reduce bias amongst respondents. The procedureof using negatively worded questions is common practice amongst scalesdeveloped in the commitment literature.

Behavioural commitment. Behavioural commitment, as outlined in the worksof Staw and Salancik (1977), develops as a result of an individual's past actionswhich are ultimately binding. It occurs, `̀ . . . when an individual has identifiedhimself with a particular behaviour'' (Salancik, 1977, p. 64), and adjusts hisattitude to fit that behaviour. It incorporates the notion of cognitive dissonance(Festinger, 1957), which suggests that the behaviour of the individual causesthe development of congruent attitudes. Individuals pursue a reinforcing cycleof congruency as they strive to create consistency in their organisational lives.Guest (1987, p. 513) notes that although the behavioural model of commitmentis more specific than attitudinal commitment, `̀ it is less useful in general [HRM]policy formulation,'' which may explain its lack of adoption amongstpractitioners.

Studies that provide a formal measure of Staw and Salancik's (1977)approach to commitment of it have been limited and no formaloperationalisation has been widely used.

Calculative commitment. Some researchers (for example; Becker, 1960;Kanter, 1968) prefer to define commitment in calculative terms. This involvesthe number of investments an individual makes as a result of their employmentwith an organisation and the associated costs of leaving their currentorganisation, together with their perceived availability of other job alternatives.

Becker (1960) argues that when individuals are offered better alternativeswith other organisations which they choose to decline, it may be that this is as aresult of sets of rewards or `̀ side bets'' (p. 32) associated with their present job,which make it difficult for them to move. Thus, the individual's decision toremain with their current employing institution is secured by bindingmechanisms. Kanter (1968) demonstrates support for the side bet theory,concluding that some types of investments `̀ . . . help explain why it is thatmembers of some groups are highly committed while others are not. . .'' (Kanter,1968, p. 516).

Probably the first scale devised to explicitly measure the side bets theory asconceptualised by Becker (1960) was that of Ritzer and Trice (1969). The scaleattempted to establish what specified increments or additional rewardsemployees would require before considering leaving their current organisation.The factors proposed were; increase in pay, freedom, status, responsibility andopportunity to get ahead. Other studies in the area (for example; Meyer andAllen, 1990; 1984) suggest that a more appropriate measure would be toquestion individuals about the number of, and their perceptions of, theirorganisational investments. Together with their perceptions of alternativeemployment opportunities, these elements comprise the ContinuanceCommitment Scale (Allen and Meyer, 1990).

Dow

nloa

ded

by N

ew Y

ork

Uni

vers

ity A

t 23:

00 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

(PT

)

EmployeeRelations22,6

560

MethodologyThe research was conducted via a mailed self-completion survey distributed tonamed HR managers in a variety of UK organisations. Individuals functioningwithin this capacity were chosen as the target group since employeecommitment features heavily in HR models. It makes good research sense forthose individuals who will benefit from research results to participate with datacollection (Selltiz et al., 1973). The investigation sought to find out ifpractitioners and academics might learn something from being informed abouteach other's approaches to understanding and measuring commitment.

Questionnaire designThe questionnaire was spilt into three parts. The first section comprisedsimple, factual information, such as organisational details to enable samplecomposition to be confirmed and the analysis of the data to be contextualised.Section two requested an evaluation of the organisation's perspective ofemployee commitment. It assessed the level of importance attached tocommitted employees; identified with whom the responsibility forimplementing and maintaining employee commitment within the organisationcurrently lies.

Section three required the personal viewpoint of the respondent. It askedemployers how they distinguish committed employees from non-committedindividuals at work and required them to indicate the methods to measurecommitment amongst employees in their organisation (and also the `̀ best''method). It also attempted to find out what they consider their role to be inimplementing and maintaining commitment amongst employees. Furthermore,it sought to establish who, in their opinion, should be responsible forgenerating and sustaining commitment in their organisation.

The majority of questions were presented in closed format, requiring therespondent to make an informed choice between alternatives, although spacefor additional comments was made available at the end of the questionnaire.Questions were developed following an extensive review of the commitmentliterature. Ethical guidelines were adhered to and the confidentiality of allindividual questionnaires was guaranteed and the identification ofparticipating organisations was concealed.

Pre-testing the questionnaireQuestionnaire piloting was conducted on two separate days with two samplegroups totalling thirty five HR professionals studying on the Institute ofPersonnel Development Course at the University of Luton. These managerswere from a variety of local organisations. Here the main concern wasunderstandability of the questions and hence content validity.

Following feedback from the first group, some amendments were made tosimplify the questioning approach and some re-arrangement of questionsequence took place. Following these revisions, the questionnaire wasre-piloted and approved with the second group.

Dow

nloa

ded

by N

ew Y

ork

Uni

vers

ity A

t 23:

00 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

(PT

)

Employeecommitment

561

Sampling frame and target audienceThe sampling frame used was drawn from a nationwide database held by alocal company specialising in producing labels for mailings. Larger small andmedium enterprises (SMEs) located in the manufacturing and serviceenvironments were specified to capture a variety of organisational perspectivesand diverse range of opinion.

