Career Structures and Employee

Commitment "'
Karyn A. LOSCOCCO, State University of New York at Albany

This study draws from the labor market and aging literatures to develop a frame-
work for understanding the implications of career structures for commitment to
work and company. Survey results indicate that the positive relationship between in-
ternal labor market (ILM) membership and organizational commitment is explained
by the greater promotion opportunities associated with ILMs. It is suggested that
work commitment is enhanced by ILM membership because it provides links to mul-
tiple career paths which offer many possibilities for future advancement even when
mobility is currently blocked. In addition, differences in the ways that careers unfold
in ILMs and non-ILMs appear to be partially responsible for age variation in em-
ployee commitment within non-ILMs.

This research examines the link between career structures and employee
commitment, or attachment to work and company. Careers, defined broadly
as a set of work role transitions which comprise one's work life (Schein,
1983), have been identified as a key mechanism through which organiza-
tions can strengthen the valued employee-work linkage which such commit-
ment represents. Yet careers vary systematically in their levels or job security,
job rewards, and in their reward trajectories (Kalleberg and Berg, 1987)
affecting their ability to produce strong employee commitment.
The specific organizational or occupational context in which careers are
structured is the labor market (Serensen, 1983; Althauser and Kalleberg,
1981). Internal labor markets (ILMs), characterized by considerable job
security and elaborate job ladders (Althauser and Kalleberg, 1981), have
been identified as extremely effective commitment-inducing mechanisms
(Edwards, 1979; Rosenbaum, 1984; Lmcoln and Kalleberg, 1985). Thus
work and organizational commitment should be stronger among employees
who hold jobs positioned within internal labor markets.
*1 would like to thank Arne Kalleberg, Barbara Lawrence, Michael Wallace, Judith Blau, and
the SSQ reviewers for their helpful suggestions on previous drafts. In addition, I gratefully
acknowledge the help of Robert W, White with the interviews and the research assistance of
Joyce Robinson. Editor's note: Reviewers were Lotte Bailyn, James Lincoln, Jon Lorence, and
William Markham,

SOCIAL SCIENCE QUARTERLY, Volume 71, Number 1, March 1990

© 1990 by the University of Texas Press
54 Social Science Quarterly

Yet the extent of and reasons for the presumed impact of labor market
membership on employee commitment have not been explored fully. If com-
mitment to work and company is stronger among employees positioned
within ILMs, is it because of greater job rewards, the greater job security, or
the longer career trajectories? The potential explanatory power of the career
trajectory is underscored by reports that reactions to one's work at a given
point in time may be conditioned by future expectations (Van Maanen,
1977; Schem, 1980). Nor has the relationship between labor markets and
other key career variables, such as age (Riley, Johnson, and Foner, 1988;
Lawrence, 1984), been given adequate research attention. Of particular in-
terest is the way in which the rules governing movement within and between
labor markets, which are subject to wider economic and social forces, affect
the commitment of employees who are at different career stages.
Data from a sample of 493 employees of a midwestern manufacturing
plant are used to examine the issues raised above. A case study approach is
useful in this endeavor for a number of reasons. First, it facilitates the use of
direct measures of labor markets, since job ladders within the firm can be
clearly differentiated. Additionally, the single-firm focus allows confidence
that variation in labor market outcomes are in fact due to differences in the
ways in which careers are structured within different markets rather than a
variety of other environmental and organizational properties which may in-
fluence labor market structure. Finally, it eases collection of detailed infor-
mation on career structures and commitment to work and company. This
can be helpful in sorting out, for instance, the ways in which changes in pro-
motion rules combine with career position to condition the relationship be-
tween labor market membership and employee commitment.

Work and Organizational Commitment

Two widely studied aspects of employee commitment are chosen for this
investigation: organizational commitment, the degree of attachment to and
identification with the company (Porter, Crampon, and Smith, 1976), and
work commitment, the relative importance of the work role to one's sense of
self (Loscocco, 1989). Theory holds that career structures which provide
highly valued incentives will enhance commitment to both the work role
(Faunce and Dubin, 1975) and the organization (Clark and Wilson, 1961).
In addition, it has been suggested that organizational commitment will be
enhanced when the individual has a long investment in and/or has few alter-
natives to the current employment situation (Becker, 1960; Staw, 1976).
Organizational commitment is a less global concept than work commit-
ment, since it depends on the evaluation of a specific company. Work com-
mitment signifies a generalized attachment to work itself, which may depend
upon more than one's feelings about the current job. Thus if certain features
of career structures reflect projections for work beyond the current work-
Career Structures and Employee Commitment 55
place, they will probably affect work but not organizational commitment.
These themes will be examined in more detail as the discussion proceeds.

