Shephard Er00

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

Employee commitment: academic vs practitioner perspectives Jeryl L. Shepherd and Brian P. Mathews University of Luton, Luton, UK

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

Employee commitment

555 Received July 2000 Revised August 2000 Accepted August 2000

Abstract Employee commitment has been extensively researched by academics. Theories about commitment towards the organisation have enjoyed much interest. The concept is a central part of 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 establishes practitioner's understanding of employee commitment in a variety of UK private sector organisations. The findings of a national survey, distributed to 300 HRM managers (response rate 32 per cent), indicate a wide recognition of the desirability and benefits of commitment, but clear disparity between the way academics and practitioners conceptualise and measure it. Despite the variety of formal measuring tools available, organisational monitoring of commitment can be described as ad hoc and subjective. We conclude that the subjective approach adopted by practitioners could inform the approaches of academics just as the structured ``objective'' approaches of academics should inform practitioners.

Introduction Research into employee commitment has generated much debate and extensive literature of late. The desire for employee commitment is supported by numerous 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 seeks to elicit high commitment from workers and thereby cultivate proactive behaviour with committed workers expending effort levels `beyond contract' for the enterprise''. Moreover, according to the philosophy of HRM, employee commitment is a shared responsibility between line management and the HR function, indeed this is one of the characteristics that differentiates HRM from the traditions of personnel management. The classical notion of corporate loyalty suggests that individuals are recruited for a specific task for which they should show their gratitude by behaving in a loyal and committed manner (Kiechel, 1985). However, where once the objective was employee compliance to organisational rules and regulations this has been superseded by employers striving for the much more ambitious aim of obtaining commitment to the organisation expressed voluntarily by employees (Storey, 1995; Tyson, 1995). Nevertheless, despite an extensive academic literature on the subject of commitment there appears to be little, if any, attention paid to managerial practice or opinion in the area.

Employee Relations, Vol. 22 No. 6, 2000, pp. 555-575. # MCB University Press, 0142-5455

Employee Relations 22,6 556

This paper seeks to explore academic and employer perspectives of commitment and how the parties might learn more about commitment from each other. In particular, it investigates employer perceptions of employee commitment and establishes if, and how, commitment is measured in practice. The imperative of the HRM model (discussed below) places commitment as a central issue and so we also explore the means by which it is engendered in practice and the location of responsibility within the organisation. We compare and contrast the perspectives of employers in UK private sector organisations with current academic standpoints about the construct. This is important since it appears that it is the HRM rhetoric, derived principally from academics, that provides the context and focus of our understanding of commitment rather than managerial perspectives of the construct. Employee commitment and human resource management Writers in the UK concerned with employee commitment, for example Guest (1995), Storey (1995) and Tyson (1995), have identified that committed employee behaviour is at the heart of human resource management and is a ``central feature that distinguishes HRM from traditional personnel management'' (Guest, 1995, p. 112). Similarly, Legge (1995b, p. 174) states that, ``employee commitment is contrasted favourably with the resigned behavioural compliance seen as characteristic of employment relationships under conventional personnel management. Compliance is maintained by externally imposed bureaucratic control systems'' which generate reactive rather than proactive employee behaviours. Commitment on the other hand, is an internalised employee belief, often associated with ``soft HRM'' and a high trust organisational culture. HRM has been described as a philosophy centred on emphasising the mutuality between employer and employee in the workplace (Farnham and Pimlott, 1990; Legge, 1995b; Walton, 1985). It has increased in popularity in recent years since the aim of managing people at work, ``no longer appears to be containment 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 HRM policies,'' which demonstrates, ``implicit theory in the listing and the advocacy of four HR outcomes'' (Guest, 1987, p. 510). Commitment towards the organisation results from the maximisation of human resources and increasing employee loyalty, and this in turn results in less absenteeism from the workplace 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 recent works of Storey (1995) Tyson (1995) and Legge (1995a; 1995b). These have reinforced the importance that the concept of commitment occupies within the HRM framework.