SMEs were the focus of the study for two reasons. First, there is littleresearch conducted in the area using these types of organisations. Second, oneof the aims of the study sought to assess the extent to which commitmentmeasures in the area are adopted by organisations. By the nature of theindustrial structure of the UK, the majority of firms are SMEs. A studyconcentrating solely on larger organisations may well significantlyoverestimate the sophistication of commitment monitoring approaches becauseof their better developed systems and know how. On the other hand,concentrating on SMEs will not necessarily identify areas of `̀ best practice''.

The database comprised private sector and manufacturing organisations.This was seen as an advantage as much of the work on commitment hasfocused on blue collar workers located in the private sector manufacturingindustry (see, for example, Cook and Wall, 1980; 1981). Questionnaireswere targeted at the individual having responsibility for HRM. Usuallythis would be a personnel manager (or general manager in the case of some ofthe smaller organisations). Such individuals would be well placed tounderstand both the notion of commitment and the organisational practicesconcerned with it. On the other hand, they may also be prone to provide`̀ desirable'' responses.

Response ratesTo assist in increasing response rates, guidelines were followed from authors inthe social sciences (for example, Oppenheim, 1992; Schmitt and Klimoski, 1991,Selltiz et al., 1973). The names of respective HR managers were printed onmailing labels to provide a more personalised approach. A full explanatoryletter accompanied the questionnaire, (detailing its purpose and outlining howthe data provided would be used) and a self-addressed, freepost envelope wasalso provided. Further, a synopsis of the general responses was available onrequest. Ethical guidelines were also followed and the confidentiality of allresponses was guaranteed.

Schmitt and Klimoski (1991) also suggest that follow up procedurestypically improve response rates. In the case of this research, employers weregiven a three week time period in which to complete and return thequestionnaire, after which a follow up procedure was adopted with a two-weekdeadline.

A total of 300 questionnaires were distributed. A total of 69 were returned inthe three week period and a further 27 after the follow up. A total of 97 responseswere finally received, a highly satisfactory 32 per cent overall response rate for apostal survey (although three responses had to be discounted as they were

Dow

nloa

ded

by N

ew Y

ork

Uni

vers

ity A

t 23:

00 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

(PT

)

EmployeeRelations22,6

562

returned from organisations in the public sector). Responses to the follow upwere compared to those initially received as a means of determiningnon-response bias. In the event, the diversity of responses and the small numbersinvolved resulted in no discernible patterns being present ± although this shouldnot be interpreted to prove lack of non-response bias.

Before moving to the substantive issues it is appropriate to provide adescription of the sample achieved. The majority (64 per cent) of usablequestionnaires were returned from UK manufacturing enterprises (asintended), followed by other private sector organisations (29 per cent), whichbroadly included; aircraft maintenance, industrial services, hotels, logistics andcomputing services. Retailing and financial services comprise some 7 per cent.It is recognised that this pattern is not fully representative of UK organisationsor employment, but, as explained earlier, does represent a meaningfulcomparative baseline.

In terms of size of responding organisation (determined by the number ofemployees) the majority of participants were representing small and small tomedium sized organisations. Definitions from the European Commissioninclude micro-organisations (0-9 employees) of which none were represented inthe sample frame. Their next cut-point is 500, above which an organisation is`̀ large''. Our sample contains 52 per cent under 250 employees and a further 24per cent under 500. Thus, only 24 per cent of the sample are largerorganisations, giving an adequate representation of SMEs.

A total of 77 per cent of respondents' were employed within the HR/personnel department and/or training and development. Remainingrespondents all held managerial status. Their titles included; managingdirectors, general managers, accountants, financiers and quality strategists.Hence, the respondent base are well placed to comment on commitment withintheir organisations.

ResultsHRM and employee commitmentIn this section we examine the extent to which linkages can be made betweencommitment and the HRM orientation.

Employee and organisational importance attached to commitment. Our firstanalysis concerns the level of importance placed by respondents oncommitment in their organisation from an employee and an employerperspective. Should it be considered unimportant this would undermine anysubsequent analysis or conclusions.

All respondents indicated that their organisation does view employeecommitment with a high degree of importance, although the majoritysuggested that it is not the most important corporate issue (as illustrated inTable I). No respondents indicated that employee commitment is either an`̀ unimportant'' issue or `̀ not very important'' to the organisation.

Similarly, employers indicated that, in their opinion, employees in theirorganisations also consider that employee commitment is important. However,

Dow

nloa

ded

by N

ew Y

ork

Uni

vers

ity A

t 23:

00 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

(PT

)

Employeecommitment

563

the perception of respondents is that they consider commitment to be moreimportant than they feel the workforce do in general. While this finding doesnot prove that the workforce are genuinely concerned with commitment it doesdemonstrate that the managers involved in engendering commitment believe itto be the case.

Responsibility for employee commitment. Respondents were asked to indicatewho in the organisation has current responsibility for implementing andmaintaining commitment amongst the workforce. They indicated a range oforganisational groups, the most frequently cited being `̀ all management to acertain extent'' and `̀ senior management'' (as shown in Figure 2).