Work Careers and Employee Commitment

Promotion Opportunity. Promotion opportunity represents a key work

incentive (Markham, Harlan, and Hackett, 1987). Employees value promo-
tions because they improve earnings and status, and provide new challenges.
Because career ladders tend to be structured like a tournament, gaining one
promotion also improves one's chances for future promotion (Rosenbaum,
1979,1984; Kanter, 1977).
The importance of career mobility to employees has been demonstrated
by a number of empirical studies which have uncovered a positive associa-
tion between a favorable opportunity structure and identification with work
(Lodahl and Kejner, 1965; McKelvey and Sekaran, 1977) and company
(Porter and Steers [1973]; Lincoln and Kalleberg [1985]; see also Markham,
Harlan, and Hackett [1987] for an extensive review). Although the Ameri-
can occupational system offers considerable upward mobility, there are
barriers limiting shifts between certain sets of jobs (Kalleberg and Berg,
1987:151). Thus it is important to understand how promotion opportuni-
ties are structured within organizations. The labor market literature is a
useful guide in such an endeavor.
It has been suggested that careers which are played out within internal
labor markets provide many more opportunities for advancement over the
course of one's working life than is true of careers which evolve in non-ILMs
(e.g., Steinberg, 1975). Within ILMs there is limited entry at the bottom and
a series of at least three job shifts which entail progressive development of
skill and knowledge (Althauser and Kalleberg, 1981). Thus there is little
competition for promotion from outside ILMs, and as people move upward
they gain higher status jobs which provide greater intrinsic and extrinsic re-
wards. Promotion opportunities are considerable in ILMs, furthermore, be-
cause once an individual has gained a foothold there, a range of lateral
moves from one job set to another are possible—either within the same
company or the same occupation (Althauser and Kalleberg, 1981).
In contrast, those who work within non-ILMs do not enjoy a long series
of job shifts which proceed from accumulated knowledge. If their jobs are
part of a career ladder at all, it is likely to be one with a very low ceiling.
People who work within non-ILMs tend to receive advances in pay grades
rather than promotions to jobs that require an advanced level of skill and
knowledge (Althauser and Kalleberg, 1981).
One would expect, then, that employees who work within ILMs have
higher levels of work and organizational commitment than their counter-
parts in non-ILMs. The fact that the types of jobs which comprise ILMs
tend to offer greater autonomy and more intrinsic rewards than those in
56 Social Science Quarterly

non-ILMs should partially account for the greater work commitment on the
part of ILM employees. Yet the discussion of promotion opportunity above
indicates that one must look to the career trajectories associated with ILM
membership to explain fully the predicted relationship. Because ILMs pro-
vide links to multiple career paths, employees of such markets are more
likely than their counterparts in non-ILMs to envision future advancement
to better jobs. Such projections strengthen commitment to work even if the
chances of promotion from one's current job to the next position on one's
career trajectory are not especially promising (Van Maanen, 1977). Since
work commitment is a more generalized attachment than organizational
commitment, the greater eventual promotion chances in ILMs probably fig-
ure more prominently in heightening the former type of commitment.
Company Tenure. A much-touted feature of internal labor markets is
their tendency to provide job security for their employees (Kalleberg and
Berg, 1987; Lincoln and Kalleberg, 1985). Thus it is important to ask (1) to
what extent the presumed positive relationship between ILM membership
and work commitment is due to this particular feature of such careers and
(2) whether the impact of company tenure differs for those whose jobs are
positioned in noninternal labor markets.
One argument is that unless company tenure is tied directly to upward
mobility, it will not enhance commitment to work (e.g.. Guest, 1954; Kanter,
1977). While internal labor markets differ in their use of seniority as op-
posed to ability to assign employees to different kinds of job shifts, ability
(often indexed by education) tends to be most important in awarding pro-
motions (Althauser and Kalleberg, 1981). This suggests that company tenure
does not mediate the relationship between ILM membership and work com-
mitment, since it has relatively little to do with chances to obtain the greater
rewards associated with upward mobility. Similarly, theories of organiza-
tional commitment predict a positive relationship between company tenure
and attachment to the company for reasons unrelated to career structure.
Employees who have been with the company the longest have built up the
greatest investment, heightening their organizational commitment (March
and Simon, 1958; Staw, 1976).
If past authors are correct about the ultimate importance of promotion in
the relationship between careers and work commitment (Chinoy, 1955;
Kanter, 1977), company tenure should be negatively related to work com-
mitment in non-ILMs. For instance Guest (1954) found that lower level em-
ployees who had been with an automobile company for a long time had
lowered their work aspirations to fit the reality of their limited opportunity.

Age and Career Structures

Promotion Rules. The policies which govern promotion within and be-
tween organizational labor markets condition outcomes such as employee
Career Structures and Employee Commitment 57