Employee commitment

557

Figure 1. A broad causal mapping of the determinants and consequences of HRM policies

Defining employee commitment ``The use of the term commitment to describe very different constructs has led to considerable confusion in the literature'' (Allen and Meyer, 1990, p. 14). Academic research in this area has proved both inconsistent and confusing because studies in the area do not seem to be guided by a consistent and specific model of commitment (Coopey and Hartley, 1991). Many researchers (for example, Buchanan, 1975; Mowday et al., 1982; Porter et al., 1974, Staw and Salancik, 1977; Steers, 1977) have developed definitions identifying the key characteristics considered to be demonstrated by committed individuals, yet there are notable differences between the various conceptualisations of commitment. The following sections present the main approaches to defining employee commitment. The academic literature also contains a range of measurement tools for commitment. Most are questionnaire-based. In the following sections we also provide a very brief summary of the best known approaches for each of the conceptualisations. Attitudinal commitment. Probably the most popular method of examining the concept is through an individuals' attitudes and feelings towards his or her employing organisation (Legge, 1995b). Featured in the works of Buchanan (1974) and extended by Porter et al. (1974) and Mowday et al. (1982), attitudinal commitment is, ``. . . the relative strength of an individual's identifications with and involvement in a particular organisation'' (Porter et al., 1974, p. 604). It is characterised by three components namely identification, involvement and loyalty. These translate to: an understanding and strong belief in and acceptance of the organisation's goals and values; a willingness to exert considerable 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 to maintain membership in the employing organisation, or the aspiration to remain in the employ of the organisation.

Employee Relations 22,6 558

Findings from studies using the attitudinal commitment model have shown that it is negatively correlated with employee turnover (Allen and Meyer, 1990; Mowday et al., 1982). It is also considered that committed individuals will have a good attendance record and work hard for the good of the organisation (Mowday et al., 1982). All in all, this makes attitudinal commitment most desirable for employers. Amongst the most popular of scales in the field is that of the Organisational Commitment Questionnaire (OCQ) developed by Porter et al., in 1974. It uses 15 items rated on a seven point Likert scale to measure three components: (1) identification ± pride in the organisation and the internalisation of its goals and values; (2) involvement ± psychological absorption in the actives of one's role for the good of the employing organisation; and (3) loyalty ± affection for, and attachment to the organisation; a sense of belongingness manifested as a wish to stay. Cook and Wall (1980; 1981) argue that since the OCQ was designed for employees in the USA, the phrasing may not be for a wider global audience. This has led to their development of the British Organisational Commitment Scale. This also measures commitment on the three dimensions of identification, involvement and loyalty but uses only three scale items for each. Its strength lies in the clarity of its language and wording, being developed specifically for the needs of blue collar workers. Normative commitment. The concept of normative commitment developed in the works of Wiener and Vardi (1980) and Wiener (1982) (and later furthered by Allen and Meyer, 1990) suggests that individuals attach themselves to one organisation since this is the proper way to behave. Normative commitment is defined as, ``. . . the totality of internalised normative pressures to act in a way that meets organisational goals and interests and suggests that individuals exhibit behaviours solely because they believe this is the right and moral way in which to behave'' (Wiener, 1982, p. 421). Thus, normative commitment is one of obligation. Normative commitment is presented within a motivational framework as an extension of the largely accepted identification approach to viewing commitment which has been shown to underpin the attitudinal commitment model. Wiener (1982) refers to identification as the acceptance of organisational expectations and values by the individual, which in turn guide employee behaviour. Hence, commitment is based on the strength of an individual's personal obligations. There is little evidence in the literature to demonstrate the take-up of the normative view. Weiner and Vardi (1980) however, developed an early measure for this construct, comprising of three items. Given that Cronbach's alpha increases in relation to the number of items in a scale it was not surprising that this scale obtained a low reliability score. A more robust version, the Normative Commitment Scale (NCS) was constructed by Allen and

Meyer in 1990. It comprises eight items, three of which are negatively worded (and reversed scored so that all answers relating to high commitment receive high ratings) in an attempt to reduce bias amongst respondents. The procedure of using negatively worded questions is common practice amongst scales developed in the commitment literature. Behavioural commitment. Behavioural commitment, as outlined in the works of Staw and Salancik (1977), develops as a result of an individual's past actions which are ultimately binding. It occurs, ``. . . when an individual has identified himself with a particular behaviour'' (Salancik, 1977, p. 64), and adjusts his attitude to fit that behaviour. It incorporates the notion of cognitive dissonance (Festinger, 1957), which suggests that the behaviour of the individual causes the development of congruent attitudes. Individuals pursue a reinforcing cycle of congruency as they strive to create consistency in their organisational lives. Guest (1987, p. 513) notes that although the behavioural model of commitment is more specific than attitudinal commitment, ``it is less useful in general [HRM] policy formulation,'' which may explain its lack of adoption amongst practitioners. Studies that provide a formal measure of Staw and Salancik's (1977) approach to commitment of it have been limited and no formal operationalisation has been widely used. Calculative commitment. Some researchers (for example; Becker, 1960; Kanter, 1968) prefer to define commitment in calculative terms. This involves the number of investments an individual makes as a result of their employment with an organisation and the associated costs of leaving their current organisation, together with their perceived availability of other job alternatives. Becker (1960) argues that when individuals are offered better alternatives with other organisations which they choose to decline, it may be that this is as a result 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 to remain with their current employing institution is secured by binding mechanisms. Kanter (1968) demonstrates support for the side bet theory, concluding that some types of investments ``. . . help explain why it is that members 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 as conceptualised by Becker (1960) was that of Ritzer and Trice (1969). The scale attempted to establish what specified increments or additional rewards employees would require before considering leaving their current organisation. The factors proposed were; increase in pay, freedom, status, responsibility and opportunity to get ahead. Other studies in the area (for example; Meyer and Allen, 1990; 1984) suggest that a more appropriate measure would be to question individuals about the number of, and their perceptions of, their organisational investments. Together with their perceptions of alternative employment opportunities, these elements comprise the Continuance Commitment Scale (Allen and Meyer, 1990).