Surprisingly, only 4 per cent of responses outlined that the function ofhuman resource management/personnel has current responsibility for theupkeep of employee commitment in their organisation. Given that the

Your org. views Employees viewEC as

(%)EC as

(%)

Most important issue 10 11 3 3A very important issue 68 72 23 25Important 16 17 51 54Not very important 0 0 14 15Unimportant 0 0 1 1

Do not know 0 0 2 2

Note: Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed-ranks test, Z = ±6.58, two-tailed P = 0.000

Table I.The importance of

employee commitment

Figure 2.Employee commitment

implementation andmaintenance

Dow

nloa

ded

by N

ew Y

ork

Uni

vers

ity A

t 23:

00 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

(PT

)

EmployeeRelations22,6

564

background information to this study shows that 73 per cent of respondentsmaintain that they work in the HRM or training department, it is demonstratedthat the role of the HR function in maintaining employee commitment islimited. Indeed, these results support the supposition that the role of HR is inadvising the function of line management (Guest, 1998).

When asked to indicate the extent to which respondents perceive that theyhave a personal role to play in creating and upkeeping commitment levelsamongst employees, 39 per cent suggested that it was `̀ one of their keymanagement tasks'' whilst an additional 44 per cent stated that it is `̀ one oftheir many responsibilities'' (as shown in Figure 3).

The apparent discrepancy between these results and the previous ones maybe interpreted as confirmation that they as managers recognise the importanceof engendering commitment amongst their own staff, whereas their role asHRM professionals is not to be responsible for the commitment of the staff ofother managers. This result is consistent with Guest (1998) who suggests thatHRM advocates are giving more responsibility for managing human resourcesto line managers. This perspective is also consistent with other views ofmanagement practices, for example, Wood (1995) has `̀ preferred to talk interms of high commitment policies as a working substitute for HRM'' (Storey,1995, p. 6) and high commitment management as a mechanism for generatingcommitment so that employee behaviour is `̀ primarily self-regulated ratherthan controlled by sanctions and pressures external to the individual andrelations within the organisation are based on trust'' (Wood, 1996, p. 41).

Managerial perspectives of employee commitmentIn this section we explore the respondents' understanding of the nature ofcommitment. Given that certain academic definitions of commitment are not

Figure 3.Respondents' perceivedresponsibility foremployee commitment

Dow

nloa

ded

by N

ew Y

ork

Uni

vers

ity A

t 23:

00 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

(PT

)

Employeecommitment

565

readily transferred into direct questions (e.g. side bet theory) a variety ofquestions are posed in a variety of formats from which we can infer the relativeprominence of the alternative interpretations.

Participants were asked to indicate up to five ways (from nine options) inwhich committed employees could be distinguished from non-committed ones(see Table II). Given the multiple response requested some non- or incompleteresponses values above about 50 should be considered preferred responses.

The results identify four main characteristics which employers cite enablinga committed individual to be differentiated from a non-committed employeewithin the workplace. Employee attitude is the most common, thus reinforcingthe prominence of attitudinal commitment. Attendance comes out as animportant factor on the behavioural side, as does `̀ general'' behaviour at work.Other behavioural traits are indicated, namely promotion seeking within theorganisation and amount of unpaid hours worked. Employment seekingoutside the organisation, (which notably obtained a count of only two), is morein keeping with normative and calculative theories.

In order to find out the level of importance attached to the identificationapproach by employers, Porter et al.'s (1974) elements of attitudinalcommitment (identification, involvement, loyalty) were segregated andpresented separately together with one statement expressing the behaviouralview of commitment (see Table III). Wiener (1982) points out that, `̀ somewriters equate identification with organisation commitment''. He refers largelyto writers in the area of attitudinal commitment, (Hall and Schneider, 1972;Porter et al., 1974, Steers, 1977) for which identification is a one of three majorcomponents. Respondents were requested to rank each of these in terms of thelevel of importance attached to each (1 = most important).

Criteria Count% of

responses % of cases

Attitude 92 24.4 97.9

General behaviour 68 18.0 72.3

Demonstration of job satisfaction 61 16.2 64.9

Attendance record 60 15.9 63.8

Promotion seeking within the organisation 37 9.8 39.4

Amount of extra unpaid hours worked 28 7.4 29.8

Length of service 22 5.8 23.4

Employment seeking outside the organisation 5 1.3 5.3

Amount of paid overtime 2 0.5 2.1

Do not know/other 1 0.3 1.1

Total responses 376 100.0 402.1

Table II.Distinguishing between

committed andnon-committed

employees

Dow

nloa

ded

by N

ew Y

ork

Uni

vers

ity A

t 23:

00 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

(PT

)

EmployeeRelations22,6

566

Table III illustrates that employee involvement emerged as the most favourableelement of Porter's (1974) definition of attitudinal commitment. Hence it is themost preferred element of commitment according to the employers surveyed.Employee identification with organisational goals and values and employeeloyalty were second and third respectively. Behavioural commitment wasranked least important (out of the four possible choices) by respondents.However, one manager commented that in dealing with employee commitment,the notion of identification `̀ cannot be understated since commitment towardsthe organisation, means total absorption of our company's goals and values''.

Thus, it appears that practitioners associate highly with the attitudinalelements of commitment (Table III) and this further supports the evidenceprovided in Table II.