commitment. At one time seniority and technical expertise, gained on the

job, were the two major promotion criteria, according a distinct advantage
to older employees (Riley, Johnson, and Foner, 1988). Thus it was relatively
common for workers to shift from positions in non-ILMs to the bottom
rungs of career ladders comprising ILMs once they had accumulated the
requisite skills through experience. This leads to chances for upward mobil-
ity at later career stages. Today, however, educational credentials have be-
come far more important in what Rosenbaum (e.g., 1984) has termed the
"promotion tournament." The influx of young employees who bring such
credentials to the company's ILMs leads to completely separate career pat-
terns within the same company. Today's non-lLM employees are more likely
than ever before to be locked into career trajectories which have low career
ceilings and early career plateaus. Structural theories of age effects (e.g.,
Riley, Johnson, and Foner, 1988; Lawrence, 1987) suggest that this change
will affect younger and older employees differently.
Thus, because older workers are closer to the end of their careers, they are
less likely to be affected by changes in promotion rules than their younger
counterparts. To feel locked into a labor market which offers almost no
potential for upward shifts would certainly be more devastating early in
one's work career. Moreover, promotion has become so widely accepted as
a key work incentive that younger workers view it as an entitlement (Riley,
Johnson, and Foner, 1988), which must heighten their frustration when it is
denied to them. Finally, it has been shown that perceptions of age-based pro-
motion timetables are used to assess one's own career (Lawrence, 1984,
1987). The younger employees of non-ILMs probably know about the longer
career trajectories and later career ceilings in the ILM since the jobs which
comprise the two types of labor markets are rarely completely segregated. In
gauging their career position at least partially in comparison to same-age
ILM employees who still have movement potential, they are likely to experi-
ence career disaffection resulting in decreased commitment.
Alternative perspectives on the relationship between age and commitment
contradict the above hypothesis. One argument is that there is a general ten-
dency to de-emphasize the work role at mid-life (e.g., Levinson et al., 1978),
which suggests that there is a curvilinear relationship between age and work
commitment (Kalleberg and Loscocco, 1983; Lorence, 1987). Another fo-
cuses on age as a reflection of the different socialization experiences of
younger and older birth cohorts. This leads to a prediction of significant age
differences across labor markets since younger workers, raised in an affluent
society, devalue work and company to a greater extent than their elders
(Lorence, 1987; Loscocco, forthcoming [1989]).
Summary. This overview has suggested a number of hypotheses concern-
ing the impact of career structures on commitment to work. Based on
descriptions of the benefits of internal labor market membership, it is hy-
pothesized that, even within a single company, employees whose jobs are
58 Social Science Quarterly

positioned within ILMs will be more committed to work and company than
those who hold non-ILM jobs. The discussion suggests that this positive
impact of ILM membership on commitment results more from long career
trajectories, which increase promotion opportunity, than from the long
company tenure associated with ILMs. Moreover, it is suggested that the
multiplicity of possible career moves presented by ILM membership proba-
bly plays a key role in enhancing commitment to work.
In addition, it is predicted that labor market membership conditions the
experience of people of different career stages. For instance, the differential
impact of changed promotion criteria within the two types of labor markets
sbould result in a positive impact of age and a negative impact of education
on work commitment among those in non-ILMs, reflecting the greater frus-
tration of younger employees.

Data and Variables

As stated earlier, a case study approach is well-suited to a preliminary in-

vestigation of the issues presented in the preceding section. Data on the jobs
and work attitudes of 493 employees from what will be called Plant 45 of
Midwest Engine Division (MED) were collected via questionnaire as part of
a 1982 study of work attitudes (see Lincoln and Kalleberg [1985] for a de-
scription). In addition, semi-structured interviews elicited more detailed in-
formation about the work lives of a subsample of Plant 45 employees. Data
about the organization and functioning of the plant and the firm were ob-
tained from interviews with the plant and personnel managers.
Plant 45, Midwest Engine Division. Plant 45 was chosen as the setting for
this research for a number of reasons. First, it is part of one of the largest
transportation equipment divisions in the Midwest, with a corporate parent
that is well-known as a classic bureaucratic manufacturing firm. Moreover,
the general manager of Plant 45 was willing to provide ready access to em-
ployees, information, and resources without making any demands.
In addition, there are multiple labor markets at Plant 45. The majority of
production and clerical jobs are positioned within noninternal labor mar-
kets. While the unskilled assembly line workers may better themselves by
changing to a cleaner job or a daytime shift, these job moves do not entail
the progressive development of skill and knowledge. Nor are there limited
entry ports to these positions. As the personnel manager noted, unless such
workers are able to get onto an entirely different job sequence there are vir-
tually no opportunities for upward mobility. Within both the skilled trades
and the clerical ranks there are short career ladders, yet these do not signify
the presence of an internal labor market because the career trajectories are
very short.
There are, however, several possible career paths which do indicate the
Career Structures and Employee Commitment 59
existence of internal labor markets. The personnel manager described one of
the most common career trajectories at MFD. A person might begin with
the firm in one of the few entry-level positions titled "salaried employee in
training," progress to a first-line supervisory slot, and then to general fore-
man. An alternative path would be to move from an "in training" job to
associate engineer, then to engineer, and finally to senior engineer. A general
foreman and a senior engineer have the potential to advance to assistant su-
perintendent, on to superintendent, and, finally, to plant manager.
Two notable "period effects" which apply to Plant 45 make it a particu-
larly suitable site for this study. First, this research was conducted during a
general economic recession in the United States which had resulted in layoffs
and a virtual promotion freeze at the plant; even people who had been slotted
for promotion were not advancing.
Additionally, the rules for promotion at MFD were changing. At the time
that Plant 45 was studied, 80 percent of the supervisory employees had been
promoted from the hourly ranks. Yet according to the personnel manager
the number of first-line supervisors and engineers hired directly into the firm
was increasing rapidly due to motivation to "bring strong talent into the
organization from college campuses." Moreover, it was nearly impossible,
according to employees as well as management, for those who had obtained
a foreman's slot without a college degree to make any further advances
within MFD.
The Sample. Out of an approximate total of 600 Plant 45 employees, 493
returned usable questionnaires.
The survey sample is predominantly male (86 percent) and white (82 per-
cent). The majority have had only some high school or less and another
26 percent have earned a high school diploma. That Plant 45 has been
affected by layoffs is reflected by the fact that the average employee sampled
is 37 years old, and has been with the company for 10.5 years. Approxi-
mately 65 percent of the Plant 45 employees work in blue-collar occupa-
tions, which are largely unskilled. ILM membership is positively correlated
with both company tenure and promotion opportunities, as expected.
Data gathered through personal interviews with a subsample of Plant 45
employees are used to clarify and supplement the regression analyses.'
Variables. The measures of botb dependent variables come from widely
cited past research. Work commitment is represented by the unweighted
average (a = .70) of five Likert-format statements adapted from those de-
veloped by Lodahl and Kejner (1965). The measure of organizational com-
'Because volunteers were solicited for the lengthy interviews, the sample is nonrandom.
Three of the 29 usable interviews are with black women, while the rest are with white men.
There are 12 ILM and 17 non-ILM employees in the interview sample. The average age of those
interviewed is 36, with 10 respondents under 30, 11 from 30 to 44, and 8 who are 45 or older.
These employees have been at MED an average of 12 years.
60 Social Science Quarterly