Employee commitment

559

Employee Relations 22,6 560

Methodology The research was conducted via a mailed self-completion survey distributed to named HR managers in a variety of UK organisations. Individuals functioning within this capacity were chosen as the target group since employee commitment features heavily in HR models. It makes good research sense for those individuals who will benefit from research results to participate with data collection (Selltiz et al., 1973). The investigation sought to find out if practitioners and academics might learn something from being informed about each other's approaches to understanding and measuring commitment. Questionnaire design The questionnaire was spilt into three parts. The first section comprised simple, factual information, such as organisational details to enable sample composition to be confirmed and the analysis of the data to be contextualised. Section two requested an evaluation of the organisation's perspective of employee commitment. It assessed the level of importance attached to committed employees; identified with whom the responsibility for implementing and maintaining employee commitment within the organisation currently lies. Section three required the personal viewpoint of the respondent. It asked employers how they distinguish committed employees from non-committed individuals at work and required them to indicate the methods to measure commitment amongst employees in their organisation (and also the ``best'' method). It also attempted to find out what they consider their role to be in implementing and maintaining commitment amongst employees. Furthermore, it sought to establish who, in their opinion, should be responsible for generating and sustaining commitment in their organisation. The majority of questions were presented in closed format, requiring the respondent to make an informed choice between alternatives, although space for additional comments was made available at the end of the questionnaire. Questions were developed following an extensive review of the commitment literature. Ethical guidelines were adhered to and the confidentiality of all individual questionnaires was guaranteed and the identification of participating organisations was concealed. Pre-testing the questionnaire Questionnaire piloting was conducted on two separate days with two sample groups totalling thirty five HR professionals studying on the Institute of Personnel Development Course at the University of Luton. These managers were from a variety of local organisations. Here the main concern was understandability of the questions and hence content validity. Following feedback from the first group, some amendments were made to simplify the questioning approach and some re-arrangement of question sequence took place. Following these revisions, the questionnaire was re-piloted and approved with the second group.

Sampling frame and target audience The sampling frame used was drawn from a nationwide database held by a local company specialising in producing labels for mailings. Larger small and medium enterprises (SMEs) located in the manufacturing and service environments were specified to capture a variety of organisational perspectives and diverse range of opinion. SMEs were the focus of the study for two reasons. First, there is little research conducted in the area using these types of organisations. Second, one of the aims of the study sought to assess the extent to which commitment measures in the area are adopted by organisations. By the nature of the industrial structure of the UK, the majority of firms are SMEs. A study concentrating solely on larger organisations may well significantly overestimate the sophistication of commitment monitoring approaches because of 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 has focused on blue collar workers located in the private sector manufacturing industry (see, for example, Cook and Wall, 1980; 1981). Questionnaires were targeted at the individual having responsibility for HRM. Usually this would be a personnel manager (or general manager in the case of some of the smaller organisations). Such individuals would be well placed to understand both the notion of commitment and the organisational practices concerned with it. On the other hand, they may also be prone to provide ``desirable'' responses. Response rates To assist in increasing response rates, guidelines were followed from authors in the social sciences (for example, Oppenheim, 1992; Schmitt and Klimoski, 1991, Selltiz et al., 1973). The names of respective HR managers were printed on mailing labels to provide a more personalised approach. A full explanatory letter accompanied the questionnaire, (detailing its purpose and outlining how the data provided would be used) and a self-addressed, freepost envelope was also provided. Further, a synopsis of the general responses was available on request. Ethical guidelines were also followed and the confidentiality of all responses was guaranteed. Schmitt and Klimoski (1991) also suggest that follow up procedures typically improve response rates. In the case of this research, employers were given a three week time period in which to complete and return the questionnaire, after which a follow up procedure was adopted with a two-week deadline. A total of 300 questionnaires were distributed. A total of 69 were returned in the three week period and a further 27 after the follow up. A total of 97 responses were finally received, a highly satisfactory 32 per cent overall response rate for a postal survey (although three responses had to be discounted as they were