Measuring employee commitmentIt was noted earlier in the paper that attitudinal scales, which are oftenpresented in questionnaire format, have become popular instruments foracademics to measure the construct. However, little is known about themechanisms used by employers in UK organisations to measure levels ofcommitment towards their organisation. Thus, in order to find out ifpractitioner and academic perspectives of measuring commitment arecompatible respondents were asked to rank, in order of importance (where 1 =most important), the number of formal mechanisms used by their organisationto measure employee commitment levels. This also establishes the extent towhich attitudinal scales of measurement are recognised and accepted byemployers. They were further asked to indicate their assessment of whatconstitutes the `̀ best methods''. Thus, any disparity between the results ofthese two questions would indicate employers' understanding of `̀ best practice''if it differs from current practice. The combined top answers are shown inTable IV.

Overall rankings were determined by the number of times a variable hasbeen indicated (count) and two measures of central tendency, the mean and

Statement Mean rank Median/mode

Individuals who exert effort to enable the organisationto accomplish its goals and values (involvement) 1.65 1

Individuals who identify with the goals and values ofthe organisation (identification) 2.06 2

Individuals who are loyal to and wish to remain withtheir organisation (loyalty) 2.58 3

Individuals who see the organisation as their best betand wish to stay (behavioural commitment) 3.71 4

Note: Friedman two-way Anova: Chi-square 135, DF 3, Significance 0.000

Table III.Employersidentification withemployee commitmentdefinitions

Dow

nloa

ded

by N

ew Y

ork

Uni

vers

ity A

t 23:

00 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

(PT

)

Employeecommitment

567

median rank. In interpreting the results, the rule of thumb is that the higher thecount, the more respondents have indicated that the policy is used by theirorganisation to elicit commitment. The lower the value of mean and median,the greater the importance attached to the response.

Table IV illustrates that regular group and individual meetings betweenmanagement and employees, staff appraisal and management by walkingaround are the most popular mechanisms used by participating UKorganisations to measure employee commitment levels. Such measures canbest be described as `̀ soft'', may be haphazard rather than systematic and aresubject to considerable interpretation. There is only one method thatapproximates to anything systematic and that is monitoring of absentee levels.While this is associated with attitudinal commitment (Mowday et al., 1982) it isa consequence or outcome rather than a measure of the construct.

Other response alternatives offered to respondents included anonymousquestionnaires and surveys, but disappointingly, these scored low counts of 23and 19 respectively for current use. Interestingly 13 other respondentsindicated that they made no formal measurement attempts. In terms of `best'methods, anonymous questionnaires and questionnaires received slightlyhigher counts of 28 and 20 respectively. This indicates that practitioners do notconsider them to be particularly desirable methods of measuring commitmentin relation to group meetings, appraisal, individual meetings, management bywalking about.

Possibly unsurprisingly, the results show a clear discrepancy between theformal methods used to measure commitment and employers' perception of thebest methods. In other words, it is evident that employers regard that thesubjective ways they currently use are by and large the best and do not need tobe replaced by other forms of measurement.

More importantly, the result suggests that whilst some managers dorecognise the value of structured measurement, the majority do not, preferring

Mechanism used Best method

Response Rank CountMeanrank

Medianrank Rank Count

Meanrank

Medianrank

Regular group meetingswith management andstaff 1 58 2.2 2 1 68 2.6 2

Appraisal 2 55 2.4 2 2 64 2.8 2

Management by walkingaround 3 53 3.2 3 3 57 3.1 3

Meetings with individualemployees 4 39 3.2 3 4 54 2.9 3

Examining absenteelevels 5 41 4.4 4 5 44 4.6 4

Table IV.Formal mechanisms

used by employers tomeasure employee

commitment andemployers' perception

of the best methods

Dow

nloa

ded

by N

ew Y

ork

Uni

vers

ity A

t 23:

00 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

(PT

)

EmployeeRelations22,6

568

to rely on mechanisms that defy objective measurement and rely more on the`̀ gut feel'' that really only an experienced HR practitioner can offer. This resulthighlights a need for practitioners to be aware of, and accept the advantages of,attitudinal questionnaires like the OCQ and BOCS.

Discussion and conclusionsEmployee commitment is firmly entrenched in HRM theory, but to date littlehas been known about its role in relation to HRM practitioners. This studysought to determine the nature of employee commitment in UK organisationsfrom an employer's perspective. It drew from their knowledge andunderstanding of the concept and the mechanisms used by their organisationsin which to measure this.

The questionnaire has provided useful perspectives about employeecommitment from UK practitioners and compared these responses to those ofacademics. Since the sample base was from the private sector, the findingsthemselves are not necessarily generalisable to the wider organisationalaudience.

It is evident that importance is attached to employee commitment by bothemployees and organisations, although divergent results have emergedregarding the issue of responsibility for ensuring commitment in theorganisation. In short, the evidence indicates, `̀ all management to a certainextent'' and `̀ senior management'' are currently the groups most involved inbuilding and sustaining a committed workforce.