mttment is the unweighted average (a = .72) of items which derive from the
Porter scale (Porter et al., 1974).'
Internal labor market membership is determined by whether one's job is
tied to others in an upward sequence which entails the accumulation of skills
(1 = yes; 0 = no). The personnel manager's assessments of groups of job
titles at MED were used to classify each job held by a survey respondent.
He was asked which types of jobs fit the description of internal labor mar-
kets. Information about career ladders and the skills associated with par-
ticular jobs contained in company documents and gained through employee
interviews aided in the coding of this variable as well.'
Promotion opportunity is assessed by the unweighted average (a = .72)
of four items which ask the employee to assess the opportunity structure at
Plant 45. A subjective measure of promotion opportunities is deemed ap-
propriate because, as the classic American soldier studies (Stouffer et al.,
1949) demonstrated, evaluations of promotion opportunities may have a
greater impact on reactions to work than do actual opportunities.''
Education is represented by years of schooling, coded into categories
from 0 = none to 7 = more than college.
Two of the most well-established influences on work employee commit-
ment—autonomy (Blauner, 1964; Lorence and Mortimer, 1981, 1985) and
intrinsic rewards (Lawler and Hall, 1970; Kanter, 1977) are included in one
of the regression models as well. Earnings (in dollars) are entered as a
control.
Autonomy is represented by a five-point Likert item which assesses the
extent of disagreement that "My job does not let me help make decisions
that affect me."
Intrinsic rewards is assessed by the unweighted average (a = .78) of three
Likert-format items which ask each employee to evaluate how much chal-
lenge, interest, and meaning is associated with his or her job.
Because personal characteristics might affect selection into labor markets,
the following key demographics were included in the models as controls:
race, sex, marital status, and number of children. In order to maintain focus
on the aspects of the career/commitment relationship discussed thus far,
however, the coefficients for these variables are not presented.

Career Influences on Employee Commitment

ILMs, Company Tenure, and Promotion Opportunities. Table 1 presents

the results obtained from the estimation of various models aimed at un-

2Due to space constraints, items are not presented; they are available to the interested reader
upon request.
^Seventeen percent of the sample was classified as holding an ILM job.
''Although there is evidence to suggest that equity of opportunity and amount of opportunity
should be treated as separate constructs (Harlan, 1989), the promotion items could not be un-
Career Structures and Employee Commitment 61
TABLE 1
Standardized Coefficients Obtained from Regressions of Organizational
Commitment (OC) and Work Commitment (WC) on Career and Control Variables
(1) (2) (3) (4)
Predictors « GG WG GG WG GG WG GG WG
Age 234* 205* 256* .252* .208* .235* 156* .170*
Education -.135* - 245* -.129* - .245* -.129* - 245* - 1 1 2 * - .231*
Internal
labor market
membership .103* .186* .108* .200* .041 151* .009 098*
Gompany
tenure -.032 - .087 -.001 - 065 -.034 - 086
Promotion
opportunity .322* .236* .195* 109*
Autonomy 036 054
Intrinsic
rewards 283* .280*
Earnings 068 - 006
ñ2 (adjusted) .10 .17 .10 .17 .18 23 .27 29

^The foilowing background variables were controlled as well: race, gender, marital status,
and number of ctiildren.
*p < 05.