Employee commitment

561

Employee Relations 22,6 562

returned from organisations in the public sector). Responses to the follow up were compared to those initially received as a means of determining non-response bias. In the event, the diversity of responses and the small numbers involved resulted in no discernible patterns being present ± although this should not be interpreted to prove lack of non-response bias. Before moving to the substantive issues it is appropriate to provide a description of the sample achieved. The majority (64 per cent) of usable questionnaires were returned from UK manufacturing enterprises (as intended), followed by other private sector organisations (29 per cent), which broadly included; aircraft maintenance, industrial services, hotels, logistics and computing services. Retailing and financial services comprise some 7 per cent. It is recognised that this pattern is not fully representative of UK organisations or employment, but, as explained earlier, does represent a meaningful comparative baseline. In terms of size of responding organisation (determined by the number of employees) the majority of participants were representing small and small to medium sized organisations. Definitions from the European Commission include micro-organisations (0-9 employees) of which none were represented in the 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 24 per cent under 500. Thus, only 24 per cent of the sample are larger organisations, 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. Remaining respondents all held managerial status. Their titles included; managing directors, general managers, accountants, financiers and quality strategists. Hence, the respondent base are well placed to comment on commitment within their organisations. Results HRM and employee commitment In this section we examine the extent to which linkages can be made between commitment and the HRM orientation. Employee and organisational importance attached to commitment. Our first analysis concerns the level of importance placed by respondents on commitment in their organisation from an employee and an employer perspective. Should it be considered unimportant this would undermine any subsequent analysis or conclusions. All respondents indicated that their organisation does view employee commitment with a high degree of importance, although the majority suggested that it is not the most important corporate issue (as illustrated in Table 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 their organisations also consider that employee commitment is important. However,

Most important issue A very important issue Important Not very important Unimportant Do not know

Your org. views EC as (%)

Employees view EC as (%)

10 68 16 0 0 0

3 23 51 14 1 2

11 72 17 0 0 0

3 25 54 15 1 2

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

Employee commitment

563 Table I. The importance of employee commitment

the perception of respondents is that they consider commitment to be more important than they feel the workforce do in general. While this finding does not prove that the workforce are genuinely concerned with commitment it does demonstrate that the managers involved in engendering commitment believe it to be the case. Responsibility for employee commitment. Respondents were asked to indicate who in the organisation has current responsibility for implementing and maintaining commitment amongst the workforce. They indicated a range of organisational groups, the most frequently cited being ``all management to a certain extent'' and ``senior management'' (as shown in Figure 2). Surprisingly, only 4 per cent of responses outlined that the function of human resource management/personnel has current responsibility for the upkeep of employee commitment in their organisation. Given that the

Figure 2. Employee commitment implementation and maintenance

Employee Relations 22,6 564

background information to this study shows that 73 per cent of respondents maintain that they work in the HRM or training department, it is demonstrated that the role of the HR function in maintaining employee commitment is limited. Indeed, these results support the supposition that the role of HR is in advising the function of line management (Guest, 1998). When asked to indicate the extent to which respondents perceive that they have a personal role to play in creating and upkeeping commitment levels amongst employees, 39 per cent suggested that it was ``one of their key management tasks'' whilst an additional 44 per cent stated that it is ``one of their many responsibilities'' (as shown in Figure 3). The apparent discrepancy between these results and the previous ones may be interpreted as confirmation that they as managers recognise the importance of engendering commitment amongst their own staff, whereas their role as HRM professionals is not to be responsible for the commitment of the staff of other managers. This result is consistent with Guest (1998) who suggests that HRM advocates are giving more responsibility for managing human resources to line managers. This perspective is also consistent with other views of management practices, for example, Wood (1995) has ``preferred to talk in terms of high commitment policies as a working substitute for HRM'' (Storey, 1995, p. 6) and high commitment management as a mechanism for generating commitment so that employee behaviour is ``primarily self-regulated rather than controlled by sanctions and pressures external to the individual and relations within the organisation are based on trust'' (Wood, 1996, p. 41). Managerial perspectives of employee commitment In this section we explore the respondents' understanding of the nature of commitment. Given that certain academic definitions of commitment are not