The findings also indicate that it is difficult to be clear about theresponsibility HR managers have in the upkeep of employee commitment intheir organisation, since respondents illustrated that the function of HR was notcurrently responsible for securing commitment in their organisation. Neitherdid respondents consider that human resource managers should be responsiblefor employee commitment. In contrast, however, 84 per cent of respondentsindicated that implementing and maintaining commitment amongst employeesis a necessary part of their job.

In a similar vein, Mabey et al. (1998, p. 1) discussing `̀ the idea of HRM in thedistinctive sense,'' suggest that the managing of human resources is tooimportant to be left entirely to personnel specialists. Rather `̀ it has to be anactivity which is owned by all managers''.

The acknowledgement by employers that committed employees can bedistinguished from non-committed colleagues by their attitude is apparent andcompatible with the literature on commitment, since Mowday et al.'s (1979)definition of the construct is probably the most popular, if not the mostorthodox of definitions (Coopey and Hartley, 1991; Legge, 1995b).

In dealing with practitioners' requirement to obtain commitment, theanalysis suggests that they have a clear perspective of what employeecommitment is and have confirmed the need for attitudinal commitment fromemployees. However, concerns are raised about how practitioners expect toachieve this and in turn this casts doubts about the knowledge managers really

Dow

nloa

ded

by N

ew Y

ork

Uni

vers

ity A

t 23:

00 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

(PT

)

Employeecommitment

569

have about the true level of employee commitment in their organisation andhow to measure it. For example, their collective responses do not acknowledgewidespread use of quantitative instruments, like questionnaires. Nor did themajority of employers cite questionnaires amongst the most preferredmeasures. Practitioners placed a high emphasis on communication betweenthemselves and their employees in eliciting and measuring commitment levels.The mechanisms used were identified as regular group meetings, appraisal,management by walking about and meetings with individuals. These were alsocited as the most effective methods by which to measure commitment amongstthose surveyed.

This research indicates that the managers surveyed reject objectivemeasurement as a mainstream method to evaluate commitment. In essence, thisresult suggests two key points. First, it is possible that the respondents aresimply unaware of the advantages of the formal measurement scales that areavailable. Second, this result might indicate that the commitment of aworkforce can be evaluated by way of subjective techniques. Arguably, suchevaluation can only really be carried out an experienced personnel executive.

Whilst this finding highlights a need for practitioners to become aware ofand accept the advantages of attitudinal scaling, it also suggests that there maybe some credence in utilising `̀ soft'' techniques to consider commitment. It maybe the academics that are not sufficiently insightful in their operationalisationof the commitment construct and ignore subtle nuances by the adoption ofrestrictive purely quantitative measures. This would provide an alternativemethod to assessing the concept, and could be extended by academics in theform of ethnographic techniques (i.e. participating observation) which, to datehas not been well addressed in the literature.

Given the importance placed on the topic by academics and practitionersalike, the issue of the relative benefits of alternative approaches tomeasurement is an issue worthy of deeper investigation. Further researchwould be appropriate which could take the form of a case study-basedapproach into organisations that adopt both structured questionnaire-basedstrategy and a subjective one, a multimethod multirespondent perspective.

References

Allen, N. and Meyer, J. (1990), `̀ The measurement of antecedents of affective, continuance andnormative commitment to the organisation,'' Journal of Occupational Psychology, Vol. 63,pp 1-18.

Beardwell, I. and Holden, L. (1997), HRM: A Contemporary Perspective, Pitman, London.

Becker, H. (1960), `̀ Notes on the concept of commitment'', American Journal of Sociology, Part 66,pp. 32-40.

Beer, M., Spector, B., Lawrence, P., Quinn Mills, D. and Walton, R. (1985), HRM: A GeneralManagers Perspective, Free Press, New York, NY.

Bratton, J. and Gold, J. (1999), Human Resource Management, Macmillian, Hampshire.

Buchanan, B. (1974), `̀ Building organisational commitment: the socialisation of managers inwork organisations'', Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 19, pp. 533-46.

Dow

nloa

ded

by N

ew Y

ork

Uni

vers

ity A

t 23:

00 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

(PT

)

EmployeeRelations22,6

570

Buchanan, B. (1975), `̀ To walk an extra mile'', Organisation Dynamics, Vol. 3, pp. 67-80.

Cook, J. and Wall, T. (1980), `̀ New work attitude measures of trust, organisational commitmentand personal need non-fulfilment'', Journal of Occupational Psychology, Vol. 53, pp. 39-52.

Cook, J. and Wall, T. (1981), `̀ A note on some new scales for measuring aspects of psychologicalwell being at work'', Journal of Occupational Psychology, Vol. 54, pp. 221-5.

Coopey, J. and Hartley, J. (1991), `̀ Reconsidering the case for organisational commitment'',Human Resource Management Journal, Vol. 1 No. 3, Spring, pp. 18-32.

Farnham, D. and Pimlott, J. (1990), Understanding Industrial Relations 4th ed., Cassell, London.

Festinger, L. (1957), A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance, Stanford University Press, Stanford.

Goffman, E. (1961), Asylums, Pelican Books, Middlesex.

Guest, D. (1987), `̀ Human resource management and industrial relations'', Journal ofManagement Studies, Vol. 24, pp. 503-21.