covering the nature of and reasons for the impact of labor market member-
ship on the two facets of employee commitment. In Table 2, the results of
separate regressions of organizational and work commitment on key career
variables for employees of non-ILMs and ILMs are displayed. These analy-
ses permit investigation of the premise that labor market membership condi-
tions the commitment levels of employees at different career stages.
The hypothesis that the labor market structures within which jobs are or-
ganized affect levels of work and organizational commitment is confirmed
by Table 1. Membership in one of the company's internal labor markets has
the predicted positive impact on both types of commitment.
Regression (2) of Table 1 indicates that the job security represented by
company tenure does not explain the relationship between ILM membership
and the commitment variables. Table 2 shows that there is a slight negative
effect of company tenure on work commitment among those whose jobs are
positioned within non-ILMs, while there is a positive association for those
in ILMs. Although the differences across the two samples do not quite reach
statistical significance, these findings provide tentative support for the view
that tenure with the company means different things for people positioned

ambiguously classified as tapping one or the other. Moreover, various factor analyses yielded a
factor on which all of the promotion items loaded. This suggests that these items tap a similar
construct which may reflect some combination of equity and opportunity.
62 Social Science Quarterly

TABLE 2
Unstandardized (Standardized) Coefficients Obtained from Regression of
Organizational Commitment (OC) and Work Commitment (WO) on Selected
Variables: Internal Labor Market and Noninternal Labor Market Employees
Employees in Employees in
Noninternal Labor Markets Internal Labor Markets
Predictors'" OC we OC we
Age 0.010* 0.017*" 0.017* 0.005
(.150) (.217) (.274) (.077)
Education -0.088* -0.221* 0.058 0.092
(-.123) (-.258) (.100) (.142)
Connpany tenure -0.003 -0.012* 0.009 0.022+
(-.042) (-.132) (.134) (.286)
Promotion opportunity 0.139* 0.128* 0.224* 0.025
(.184) .142 (.316) (.032)
Autonomy 0.031 -0.002 -0.101 0.138
(.056) (-.003) (-.156) (.191)
Intrinsic rewards 0.159* 0.240* 0.242* 0.195+
(231) (.293) (.360) (.261)
Earnings 0.000 0.000 0.000 -0.000
(.061) (.033) (.126) (-.116)
R2 (adjusted) .24 .34 .28 .16

^The following background variables were controlled as well; race, gender, marital status,
and number of children.
'^Boldfaced coefficients are significantly different between samples at tfie .05 level.
*p < .05.
+ p < .10.

in different labor markets. For those in non-ILMs it may represent a height-

ened awareness of limited chances for mobility which detracts from commit-
ment to work (Guest, 1954; Chinoy, 1955). Company tenure does not have a
significant impact on organizational commitment in either labor market.
This probably results from the fact that longer company tenure represents
greater investment in the company, canceling out the negative impact of pro-
motion frustration.
Promotion opportunity completely attenuates the impact of labor market
membership on organizational commitment, as shown in regression (3) of
Table 1. Apparently, members of MED's internal labor markets are more
committed to their company primarily because of their belief that the chances
for immediate promotion are good. Yet the benefits of ILM membership
which translate into stronger commitment to the work role itself apparently
go beyond good promotion opportunities (regression (3)). Nor does the ten-
dency for ILM membership to offer better jobs completely explain its posi-
tive association with commitment to work (regression (4)).
Career Structures and Employee Commitment 63
These findings support the contention that the promotion opportunities
associated with ILMs go beyond the potential for orderly progression up the
current job ladder. The importance of this possibility is heightened by the
fact that promotion chances had dwindled throughout MED because of its
weakened economic position. The interviews provide evidence that ILM
membership enhances the possibility of eventual promotion, even when
chances of moving up in one's current job ladder appear to be slim.
For instance, ILM membership provides many opportunities to make lat-
eral moves which put one in a position to move up a different career ladder.
As one example, a first-line supervisor might shift to a job as an industrial
engineer, which holds the same pay grade, and then be promoted to more
advanced engineering positions. An industrial engineer who has been at
MED for five years talked about his intention to make a lateral move to an-
other department on his way up MED's hierarchy:
I already have my sights where I want to go next, and maybe not even as a
supervisor in that department, even though that's what I'd like to be, but maybe
go in and get the training there that I need and I've zeroed in the area, I know
somebody who's retiring. Then I could be next supervisor.
If he were to attain the supervisory slot at MED, he could "be moved out to
the floor as superintendent overnight."
The hope of future advancement which fosters strong work commitment
in those employed within ILMs, even given a virtual promotion freeze, is
much less realistic for their counterparts who are employed in labor markets
witb short job ladders or none at all, resulting in early career ceilings. When
they are asked about their future careers, these employees are more vague
and less enthusiastic. For example, a young assembler says that for the im-
mediate future he knows that he'll remain on the assembly line. After that "it
just kinda depends on what works out."
Some of the employees who are not positioned within ILM's do seem to
express their frustration at their lack of mobility through weak commitment
to work. A machine operator who was denied a chance at a supervisory
position because of layoffs expressed it this way:
There's a lot of days where the only reason—the only reason I come in is just,
you know, to get a paycheck and having to, because we've got bills to pay. , , , I
guess after about three years 1 really started getting depressed with my job, you
know—wasn't getting anywhere, , , , I'd like to be at a higher level.
Age and Career Structures. Table 1 indicates that there is age differentia-
tion in both organizational and work commitment levels among Plant 45
employees. The small positive effect of age on organizational commitment is
consistent with a cohort interpretation. As Table 2 shows, there is a ten-
dency for older employees to be more loyal to the company irrespective of
labor market membership, company tenure, and job rewards. At the same
time Table 2 provides evidence that the younger non-ILM employees experi-
64 Social Science Quarterly