Figure 3. Respondents' perceived responsibility for employee commitment

readily transferred into direct questions (e.g. side bet theory) a variety of questions are posed in a variety of formats from which we can infer the relative prominence of the alternative interpretations. Participants were asked to indicate up to five ways (from nine options) in which committed employees could be distinguished from non-committed ones (see Table II). Given the multiple response requested some non- or incomplete responses values above about 50 should be considered preferred responses. The results identify four main characteristics which employers cite enabling a committed individual to be differentiated from a non-committed employee within the workplace. Employee attitude is the most common, thus reinforcing the prominence of attitudinal commitment. Attendance comes out as an important factor on the behavioural side, as does ``general'' behaviour at work. Other behavioural traits are indicated, namely promotion seeking within the organisation and amount of unpaid hours worked. Employment seeking outside the organisation, (which notably obtained a count of only two), is more in keeping with normative and calculative theories. In order to find out the level of importance attached to the identification approach by employers, Porter et al.'s (1974) elements of attitudinal commitment (identification, involvement, loyalty) were segregated and presented separately together with one statement expressing the behavioural view of commitment (see Table III). Wiener (1982) points out that, ``some writers equate identification with organisation commitment''. He refers largely to 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 major components. Respondents were requested to rank each of these in terms of the level of importance attached to each (1 = most important).

Criteria Attitude General behaviour Demonstration of job satisfaction Attendance record Promotion seeking within the organisation Amount of extra unpaid hours worked Length of service Employment seeking outside the organisation Amount of paid overtime Do not know/other Total responses

Count

% of responses

% of cases

92 68 61 60 37 28 22 5 2 1 376

24.4 18.0 16.2 15.9 9.8 7.4 5.8 1.3 0.5 0.3 100.0

97.9 72.3 64.9 63.8 39.4 29.8 23.4 5.3 2.1 1.1 402.1

Employee commitment

565

Table II. Distinguishing between committed and non-committed employees

Employee Relations 22,6 566

Table III illustrates that employee involvement emerged as the most favourable element of Porter's (1974) definition of attitudinal commitment. Hence it is the most preferred element of commitment according to the employers surveyed. Employee identification with organisational goals and values and employee loyalty were second and third respectively. Behavioural commitment was ranked 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 towards the organisation, means total absorption of our company's goals and values''. Thus, it appears that practitioners associate highly with the attitudinal elements of commitment (Table III) and this further supports the evidence provided in Table II. Measuring employee commitment It was noted earlier in the paper that attitudinal scales, which are often presented in questionnaire format, have become popular instruments for academics to measure the construct. However, little is known about the mechanisms used by employers in UK organisations to measure levels of commitment towards their organisation. Thus, in order to find out if practitioner and academic perspectives of measuring commitment are compatible respondents were asked to rank, in order of importance (where 1 = most important), the number of formal mechanisms used by their organisation to measure employee commitment levels. This also establishes the extent to which attitudinal scales of measurement are recognised and accepted by employers. They were further asked to indicate their assessment of what constitutes the ``best methods''. Thus, any disparity between the results of these two questions would indicate employers' understanding of ``best practice'' if it differs from current practice. The combined top answers are shown in Table IV. Overall rankings were determined by the number of times a variable has been indicated (count) and two measures of central tendency, the mean and Statement

Table III. Employers identification with employee commitment definitions

Individuals who exert effort to enable the organisation to accomplish its goals and values (involvement) Individuals who identify with the goals and values of the organisation (identification) Individuals who are loyal to and wish to remain with their organisation (loyalty) Individuals who see the organisation as their best bet and wish to stay (behavioural commitment)