Guest, D. (1995), `̀ Human resource management, trade unions and industrial relations'', in Storey,J. (Ed.), Human Resource Management: Still Marching on or Marching out? and HumanResource Management: A Critical Test, Routledge, London.

Guest, D. (1998), `̀ Beyond HRM: commitment and the contract culture'', in Sparrow, P. andMarchington, M. (Eds), Human Resource Management: The New Agenda, Financial TimesPublishing, London.

Hall, D. and Schneider, B. (1972), `̀ Correlates of organisational identification'', AdministrativeScience Quarterly, Vol. 17, pp. 340-50.

Kanter, R. (1968), `̀ Commitment and social organisation: a study of commitment mechanisms inutopian communities'', American Sociological Review, Vol. 33 No. 4, pp. 499-517.

Kiechel, W. (1985), `̀ Resurrecting corporate loyalty'', Fortune, 9 December.

Legge, K. (1995a), `̀ HRM: rhetoric, reality and hidden agendas'', in Storey (Ed.), Human ResourceManagement: A Critical Text, Routledge, London.

Legge, K. (1995b), Human Resource Management, Rhetoric's and Realities, Macmillan,Basingstoke.

Mabey, C., Salaman, G. and Storey, J. (1988) (Eds), Strategic Human Resource Management: AReader, Sage, London.

Meyer, J. and Allen, N. (1984), `̀ Testing the side bets theory of organisational commitment'',Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 69, pp. 372-8.

Mowday, R., Steers, R. and Porter, L. (1979), `̀ The measurement of organisational commitment'',Journal of Vocational Behaviour, Vol. 14, pp. 224-47.

Mowday, R., Steers, R. and Porter, L. (1982), Employee-organisation Linkages: The Psychology ofCommitment, Absenteeism and Turnover, Academic Press, London.

Oppenheim, A. (1992), Questionnaire Design, Interviewing and Attitude Measurement, Pinter,London.

Porter, L. Steers, R. Mowday, R. and Boulian, P. (1974), `̀ Organisational commitment, jobsatisfaction and turnover among psychiatric technicians,'' Journal of Applied Psychology,Vol. 59, pp. 603-9.

Ritzer, G. and Trice, H. (1969), `̀ An empirical study of Howard Becker's side bet theory'', SocialForces, June, pp 475-9.

Salancik, G. (1977), `̀ Commitment and control of organisational and belief'', in Staw, B. andSalancik, G. (Eds), New Directions in Organisational Behaviour, St Clair Press, Chicago, IL.

Schmitt, N. and Klimoski, R. (1991), Research Methods in Human Resources Management, South-Western Publishing, Cincinnati, OH.

Dow

nloa

ded

by N

ew Y

ork

Uni

vers

ity A

t 23:

00 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

(PT

)

Employeecommitment

571

Selltiz, C., Jahoda, M., Deutsch, M. and Cook, S. (1973), Research Methods in Social Relations,Methuen and Co., London.

Sisson, K. (1994), Personnel Management, Blackwell, Oxford.

Staw, B. and Salancik, G. (1977), New Directions in Organisational Behaviour, St Clair Press,Chicago, IL.

Steers, R. (1977), `̀ Antecedents and outcomes of organisational commitment'', AdministrativeScience Quarterly, Vol. 22, pp. 46-56.

Storey, J. (1995), `̀ Human resource management: still marching on or marching out?'', HumanResource Management: A Critical Text, Routledge, London.

Tyson, S. (1995), Human Resource Strategy, Pitman, London.

Walton, R. (1985), `̀ Toward a strategy of eliciting employee commitment based on policies ofmutuality'', in Walton and Lawrence (Eds), HRM Trends and Challenges, HarvardBusiness School, Boston, MA.

Wiener, Y. (1982), `̀ Commitment in organisations: a normative view'', Academy of ManagementReview, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 418-28.

Wiener, Y. and Vardi, Y. (1980), `̀ Relationships between job organisation and careercommitments and work outcomes ± an integrative approach'', Organisational Behaviourand Human Performance, Vol. 26, pp. 81-96.

Wood, S. (1995), `̀ Can we speak of high commitment on the shop floor?'', Journal of ManagementStudies, Vol. 32 No. 2, pp. 215-47.

Wood, S. (1996), `̀ High commitment management and unionisation in the UK'', InternationalJournal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 53-77.

Dow

nloa

ded

by N

ew Y

ork

Uni

vers

ity A

t 23:

00 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

(PT

)

EmployeeRelations22,6

572

Abstracts from the widerliterature

`̀ Employee commitment: academic vspractitioner perspectives''

The following abstracts from the wider literature have been selected for their special relevance tothe preceding article. The abstracts extend the themes and discussions of the main article and actas a guide to further reading.

Each abstract is awarded 0-3 stars for each of four features:

(1) Depth of research

(2) Value in practice

(3) Originality of thinking

(4) Readability for non-specialists.

The full text of any article may be ordered from the Anbar Library. Contact Debbie Brannan,Anbar Library, 60/62 Toller Lane, Bradford, UK BD8 9BY. Telephone: (44) 1274 785277; Fax:(44) 1274 785204; E-mail: dbrannan@mcb.co.uk quoting the reference number shown at the endof the abstract.