ence the weakest commitment to work. The negative impact of education on

both work and organizational commitment which surfaces only among the
non-ILM employees indicates, further, that those with the highest skill levels
(and perhaps the most ambition as well) are most frustrated with the bleak
prospects for upward mobility associated with non-ILM positions. The in-
terview data support and extend these results, suggesting that career stage,
education, and labor market membership combine to account for differ-
ences in how changed promotion opportunities affect Plant 45 employees.
Age, Education, and Labor Market Membership. The interviews reveal
that many of the older non-ILM employees accept the new educational crite-
rion used to determine promotions given that they do not have too many
years left with the company. If they were young, they might feel differently:
Most of our promotions at the present time require a college education and I
think they should be college education or equivalent . . . in a lot of areas that
creates some resentment... a lot more with the younger people than with me.
Because you see, I'm going to work probably another 8 or 9 years and I'm
going to retire. As I say, you know, 1 get paid real well and they treat me real
well but if I was 25 years old and 1 was not a college graduate and 1 knew that 1
was going to be stuck in here for another 35 years without an opportunity to
advance, then I'd befightingwith them, you know. So I understand these young
guys when they say "Hey, what is this?"
The interviews also lend further credence to the survey findings that it is
the younger, relatively well-educated non-ILM workers who are most dis-
couraged by their lack of opportunity for upward mobility.^ The most edu-
cated of the non-ILM employees tend to have high school diplomas; none
have college degrees. According to the personnel manager, many were defi-
nitely "college material" but for one reason or another (often financial) en-
tered MFD rather than a university. Without college credentials, their
aptitude is meaningless in MFD's promotion tournament; they tend to de-
crease their commitment to work and, to a lesser extent, the company, in
response."
Thus a non-college-educated 26-year-old lathe operator who was a top
student in high school is frustrated by bis inability to better himself at MFD
5This is not meant to suggest that older workers who are positioned within ILMs are un-
affected by MED's limited chances for promotion. Certainly those who were winners in one
round of the mobility tournament only to find their further advancement blocked would be
disappointed, particularly if they are near the age at which promotions decline (Rosenbaum,
1979, 1984), as some of the interviews show. Still, the findings for this sample suggest that it is
the young non-ILM employees whose situation is bleakest; many seem to have been denied
access to the contest altogether.
'These workers' pessimistic evaluations of their promotion chances are corroborated by
a number of other employees, as well as the personnel manager. The young, non-college-
educated in Rosenbaum's (e.g., 1979) sample, on the other hand, did experience considerable
mobility from the lowest ranks of the corporation. Perhaps the difference results from the fact
that these are largely blue-collar workers in a firm which emphasizes educational credentials for
the limited number of promotions available due to the economic recession.
Career Structures and Employee Commitment 65
because he feels that he is "a lot more intelligent" than many of the young
college-educated supervisors above him. For the moment he deals with the
strain of "being stuck" in a semi-skilled job by committing himself to his
family, hoping that someone will recognize and reward his abilities. One
senses in the force with which this employee rails against a promotion sys-
tem which gives so many advantages to his college-educated contempo-
raries, however, that he knows that he holds out false hope.
In striking contrast, younger employees who have made it onto ILM job
ladders (often because they have more formal education) are optimistic
about the future, and committed to work despite the limited mobility op-
portunities which they, too, face in the present. This is illustrated by a 28-
year-old production foreman who was frustrated because it took him 7
years to get promoted. He got a college degree during that time, to which he
credits his current position and his optimism about his future at MED.
Though he feels "locked in" at the moment, he thinks that by the time he is
in his early 30s the ceiling will be higher and that he has a fairly good chance
of moving up. His view is probably realistic; Rosenbaum's (1979) research
has shown that college education gives a strong promotion advantage to em-
ployees under 35."