Mean rank

Median/mode

1.65

1

2.06

2

2.58

3

3.71

4

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

Response

Mechanism used Mean Median Rank Count rank rank Rank

Best method Mean Median Count rank rank

Regular group meetings with management and staff

1

58

2.2

2

1

68

2.6

2

Appraisal

2

55

2.4

2

2

64

2.8

2

Management by walking around

3

53

3.2

3

3

57

3.1

3

Meetings with individual employees

4

39

3.2

3

4

54

2.9

3

Examining absentee levels

5

41

4.4

4

5

44

4.6

4

median rank. In interpreting the results, the rule of thumb is that the higher the count, the more respondents have indicated that the policy is used by their organisation 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 between management and employees, staff appraisal and management by walking around are the most popular mechanisms used by participating UK organisations to measure employee commitment levels. Such measures can best be described as ``soft'', may be haphazard rather than systematic and are subject to considerable interpretation. There is only one method that approximates to anything systematic and that is monitoring of absentee levels. While this is associated with attitudinal commitment (Mowday et al., 1982) it is a consequence or outcome rather than a measure of the construct. Other response alternatives offered to respondents included anonymous questionnaires and surveys, but disappointingly, these scored low counts of 23 and 19 respectively for current use. Interestingly 13 other respondents indicated that they made no formal measurement attempts. In terms of `best' methods, anonymous questionnaires and questionnaires received slightly higher counts of 28 and 20 respectively. This indicates that practitioners do not consider them to be particularly desirable methods of measuring commitment in relation to group meetings, appraisal, individual meetings, management by walking about. Possibly unsurprisingly, the results show a clear discrepancy between the formal methods used to measure commitment and employers' perception of the best methods. In other words, it is evident that employers regard that the subjective ways they currently use are by and large the best and do not need to be replaced by other forms of measurement. More importantly, the result suggests that whilst some managers do recognise the value of structured measurement, the majority do not, preferring

Employee commitment

567 Table IV. Formal mechanisms used by employers to measure employee commitment and employers' perception of the best methods

Employee Relations 22,6 568

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 result highlights a need for practitioners to be aware of, and accept the advantages of, attitudinal questionnaires like the OCQ and BOCS. Discussion and conclusions Employee commitment is firmly entrenched in HRM theory, but to date little has been known about its role in relation to HRM practitioners. This study sought to determine the nature of employee commitment in UK organisations from an employer's perspective. It drew from their knowledge and understanding of the concept and the mechanisms used by their organisations in which to measure this. The questionnaire has provided useful perspectives about employee commitment from UK practitioners and compared these responses to those of academics. Since the sample base was from the private sector, the findings themselves are not necessarily generalisable to the wider organisational audience. It is evident that importance is attached to employee commitment by both employees and organisations, although divergent results have emerged regarding the issue of responsibility for ensuring commitment in the organisation. In short, the evidence indicates, ``all management to a certain extent'' and ``senior management'' are currently the groups most involved in building and sustaining a committed workforce. The findings also indicate that it is difficult to be clear about the responsibility HR managers have in the upkeep of employee commitment in their organisation, since respondents illustrated that the function of HR was not currently responsible for securing commitment in their organisation. Neither did respondents consider that human resource managers should be responsible for employee commitment. In contrast, however, 84 per cent of respondents indicated that implementing and maintaining commitment amongst employees is a necessary part of their job. In a similar vein, Mabey et al. (1998, p. 1) discussing ``the idea of HRM in the distinctive sense,'' suggest that the managing of human resources is too important to be left entirely to personnel specialists. Rather ``it has to be an activity which is owned by all managers''. The acknowledgement by employers that committed employees can be distinguished from non-committed colleagues by their attitude is apparent and compatible with the literature on commitment, since Mowday et al.'s (1979) definition of the construct is probably the most popular, if not the most orthodox of definitions (Coopey and Hartley, 1991; Legge, 1995b). In dealing with practitioners' requirement to obtain commitment, the analysis suggests that they have a clear perspective of what employee commitment is and have confirmed the need for attitudinal commitment from employees. However, concerns are raised about how practitioners expect to achieve this and in turn this casts doubts about the knowledge managers really

have about the true level of employee commitment in their organisation and how to measure it. For example, their collective responses do not acknowledge widespread use of quantitative instruments, like questionnaires. Nor did the majority of employers cite questionnaires amongst the most preferred measures. Practitioners placed a high emphasis on communication between themselves 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 also cited as the most effective methods by which to measure commitment amongst those surveyed. This research indicates that the managers surveyed reject objective measurement as a mainstream method to evaluate commitment. In essence, this result suggests two key points. First, it is possible that the respondents are simply unaware of the advantages of the formal measurement scales that are available. Second, this result might indicate that the commitment of a workforce can be evaluated by way of subjective techniques. Arguably, such evaluation can only really be carried out an experienced personnel executive. Whilst this finding highlights a need for practitioners to become aware of and accept the advantages of attitudinal scaling, it also suggests that there may be some credence in utilising ``soft'' techniques to consider commitment. It may be the academics that are not sufficiently insightful in their operationalisation of the commitment construct and ignore subtle nuances by the adoption of restrictive purely quantitative measures. This would provide an alternative method to assessing the concept, and could be extended by academics in the form of ethnographic techniques (i.e. participating observation) which, to date has not been well addressed in the literature. Given the importance placed on the topic by academics and practitioners alike, the issue of the relative benefits of alternative approaches to measurement is an issue worthy of deeper investigation. Further research would be appropriate which could take the form of a case study-based approach into organisations that adopt both structured questionnaire-based strategy and a subjective one, a multimethod multirespondent perspective. References Allen, N. and Meyer, J. (1990), ``The measurement of antecedents of affective, continuance and normative 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 General Managers 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 in work organisations'', Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 19, pp. 533-46.