Is continuance commitment beneficial to organizations?Commitment-performance relationship: a new lookSuliman, A. and Iles, P.Journal of Managerial Psychology (UK), 2000 Vol. 15 No. 5: p. 407 (20 pages)

Tests the assumed link between employees' organizational commitment andtheir job performance, looking at the possibility that certain types ofcommitment may have different impacts on performance. Based on theliterature, draws up a model of the relationship between factors within thework climate (supervisory style, task characteristics and employee motivation,etc.), the aspects of organizational commitment (split into affectivecommitment, continuance commitment and normative commitment) which areseen as mediating variables, and aspects of job performance (quantity of work,quality of work, work enthusiasm, etc.) Studies the relationships proposed inthe model by surveying 55 full-time junior, middle and senior managersworking in three industrial firms in Jordan (45 employees responding).Assesses their levels of affective, continuance and normative commitment,investigating how age, gender, education, organizational tenure and workstatus are related to these and their impact on job performance. Finds that theresults confirm the idea that organizational commitment is multi-faceted andconcludes that all three aspects of organizational commitment studied have apositive impact on job performance.

Dow

nloa

ded

by N

ew Y

ork

Uni

vers

ity A

t 23:

00 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

(PT

)

Employeecommitment

573

Survey/Wholly theoreticalIndicators: Research implications: *** Practice implications: **Originality: ** Readability: ** Total number: *********Reference: 29AT656Cost: £30 (plus VAT)

The impact of person and organizational values on organizationalcommitmentFinegan, J.E.Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology (UK), Jun 2000 Vol. 73No. 2: p. 149 (21 pages)

Reports the results of a study which examined the degree to which person-organization fit predicts employee commitment using a measure of fit based onvalue congruence. Arguing that a person, whose personal values match theoperating values of the organization, is more likely to be committed to theorganization than an individual whose personal values differ from those of theorganization. Comments on the limitations of previous studies investigating therelationship between value congruence and commitment (Chatman et al.),particularly the way in which they measured an organization's value profileand their failure to appreciate the multidimensional nature of the commitmentconcept. Aims to overcome these limitations by using Meyer and Allan's (1991)commitment scale ± which measures three commitment dimensions, affectivecommitment, normative commitment and continuance commitment ± and byrequiring participants to rate items on McDonald and Gandz' (1991) valuestaxonomy (adapted from Rokeach's, 1973, list of values), in terms of their ownpersonal values and in terms of their perceptions of the organization's regardfor these values. Considers the implications of the findings and compares themethodology of the present study with other measures of work values.

Comparative/evaluation/Theoretical with application in practiceIndicators: Research implications: ** Practice implications: **Originality: ** Readability: ** Total number: ********Reference: 29AS017Cost: £18 (plus VAT)

Four commitment profiles and their relationships to empowerment,service recovery, and work attitudesCarson, K.D., Carson, P.P., Roe, C.W., Birkenmeier, B.J. and Phillips, J.S.Public Personnel Management (USA), Spring 1999 Vol. 28 No. 1: p. 1 (14 pages)

Looks at the relationship between organizational commitment and careercommitment, identifying four groupings according to the strength of these twotypes of commitment ± those with high commitment to both career andorganization labelled as being `̀ dually committed''; those with low commitmentto both career and organization labelled as being `̀ uncommitted''; those withhigh career commitment and low organizational commitment labelled as being

Dow

nloa

ded

by N

ew Y

ork

Uni

vers

ity A

t 23:

00 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

(PT

)

EmployeeRelations22,6

574

`̀ careerists''; and those with high organizational commitment and low careercommitment labelled as being `̀ organizationists''. Develops a number ofhypotheses concerning these four groupings of employee and their levels of jobsatisfaction, intention to quit, career satisfaction, intention to change career,levels of empowerment, and reactions to supervisors. Tests out the hypothesesin a survey of US medical librarians and concludes that those employees whowere highly committed to both their organization and their career had higherjob and career satisfaction, lower intentions to quit, were more empowered andregarded their supervisors positively. Concludes that managers shouldencourage both organizational and career commitment.

Survey/Theoretical with application in practiceIndicators: Research implications: *** Practice implications: **Originality: ** Readability: *** Total number: **********Reference: 28AN785Cost: £18 (plus VAT)

The impact of psychological contract violations on exit, voice,loyalty, and neglectTurnley, W.H. and Feldman, D.C.Human Relations (USA), Jul 1999 Vol. 52 No. 7: p. 895 (28 pages)

Develops theoretical explanations for the impact that violations of thepsychological contract will have on employees' intention to leave the firm, totake up a grievance or complain about the firm, on their feelings of loyaltytowards the firm and on their productivity. Identifies a number of factors whichmight moderate these effects, such as the availability of other jobs. Uses asample of 804 US managers to test out the hypotheses derived from thediscussion. Finds that psychological contract violations have a pervasivenegative effect on employees' attitudes to the firm, being most stronglyassociated with intention to leave and reduced loyalty; less strongly withlowered productivity and the intention to complain/take up a grievance.