Discussion and Conclusions

The overall picture that emerged from this study is that career structures
influence employee commitment. Of course the patterns discussed must be
viewed as suggestive only, since they were uncovered in a single plant with a
specific composition and situation. For instance, most of the non-ILM em-
ployees are blue-collar workers and none of those in non-ILMs have college
degrees. The plant is fairly small, and employees are heavily concentrated in
non-ILMs, such that the labor market differences revealed must be inter-
preted cautiously. In addition, the organization to which Plant 45 belongs
was in a period of considerable contraction. Rosenbaum's (1979) research
suggests that in a period of expansion the young people in non-ILMs would
have greater chances of advancement.
These caveats notwithstanding, it is noteworthy that even within a single
firm employees positioned in different labor markets vary in their degree of
commitment to both the organization and the work role. Moreover, the con-
text in which careers are played out appears to condition the impact of key
career variables, such as age, on employee commitment. Thus the younger,
more educated employees of Plant 45's non-ILMs express the most frustra-

^ Polynomial age regressions were performed in order to uncover possible curvilinear rela-
tionships between age and both work and organizational commitment. The results, which are
not reported here, indicated further that age is iirtearly related to work commitment among
Plant 45's blue-collar workers. Perhaps there is a tendency to disengage from work at mid-life
only among those who have been highly committed up to that point (Kalleberg and Loscocco,
1983), something which could not be examined in this study because of data limitations.
66 Social Science Quarterly

tion with their perception that both their present and future promotion op-
portunities are seriously limited. Of further interest is the fact that although
the positive consequences of ILM membership for work commitment go be-
yond immediate promotion opportunities, this is not true for organizational
commitment. These findings imply that company loyalty is maintained only
in the face of orderly progression up the established career hierarchy. In con-
trast, it appears that any possibility for future advancement enhances com-
mitment to work itself.
While this study has emphasized the structural context of careers, it is im-
portant to note that individuals do not necessarily accept that context pas-
sively. In fact the interviews suggest that the virtual promotion freeze at
MED has led some employees to fashion new sets of job shifts within the
company or to plot advancement to another firm. Of course such reactions
are probably more likely among those who have received past promotions;
they have not only been validated, but have also had their expectations for
future promotions raised (Kanter, 1977; Rosenbaum, 1984). Still, it is im-
portant to consider that those who come to a company with strong commit-
ment to work are somewhat more likely to orchestrate career advancement
regardless of the structural context in which they find themselves, thereby
maintaining relatively high levels of work commitment.
This theme, echoed in a few of the interviews, is exemplified best by the
career history of a young clerk who is positioned within a non-lLM. The
major disappointment in this clerk's career came when she was denied ad-
vancement into a higher level (ILM) position for which she had shouldered
responsibility (in addition to her own job) when a vacancy occurred sud-
denly. While this employee clearly feels no loyalty to the company, she re-
mains strongly committed to work; in her own words, "Everybody isn't as
zealous about work as I am." Her "ten-year plan," which involves strategic
shifts within MED and eventually places her in the top management ranks in
another industry, may explain this clerk's continued work commitment.
Clearly longitudinal research which maximizes validity and reliability is
needed to document the extent to which commitment to work and company
changes as a direct function of career position. In order to sort out the inter-
relationships among the different career variables, analysts must eventually
undertake explicitly comparative studies as well.
Meanwhile, the suggestive evidence presented here raises some provoca-
tive issues. While some employees respond creatively to the limited mobility
resulting from organizational contraction, it seems to cost the company
their loyalty. The virtual exclusion of non-college-educated workers from hi-
erarchical promotion systems may further undermine the control function
of such systems. Class relations within the firm are likely to become more
antagonistic, and the disfranchised may experience widespread discontent.
This study has presented a snapshot of a system in transition. As today's
workers get older, the age patterns observed here are expected to change. If
Career Structures and Employee Commitment 67
the trends discussed continue, we may find lower levels of commitment
among non-college-educated workers of all ages. As the findings suggest, ca-
reer structures have a decided impact on commitment to both work and
company. SSQ