Employee commitment

569

Employee Relations 22,6 570

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 commitment and 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 psychological well 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 of Management 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 Human Resource Management: A Critical Test, Routledge, London. Guest, D. (1998), ``Beyond HRM: commitment and the contract culture'', in Sparrow, P. and Marchington, M. (Eds), Human Resource Management: The New Agenda, Financial Times Publishing, London. Hall, D. and Schneider, B. (1972), ``Correlates of organisational identification'', Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 17, pp. 340-50. Kanter, R. (1968), ``Commitment and social organisation: a study of commitment mechanisms in utopian 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 Resource Management: 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: A Reader, 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 of Commitment, 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, job satisfaction 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'', Social Forces, June, pp 475-9. Salancik, G. (1977), ``Commitment and control of organisational and belief'', in Staw, B. and Salancik, G. (Eds), New Directions in Organisational Behaviour, St Clair Press, Chicago, IL. Schmitt, N. and Klimoski, R. (1991), Research Methods in Human Resources Management, SouthWestern Publishing, Cincinnati, OH.

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'', Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 22, pp. 46-56. Storey, J. (1995), ``Human resource management: still marching on or marching out?'', Human Resource 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 of mutuality'', in Walton and Lawrence (Eds), HRM Trends and Challenges, Harvard Business School, Boston, MA. Wiener, Y. (1982), ``Commitment in organisations: a normative view'', Academy of Management Review, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 418-28. Wiener, Y. and Vardi, Y. (1980), ``Relationships between job organisation and career commitments and work outcomes ± an integrative approach'', Organisational Behaviour and Human Performance, Vol. 26, pp. 81-96. Wood, S. (1995), ``Can we speak of high commitment on the shop floor?'', Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 32 No. 2, pp. 215-47. Wood, S. (1996), ``High commitment management and unionisation in the UK'', International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 53-77.

Employee commitment

571

Abstracts from the wider literature

Employee Relations 22,6 572

``Employee commitment: academic vs practitioner perspectives'' The following abstracts from the wider literature have been selected for their special relevance to the preceding article. The abstracts extend the themes and discussions of the main article and act as 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: [email protected] quoting the reference number shown at the end of the abstract.

Is continuance commitment beneficial to organizations? Commitment-performance relationship: a new look Suliman, 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 and their job performance, looking at the possibility that certain types of commitment may have different impacts on performance. Based on the literature, draws up a model of the relationship between factors within the work climate (supervisory style, task characteristics and employee motivation, etc.), the aspects of organizational commitment (split into affective commitment, continuance commitment and normative commitment) which are seen as mediating variables, and aspects of job performance (quantity of work, quality of work, work enthusiasm, etc.) Studies the relationships proposed in the model by surveying 55 full-time junior, middle and senior managers working 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 work status are related to these and their impact on job performance. Finds that the results confirm the idea that organizational commitment is multi-faceted and concludes that all three aspects of organizational commitment studied have a positive impact on job performance.

Survey/Wholly theoretical Indicators: Research implications: *** Practice implications: ** Originality: ** Readability: ** Total number: ********* Reference: 29AT656 Cost: £30 (plus VAT) The impact of person and organizational values on organizational commitment Finegan, J.E. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology (UK), Jun 2000 Vol. 73 No. 2: p. 149 (21 pages) Reports the results of a study which examined the degree to which personorganization fit predicts employee commitment using a measure of fit based on value congruence. Arguing that a person, whose personal values match the operating values of the organization, is more likely to be committed to the organization than an individual whose personal values differ from those of the organization. Comments on the limitations of previous studies investigating the relationship between value congruence and commitment (Chatman et al.), particularly the way in which they measured an organization's value profile and their failure to appreciate the multidimensional nature of the commitment concept. Aims to overcome these limitations by using Meyer and Allan's (1991) commitment scale ± which measures three commitment dimensions, affective commitment, normative commitment and continuance commitment ± and by requiring participants to rate items on McDonald and Gandz' (1991) values taxonomy (adapted from Rokeach's, 1973, list of values), in terms of their own personal values and in terms of their perceptions of the organization's regard for these values. Considers the implications of the findings and compares the methodology of the present study with other measures of work values. Comparative/evaluation/Theoretical with application in practice Indicators: Research implications: ** Practice implications: ** Originality: ** Readability: ** Total number: ******** Reference: 29AS017 Cost: £18 (plus VAT) Four commitment profiles and their relationships to empowerment, service recovery, and work attitudes Carson, 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 career commitment, identifying four groupings according to the strength of these two types of commitment ± those with high commitment to both career and organization labelled as being ``dually committed''; those with low commitment to both career and organization labelled as being ``uncommitted''; those with high career commitment and low organizational commitment labelled as being