Theoretical with application in practice/SurveyIndicators: Research implications: *** Practice implications: **Originality: ** Readability: *** Total number: **********Reference: 28AZ003Cost: £30 (plus VAT)

Gendered meanings of commitment from high technologyengineering managers in the UK and SwedenSingh, V. and Vinnicombe, S.Total Quality Management (UK), Jan 2000 Vol. 7 No. 1: p. 1 (19 pages)

Looks at the reasons why women are often seen as being less committed totheir work than men, using a study of the male-dominated engineering industryto understand if men and women have a different understanding of the

Dow

nloa

ded

by N

ew Y

ork

Uni

vers

ity A

t 23:

00 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

(PT

)

Employeecommitment

575

meaning of commitment at work. Also looks at how organizational culture andthe managerial level achieved by a person affects their views of organizationalcommitment. Interviews matched pairs of male and female engineers workingin the Swedish and UK aerospace industries, asking about the meaning theyattach to organizational commitment and inviting them to describe a personwithin the company whom they saw as being highly committed to theorganization. Compares these meanings with the views of senior managers onthe type of commitment they wanted to see in their employees. Presents adetailed analysis of the results of these interviews. Concludes that there aregender differences in the way that men and women perceive commitment, andthat the perceptions of the male employees was more in line with theperceptions of the senior managers. Also found that managerial level affectedthe perception of commitment.

Survey/Theoretical with application in practiceIndicators: Research implications: *** Practice implications: **Originality: ** Readability: ** Total number: *********Reference: 29AG292Cost: £24 (plus VAT)

The managerial drivers of employee satisfaction and loyaltyEskildsen, J.K. and NuÈ ssler, M.L.Gender, Work and Organization (UK), Jul 2000 Vol. 11 No. 4/5&6: p. 581(8 pages)

Constructs a causal model of human resource (HR) management comprizingthree subsystems (cultural, social, and technical) feeding through to employeesatisfaction, employee loyalty, and corporate performance. Tests the model viaa 76-question survey of Danish HR managers, covering the causal structure ofthe model (24 questions), general managerial approach to its subsystems (24),demographic matters (three), use of staff attitude surveys (two) ± the remainingquestions being subsystem-specific. Analyses 215 returns (32 per centresponse). Displays significant causal paths determined by partial leastsquares. Declares the social subsystem has the biggest impact on employeesatisfaction, and the technical subsystem on employee loyalty ± according tothe HR managers' thinking. Declares that firms using employee satisfactionsurveys fare better in employee loyalty and corporate performance. Generatesquality maps of the three subsystems by correlating computed indices withsubsystem questions. Depicts the map for the technical subsystem andidentifies improvement areas within the social. Concludes with sixrecommendations to improve employee satisfaction and loyalty.

Survey/Theoretical with application in practiceIndicators: Research implications: ** Practice implications: **Originality: ** Readability: ** Total number: ********Reference: 29AR959Cost: £18 (plus VAT)

Dow

nloa

ded

by N

ew Y

ork

Uni

vers

ity A

t 23:

00 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

(PT

)

This article has been cited by:

1. PETER ROSS, YUNUS ALI. 2011. ANTECEDENTS OF EMPLOYEE LOYALTY IN ANEMERGING ECONOMY: THE MALAYSIAN MULTIMEDIA SUPER CORRIDOR. Labour &Industry: a journal of the social and economic relations of work 22:1-2, 25-51. [CrossRef]

2. Yoon Jik Cho, Hanjun Park. 2011. Exploring the Relationships Among Trust, Employee Satisfaction, andOrganizational Commitment. Public Management Review 13:4, 551-573. [CrossRef]

3. Abubakr A. Suliman, Yousef Al-Junaibi. 2010. Commitment and turnover intention in the UAE oilindustry. The International Journal of Human Resource Management 21:9, 1472-1489. [CrossRef]

4. Stephen Wilmot. 2010. Health Professionals: How much Employee Loyalty Should We Expect in aPrivatising System?. Health Care Analysis 18:1, 1-16. [CrossRef]

5. Eleni Stavrou, Christos Kilaniotis. 2009. Flexible Work and Turnover: an Empirical Investigation acrossCultures. British Journal of Management . [CrossRef]

6. Janet Chew, Christopher C.A. Chan. 2008. Human resource practices, organizational commitment andintention to stay. International Journal of Manpower 29:6, 503-522. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

7. Ian Ashman. 2006. An investigation of the British organizational commitment scale. Management ResearchNews 30:1, 5-24. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

8. Ian Ashman, Diana Winstanley. 2006. The ethics of organizational commitment. Business Ethics: AEuropean Review 15:2, 142-153. [CrossRef]

9. References 137-146. [CrossRef]10. Gillian Maxwell, Gordon Steele. 2003. Organisational commitment: a study of managers in hotels.

International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 15:7, 362-369. [Abstract] [Full Text][PDF]

11. Gbolahan Gbadamosi. 2003. HRM and the commitment rhetoric: challenges for Africa. ManagementDecision 41:3, 274-280. [Citation] [Full Text] [PDF]

12. Donald Hislop. 2003. Linking human resource management and knowledge management via commitment.Employee Relations 25:2, 182-202. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Dow

nloa

ded

by N

ew Y

ork

Uni

vers

ity A

t 23:

00 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

(PT

)