REFERENCES
Althauser, Robert P., and Arne L. Kalleberg. 1981. "Eirms, Occupations and the Structure of
Labor Markets: A Conceptual Analysis." Pp. 119-49 m 1. Berg, ed.. Sociological Perspectives
on Labor Markets. New York: Academic Press.
Becker, Howard S. 1960. "Notes on the Concept of Commitment." American journal of Soci-
ology 66:31-40.
Blauner, Robert. 1964. Alienation and Freedom: Tbe Factory Worker and His Industry. Chi-
cago: University of Chicago Press.
Chinoy, Eli. 1955. Automobile Workers and the American Dream. Boston: Beacon.
Clark, Peter M., and James Q. Wilson. 1961. "Incentive Systems: A Theory of Organizations."
Administrative Science Quarterly 6:129—66.
Edwards, Richard C. 1979. Contested Terrain. New York: Basic Books.
Faunce, William A., and Robert Dubm. 1975. "Individual Investment in Working and Living."
Pp. 299-316 m L. E. Davis and A. B. Cherns, eds., The Quality of Working Life, vol. L New
York: Free Press.
Cuest, Robert H. 1954. "Work Careers and Aspirations of Automobile Workers." American
Sociological Review 19:155—63.
Harlan, Sharon L. 1989. "Opportunity and Attitudes toward Job Advancement in a Manufac-
turing Firm." Social Forces 67:766—88.
Kalleberg, Arne L., and Ivar Berg. 1987. Work and Industry. New York and London: Plenum.
Kalleberg, Arne L., and Karyn A. Loscocco. 1983. "Aging, Values, and Rewards: Explaining
Age Differences in Job Satisfaction." American Sociological Review 48 :78-90.
Kanter, Rosabeth M. 1977. Men and Women of the Corporation. New York: Basic Books.
Lawler, Edward E., and Douglas T. Hall. 1970. "The Relationship of Job Characteristics to
Job Involvement, Satisfaction and Intrinsic Motivation." journal of Applied Psychology
54:305-12.
Lawrence, Barbara S. 1984. "Age Grading: The Implicit Organizational Timetable." journal of
Occupational Behavior 5 :23—35.
. 1987. "An Organizational Theory of Age Effects." Pp. 37-71 in S. Bacharach and
N. DiTomaso, eds.. Research in tbe Sociology of Organizations. Creenwich, Conn.: JAI Press.
Levinson, Daniel J., Charlotte N. Darrow, Maria B. Levinson, and Braxton McKee. 1978. Tbe
Seasons of a Man's Life. New York: Knopf.
Lincoln, James R., and Arne L. Kalleberg, 1985. "Work Organization and Work Force Com-
mitment: A Study of Plants and Employees in the U.S. and Japan." American Sociological Re-
view 50:738-60.
Lodahl, Thomas M., and Mathilde Kejner. 1965. "The Definition and Measurement of Job In-
volvement." journal of Applied Psychology 4 9 : 2 4 - 3 3 .
Lorence, Jon. 1987. "Age Differences in Work Involvement." Work and Occupations 14:
533-57.
68 Social Science Quarterly
Lorence, Jon L,, and Jeylan T, Mortimer, 1981, "Work Experience and Work Involvement."
Sociology of Work and Ococupations 8 :297-326,
, t985, "Job Involvement through the Life Course: A Panel Study of Three Age Groups,"
American Sociological Review 50:618—38,
Loscocco, Karyn A, 1989, "The Interplay of Personal and Job Characteristics in Determining
Work Commitment." Social Science Research 18:370-94,
McKelvey, Bill, and Uma Sekaran, 1977, "Toward a Career-based Theory of Job Involvement:
A Study of Scientists and Engineers," Administrative Science Quarterly 2 2 : 2 8 1 - 3 0 5 ,
March, James G,, and Herbert A, Simon, 1958, Organizations. New York: Wiley,
Markham, William T , Sharon L, Harlan, and Edward J, Hackett, 1987, "Promotion Oppor-
tunity in Organizations: Causes and Consequences," Personnel and Human Resources Man-
agement 5:213 —87.
Porter, Lyman W,, William J, Crampon, and Frank J, Smith, 1976, "Organizational Commit-
ment and Managerial Turnover: A Longitudinal Study," Organizational Behavior and Human
Performance 15:87-98,
Porter, Lyman W,, and Richard M, Steers, 1973, "Organization, Work, and Personal Eactors in
Employee Turnover and Absenteeism," Psychological Bulletin 80:161—76,
Porter, Lyman W,, Richard M, Steers, Richard T, Mowday, and Paul V, Boulian, 1974, "Orga-
nizational Commitment, Job Satisfaction, and Turnover among Psychiatric Technicians," Jour-
nal of Applied Psychology 5 9 : 6 0 3 - 9 ,
Riley, Matilda W,, Marilyn Johnson, and Anne Eoner, 1988, "Sociology of Age," Pp, 2 4 3 - 9 0
in N, J, Smelser, ed,, Handbook of Sociology. Beverly Hills: Sage,
Rosenbaum, James E, 1979, "Organizational Career Mobility: Promotion Chances in a Corpo-
ration during Periods of Growth and Contraction," American Journal of Sociology 85 :21—48.
, 1984, Career Mobility in a Corporate Hierarchy. Orlando, Ela,: Academic Press,
Schein, Edgar H, 1980, "Career Theory and Research: Some Issues for the Future," Pp, 3 7 5 - 6 5
in C, B, Derr, ed,. Work, Family and the Career: New Frontiers in Theory and Research. New
York: Praeger,
, 1983, "Culture as an Environmental Context for Careers," Journal of Occupational
Behavior 5:7 \-U.

Sorensen, Aage B, 1983, "Conceptual and Methodological Issues in Sociological Research on

the Labor Market," Work and Occupations 10:261-87,
Staw, Barry M, 1976, "Knee-deep in the Big Muddy, A Study of Escalating Commitment to a
Chosen Course of Action," Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 16:27—44,
Steinberg, Edward, 1975, "Upward Mobility in the Internal Labor Market," Industrial Rela-
tions 14:259-65,
Stouffer, Samuel A,, Edward A, Suchman, Leiand C. DeVinney, Shirley A, Star, and Robin M.
Williams, Jr, 1949, The American Soldier: Adjustment during Army Life. Vol, 1, Princeton:
Princeton University Press,
Van Maanen, John, 1977, "Experiencing Organization: Notes on the Meaning of Careers and
Socialization," Pp, 15—45 in J, Van Maanen, ed,. Organizational Careers: Some New Perspec-
tives. New York: Wiley,
Copyright of Social Science Quarterly is the property of University of Texas Press and its content may not be
copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written
permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.