Employee commitment

573

Employee Relations 22,6 574

``careerists''; and those with high organizational commitment and low career commitment labelled as being ``organizationists''. Develops a number of hypotheses concerning these four groupings of employee and their levels of job satisfaction, intention to quit, career satisfaction, intention to change career, levels of empowerment, and reactions to supervisors. Tests out the hypotheses in a survey of US medical librarians and concludes that those employees who were highly committed to both their organization and their career had higher job and career satisfaction, lower intentions to quit, were more empowered and regarded their supervisors positively. Concludes that managers should encourage both organizational and career commitment. Survey/Theoretical with application in practice Indicators: Research implications: *** Practice implications: ** Originality: ** Readability: *** Total number: ********** Reference: 28AN785 Cost: £18 (plus VAT) The impact of psychological contract violations on exit, voice, loyalty, and neglect Turnley, 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 the psychological contract will have on employees' intention to leave the firm, to take up a grievance or complain about the firm, on their feelings of loyalty towards the firm and on their productivity. Identifies a number of factors which might moderate these effects, such as the availability of other jobs. Uses a sample of 804 US managers to test out the hypotheses derived from the discussion. Finds that psychological contract violations have a pervasive negative effect on employees' attitudes to the firm, being most strongly associated with intention to leave and reduced loyalty; less strongly with lowered productivity and the intention to complain/take up a grievance. Theoretical with application in practice/Survey Indicators: Research implications: *** Practice implications: ** Originality: ** Readability: *** Total number: ********** Reference: 28AZ003 Cost: £30 (plus VAT) Gendered meanings of commitment from high technology engineering managers in the UK and Sweden Singh, 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 to their work than men, using a study of the male-dominated engineering industry to understand if men and women have a different understanding of the

meaning of commitment at work. Also looks at how organizational culture and the managerial level achieved by a person affects their views of organizational commitment. Interviews matched pairs of male and female engineers working in the Swedish and UK aerospace industries, asking about the meaning they attach to organizational commitment and inviting them to describe a person within the company whom they saw as being highly committed to the organization. Compares these meanings with the views of senior managers on the type of commitment they wanted to see in their employees. Presents a detailed analysis of the results of these interviews. Concludes that there are gender differences in the way that men and women perceive commitment, and that the perceptions of the male employees was more in line with the perceptions of the senior managers. Also found that managerial level affected the perception of commitment. Survey/Theoretical with application in practice Indicators: Research implications: *** Practice implications: ** Originality: ** Readability: ** Total number: ********* Reference: 29AG292 Cost: £24 (plus VAT) The managerial drivers of employee satisfaction and loyalty Eskildsen, J.K. and NuÈssler, 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 comprizing three subsystems (cultural, social, and technical) feeding through to employee satisfaction, employee loyalty, and corporate performance. Tests the model via a 76-question survey of Danish HR managers, covering the causal structure of the model (24 questions), general managerial approach to its subsystems (24), demographic matters (three), use of staff attitude surveys (two) ± the remaining questions being subsystem-specific. Analyses 215 returns (32 per cent response). Displays significant causal paths determined by partial least squares. Declares the social subsystem has the biggest impact on employee satisfaction, and the technical subsystem on employee loyalty ± according to the HR managers' thinking. Declares that firms using employee satisfaction surveys fare better in employee loyalty and corporate performance. Generates quality maps of the three subsystems by correlating computed indices with subsystem questions. Depicts the map for the technical subsystem and identifies improvement areas within the social. Concludes with six recommendations to improve employee satisfaction and loyalty. Survey/Theoretical with application in practice Indicators: Research implications: ** Practice implications: ** Originality: ** Readability: ** Total number: ******** Reference: 29AR959 Cost: £18 (plus VAT)

Employee commitment

575